1-Timothy Nolan: Portrait of George Dyer Talking, 1915 cover of Blast

I have been putting a lot of thought into the relationship between art and people, whether it be the audience or the artist herself. This is probably the defining relationship of art, and thus may help us figure out what art itself is exactly. My first line of thought went naturally to the idea of art as an expression of the artist. Certainly, many of the types of art we encounter are categorized as art because some artist somewhere endorsed its existence with meaning. The act of creation itself is this endorsement, for the existence of a created art piece means that someone saw enough meaning in the work to create it. Even art in which the artist strives to leave out a reason for the art has a reason for the art, in this case to have no reason at all (which sounds paradoxical and leaves doubt in my mind to whether this is possible or not). However, I was convinced by that girl who I do not know in our first VA class last Thursday that the workings of the human body and nature itself could also be considered art. In this case, the artist’s expression is non-existent, since the creator is a nonentity, in this case the natural workings of the universe (unless of course there is a God, then my argument may become moot, and I hope s/he will let me know of my error before I post this). Therefore, expression is only a facet of art that is sometimes present, and is not strong enough to define the concept. The burden of creating art lands squarely on the shoulders of the audience. This audience can of course also be the artist; the bottom line is that, for something to be art, someone must consider it art. This is just rehashing the “art can’t exist in a vacuum” theory, so perhaps I should go one level further, if my typing fingers permit me. In order for the audience to perceive a piece as art, there must be movement in the art that is transferred to the audience. This is not necessarily physical potential for movement in a piece (though I am a fan of this). It is more of a capacity to change something in the audience, whether for better or for worse. Thus, a work of art is defined by its potential to move a person, to make them different than how they were before they perceived the work.