It is often said that there is no definition for what Art is, but then again there seems to be no end of attempts to define Art. My favourite definition comes from Pablo Picasso who said “ART is a lie that makes us realize the truth”.

The truth about what? The truth about the world around us? The human condition? The truth about how the artist felt at a particular moment which resulted in the creation of a work of art?

I think it is a little bit of all of these truths but ultimately I believe it is the truth about life or perhaps the beauty and wonder of being alive.

In the many years that I have been interested in art, the area of most contention about what art is, falls in the definition of contemporary art. In other words, there is little to no disagreement that classical Greek statues made more than two thousands ago are indeed art. Nor the work that produced up and including the renaissance and the start of the 20th century with modern art. We all agree that was Art with a capital “A” and that only covers so called “Western Art”. Even so, within the narrow scope of western art, where things start to go murky is when “post-modernism” and “conceptual art” were introduced.

What do I think about conceptual art/? I think it is grossly overrated. I appreciate conceptual art when it makes one look at a work of art and come to a realization or experience an idea and being secretly amused with having discovered what the concept is on one’s own.

I don’t appreciate most conceptual art because more and more I see it as a means of self indulgence on the artist’s part – not the viewer’s. This self indulgence is often carried so far, so much so that the artist forgets some important elements. Some conceptual artists are so preoccupied with the concept part  that they lose sight of the art part.

This can be self serving in a big way, because it allows the artist to produce a conceptual work of  art even if it is bad art. Is the concept to be celebrated rather as the only merit of the final outcome.

Is it really worthwhile producing work that nobody gets simply by looking at it – even when the viewers are fellow artists? Must we have the artist’s explanation of what complexities in his or her mind brought this concept about? Should it be the artist or the viewer that is held in awe?

Shouldn’t  a piece of art be able to stand on its own with no explanation necessary in order to be appreciated? Must we call art,  those works that make us wonder, what was this person thinking when he or she made them? Must we be offered no clues? Must we need the creator’s explanation to see?

Losing sight of structure, form, losing the discipline and embracing chaos is now being confused as art simply because the artist had a concept when he or she created the work.

Post modern art was a nice little experiment and an attempt to go beyond where anyone else had ever been. Lets not get lost out there. Maybe the time has come to return.

Perhaps it is time to go back to basics again and discover a whole new way of seeing, now that we have been to the far reaches and seen the most outlandish of the outlandish scenery.

Art is now freed. Unlike the past where it was a privilege enjoyed only by the rich, it is now available to the masses. Anyone can make art and anyone can acquire it.

But what do the masses want? What do the masses think art is? Must they depend on the critics to guide them like sheep? Or can they make up their own minds?

A friend who is an absolute layman when it comes to the arts, once told me that unless he could hang it in his living room, he wouldn’t consider it art.

Is this criterion by which he determines whether or not he would hang it  in his living room? It  comes down to aesthetics then? Artists and critics are not necessarily concerned with aesthetics anymore. But the general masses are.

From the prehistoric cave wall drawings it is obvious that style and aesthetics bring a lasting quality to the work. Some of those cave drawings still look fresh today. Why is it that bad art was never given any importance until now? Who are we, the men and women of the 21st century, to say that this bad art is worthwhile? Are we better than the men and women of Leonardo Da Vinci’s time or Michelangelo’s or the inhabitants of ancient Greece and Egypt? What gives us the right to say that conceptual art is art? That self-indulgence to the point that only the artist enjoys it is what those before us and those who come after will recognize as art. What truth was realized from looking at these lies?

I believe it is inevitable. I believe people will realize a truth from looking at bad art and what they realize is that is just a bunch of chicken scratches.  I am convinced that 50 years from now, people will look at art that was produced in the last 20-30 years of the 20th century and they will scratch their heads and say “huh? what were these people thinking?”.