Is Everything Art?

 “Oh no!” I grimace, as the absence of the double-sided tape outlines a big missing chunk of the wall. 

It looks out of place. The chipped surface is reddish-brown and black while the rest of the wall is piercing white. It is uneven and it does not belong there.

Maybe, Maurizio Cattelan would disagree.  His controversial artwork titled "Comedian" consisted of a banana duct-taped to a wall, sold for six figures, twice. Could this be considered as art?

Art is often a subject of interpretation and debate. While some may argue that Cattelan's "Comedian" is not a traditional form of art, it raises questions about the nature and boundaries of art itself.

Art has no definition according to Ambrose Bierce. This means that art could be anything but at the same time, nothing. Then, can the air be considered as art? Sure, to eternal optimists and Pollyannas, the air may symbolize the intangible beauty of life itself.

Oxford's definition is something that most people can agree on. It talks about how human creative skills evoke feelings of appreciation through an artwork's beauty or the emotions it portrays. But this definition seems to be faulty. Are only humans capable of creating art? What about Pigcasso or Congo? Their pieces fall into the realm of abstract art too, which Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko excelled in. Moreover, does art always have to be beautiful or evoke positive emotions? Is it always supposed to have a meaning?

What about Francisco Goya’s “Satan Devouring His Son” or Edvard Munch's “The Scream”? These artworks are known for their dark and unsettling themes, evoking feelings of fear and despair rather than appreciation for beauty. They do not display positive emotions but instead an uncanny sense of unease and discomfort.

Yet, these pieces are art. Architectural installments, that are not in general created for the sole purpose of appreciation, could also be considered as art. It depends on the person viewing it. Some people might call the Tour Eiffel a magnificent piece of art; some might say it's just a structural tower meant for ripping off tourists.

Art is often called the competitor of nature. It is said that all art exudes the essence of nature alone. Marc Chagall quoted, "Art is the unceasing effort to compete with the beauty of flowers and never succeeding." Could that really be the definition of art? Cubism is the imitation of nature in the form of blocks and shapes. Gradually, we transcended into abstract expressionism, where art is not a direct representation of nature but rather an expression of emotions, ideas, and interpretations. Nature doesn't alone define art.

The very first computer created by Charles Babbage set the path for a completely new era of life and technology. While it may not have been intended to be an art installation, the computer and its impact on society can certainly be seen as a form of artistic expression. Gamers, youtubers, and live streamers can definitely vouch for the "Deco-Gear Monitor" to be a piece of art. This isn't a part of nature, is it? Definitely not!

These reasons break the boundaries of what we think art really is. A definition is a statement of the exact meaning of a word, as found in a dictionary. To define is to constrain, I believe. Art cannot have one meaning set in stone or be confined to a specific set of criteria. Since its meaning differs from person to person and culture to culture, art cannot, in my opinion, have a definition.

Art to me, is creating a world and living in it. This is why novels and poems are also considered to be works of art. It is a form of communication and expressionism, especially to those who understand it. Although not a language, it is a way of conveying emotions and thoughts.

Maybe the thought, "Could a banana taped to a wall be a piece of art?" is art itself. Written down in words, it emphasizes the need for individual interpretation and the questioning of traditional notions of what can be considered as art.

Since art is ultimately relative, "Comedian" cannot be categorically accepted or denied. It depends how people perceive it. Personally, it is not art. It does not create a world in which I could jump in, leaving reality and my problems behind. It does not evoke the feelings of awe and wonder. I cannot appreciate it for its beauty either.

To another person, however, "Comedian" may represent a thought-provoking commentary on consumerism and the value we place on objects. This work is a piece of art to the maker as well as to the people who choose to believe it as one.