W. Doug Bolden

Standards?

Do we need standards in art? I assure you, this is a rhetorical question. I do not know if one person could (or, more importantly, should) ever answer it fully. Something I think we overlook is the fact that it is awfully multi-tiered, no matter what. Let's not delve too deep into linquistics, but standards can cover a whole stinking swath of thing. To enumerate a few:

• To what degree should art be about universals, versus individualism?
• Should art be technically superior? To what degree?
• Should art be judged for its act of expression?
• Is pornography art? Is erotica? Why is a classic nude not pornography? Where does lust lie, in the mind of the creator or in the mind of the viewer?
• Is a piece of furniture art? A building? When does a construction become artistic versus "merely" practical? Should art be inherently practical?
• Is something less artistic if it appeals to more people at the expense of higher degress of symbolism and structure? Is it less artistic if the viewer cannot understand it?

These are not even that hard of a set of questions to come up with. These are basic questions we might ask anywhere at any time. Just so you know, I did not intend to imply any right answer up above. I think these are all things that are somewhat unanswerable.

Do not get me wrong, I have opinions on all those subjects. If you ever try to get by without an opinion on something, trust me that someone with a loud opinion is going to end up counting you in their camp.

I think art is most effective when it juxtaposes the internal with the external, when it becomes about the individual in society or the social in the individual. I think art requires both technical skill and expression to work. I don't consider things built only for practical things art, I demand a little bit of beauty. Pornography can be art, erotica is more likely, but you have to do it just right. I have seen lots of classic and modern nudes that I found beautiful, but few of them involve lewd positions or intercourse. I don't know, its a case by case basis.

In fact, everything for me is a case by case basis. Which means I pretty useless on instructing you. I can't say what I think you should declare art. I can say that some things are better than others, but it would take me too long to say which things.

If anything, I have brought you here to say that I have a confession to make. I have flip-flopped on on my opinions. Five years ago I would have said the ultimate determinant about whether or not something is art is the simple question of "Did the maker intend it to be art?" I am going out on a limb and say that opinion I once had is damn near bullocks. But let me tell you why.

It is simply because nowhere else does a person get to dictate what they are doing by their belief and intentions. If I shoot a man, but say and truly believe that this is helping me to make pizza, this does not make me a pizza chef. In all basic actions, it is how it fits into the social web about it.

So I am going to say something that I hate but also kind of love: If everyone thinks it is art, there you go. The neato weasely thing about my claim is a nice one, different social webs will have different inherent definitions.

Pornography can be art to some. Not to me, but I ain't going to stop them. And some really bad rhyming poetry might be more poetic to others than my own standards of open, rambling verse, but I kind of like what I do. Beauty in the eye of the beholders, it would seem. Any standard outside of that becomes hopelessly limiting and potentially destructive.

Just keep in mind that I hang out with snobs.