I don't see why they couldn't be both. They're a vandal when they do it without permission on someone's property. They're an artist when they decide they're doing it out of creative expression. That doesn't necessarily mean they're automatically a good artist, but an artist nonetheless.
The curious other part of the story is watching the train wreck of someone transitioning from a real estate owner to an art owner suddenly without any idea what they're doing or any plan.
The article is seeping thru with "I have no idea what it means" and so on. Well, what it means is you are not an art owner-type but are suddenly an art owner anyway, so you'd best sell that shack or otherwise get rid of it or remove it from the owners control before screwing it up, probably permanently and certainly very publicly.
The story wouldn't read any differently had someone tied a cow to her fence and run off. "I'm the accidental owner of a heifer" and "I have no idea what it means". Well, you're not going to figure it out quickly so use the magic of the market to hand it off to someone who does know what to do.
Its a popular, overdone trope, think of all the hollywood sequels along the lines of "three men and a baby".
I could chisel down Michelangelo's David statue into a skeletal structure of David. I'm sure you could appreciate that both as art and an act of vandalism.
That's a nice aphorism, but it's too vague; obviously we wouldn't condone artists breaking rules against child abuse or murder. Figuring out where to draw the line is the hard part.
One could argue that if an artist breaks a law to make a statement (about either the law itself or wider sociological issues), then your perspective of the morality of the act could be influenced by whether or not you agree with the artist's statement.
Okay, fair point. I'll revise: the job of an artist is to break the rules intelligently.
Also, I think you're conflating legality and morality. I can think of situations for all 8 cases of (legal|illegal)(moral|immoral)(agree|disagree). However, you're probably right that agreement/disagreement influences morality judgments.
So probably neither Raphael nor obviously Murillo nor Gongora nor probably any romantic poet were artists. Not to talk about the Egyptians.
I do not know about Shakespeare 'breaking' any rules, or any pre-XIX Century painter. Or the Greeks, you know? What rules did the Parthenon's architect break? Or the sculptor of the Laocoon group?
The 'breaking rules' stuff is all very well for some things but it is not the definition of art. Please.
(Spanish examples because I am a Spaniard, but you understand).
Oups? I do not get this answer and never was my intention to be incivil. Mmh? Sorry if I hurt you but I was just being as clear as possible. And as assertive as the sentences I was reying to.
Possibly the 'please' in my comment is paternalistic, but then again your definition of the job of an artist is quite simplistic. So it may not be paternalistic but a plea for sensible speculation.
I think it's an artists job to get the viewer to take pause and reflect. Whether that means reflecting on the state of society, the human condition, sexuality, property owner rights, or the raw beauty and majesty of nature, doesn't really matter.
That idea is a relatively recent one, starting with movements like the fauves. Throughout history prior to that, the job of an artist was to produce work his patron/client was satisfied with.
Some would argue that even those now 'breaking rules' have been subsumed by the massive market around art - as soon as the price tag is astronomical, and the method of display only a safe gallery, the rebellion has been captured in aspic and rendered safe.
Banksy is an interesting take on this as much of his work is trying to break out of the confines of the gallery, but he has still been trapped in a system he's at least partly unhappy with by the rising value placed on his work, and has resorted to trying to undermine this with stunts like that $60 sale. It's interesting that the perceived value of the spraypaint with his signature has resisted even that sort of rebellion.
So I don't think saying it must be provocative or break the rules is a very good definition of art, indeed, for most people, even those buying faintly rebellious work in the 20th/21st century, art is decoration (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but that is how it is consumed), rebellion is an optional extra.
I see what you're saying, but we probably don't have the same interpretation of the words 'job' and 'artist'. More broadly, the nature of creativity is to challenge authority. Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain. Breaking the rules can be as simple as using an uncommon kind of brushstroke. It doesn't have to be against the wishes of whoever is paying for the work, and furthermore, just because something is challenging authority doesn't mean it's creative.
Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain.
You are indulging in a circular definition in which most creative stands in for best or most worthy art, which of course depends on the premise which you set up in the first place, and which is a peculiarly 20C view of art. Only with the break down of the patron system and in quest of a new definition of art and a new place in the world did artists turn to the idea of being a creative force challenging the status quo (economic and artistic).
I don't think Michelangelo for example would have recognised your definition of his art as only meaningful in as much as it breaks the rules. His art was almost all in service of the church, which was the dominant political and economic force of the time. You can try to rewrite the history of art as a history of innovation and rebellion, but why bother? Why not understand it in its totality, which is certainly not as an instrument of rebellion, or even as a force for change - for much of the history of art change was gradual and consensual over decades and centuries, and nothing to do with challenging authority, quite the reverse, it was usually in the service of authority, used as propaganda, teaching materials and social proof. Art was a useful craft for most of its history.
Great art can include rebellion, but it is not confined to it, and frankly I think you're defending a pithy but inaccurate slogan which falls far short of capturing the full role of art in our society.
That was unnecessarily condescending. Incivility is against the guidelines. What I have to say doesn't lose its validity simply because you shame me for my point of view. If you were sure enough of your position, you wouldn't need to humiliate me about mine.
Incivility is against the guidelines. What I have to say doesn't lose its validity simply because you shame me for my point of view. If you were sure enough of your position, you wouldn't need to humiliate me about mine.
I struggle to see what you would find humiliating in either my post or pfortuny's above - you issued a remarkably general assertion (all art is x in any medium, in any time period) which is in my view invalid, and I offered a counter-example.
In my post and I believe pfortuny's there was no attempt to shame you for your point of view, just a disagreement with that point of view based on our understanding of art history. Disagreement is not incivility.
If you disagree and this is true of all things considered art you should be able to reel off lots of examples and easily disprove the counter-examples given, since your assertion holds true universally.