art for all

Gilbert & George say:

We are unhealthy, middle-aged, dirty-minded, depressed, cynical, empty, tired-brained, seedy, rotten, dreaming, badly-behaved, ill-mannered, arrogant, intellectual, successful, hard-working, thoughtful, artistic, religious, fascistic, blood-thirsty, teazing, destructive, ambitious, colourful, damned, stubborn, perverted and good. We are artists.

(Photograph by Pierre Arnaud 2004, photo from Digital Heritage)

I have recently seen a highly recommendable documentary on Gilbert & George and their unique, crazy world. They are two exccentric artists who began working together in 1967 when they met at St Martins School of Art. From the very beginning, in their films and ‘living sculpture’ they appeared as figures in their own work. Gilbert & George believe that everything is potential subject matter for their work, and they have always addressed social issues, taboos and artistic conventions.

source

I sometimes tend to be very critical when it comes to art (music or visual arts) that tries too hard to be pop, avant-garde, modern or unconventional. It has either something very desperate or very elitist about it. Indeed there seems to be a fine line to delimit true art from fake and constructed art, and it is only up to the viewers to decide whether a certain work belongs to one category or the other.

It was this reaction that I had, when I saw G&G's "naked shit pictures" exhibition in the documentary. I felt, like they were going too far, for the sake of going too far. However, I soon realized that the need to shock in order to play around with conventions is a legitimate way of creating works of art. What matters most, however, is not the "how" but the "why". So I always try to fnd out what the artist's intention was when creating. What was he or she trying to address in the viewers? Art is most of the times a way to express, but often also a means to impress (with a purpose, not gratuitous). As long it is one of those, I decided to agree that it is art.