I just discovered that my answer to the above question on LinkedIn (Posted by Wendy Rosen of the American Made Alliance ‘way back in April 2009) was selected as the “Best Answer”. I’ll take kudos wherever I can get them. Seems like a good start to 2011!?
Best Answers in: Social Enterpreneurship (1) This was selected as Best Answer
Despite the obvious groaner this will bring, my answer has to be: “It depends.”
As with all forms of media used in art practice, one must decide whether the material itself is art, (as your question suggests) or is it the process of art-making which transforms it and has meaning to the artist that makes it art? Or is it the decision of a curator, by choosing to place the material into deliberate public or private exhibition?
Of course, there is ‘found art’ and ‘public art’ and ‘naive art’, which can bypass this question. Perhaps one might stumble across an instance of poop and wonder: “Has this display of manipulated material been placed here for me to respond to as an unexpected aesthetic experience, or did I merely step in something I now have to scrape from my shoe?”
And then there is the question of source. The material is an end product of digestion – at what point does the artist take control? Will the artist choose from an existing supply, or control the production from start to finish, choosing the vessel of digestion and the raw material to submit to the process?
Or does the mere fact of producing such a work entitle the producer to claim status as an artist? Anyone who has been through successful potty-training with their kids will likely understand this point.
As will artists, who recognize the irony that excessive praise for their creative output is often accompanied by a flushing sound in their household income.
posted April 11, 2009