For a recent project, I did some research on the artist Harrell Fletcher. After doing quite a lot of research on Harrell, I must confess that I am hesitant to use the word "artist" in relation to him. According to Harrell Fletcher, "art is anything valued or appreciated by someone and everyone has the potential to be an artist." In my opinion this general statement creates a situation in which there is no need to make a distinction between artist and non-artist. If essentially everything is art and everyone is capable of making art, then there is nothing special or rewarding in being referred to as an artist. Additionally many people who have committed their lives to creating art will in a sense have no title.
I also find it intriguing that Harrell criticizes what we know as the "art world" yet he functions so well in it. He accuses the art world of discriminating yet does the same by denying the validity of what some may refer to as "traditional" art. It may come across as though I am ranting and please excuse me if it does. There are many things that I do appreciate about Harrell's work. I enjoy how his work points to the overlooked and dismissed details in everyday life. He also does a great job of getting the public involved. His willingness to share the spotlight with others or fall into the background in an interesting way makes him stand out from other artists. Harrell Fletcher once said that he uses art to disappear, but his approach does quite the opposite.
The internet together with the many elements of irony that arise in Harrell Fletcher's work have contributed greatly in making him into the artist he is today.
I think Harrell Fletcher may be confusing himself in his definition of and criticism of art. I agree with your statement that it's ironic that he is so critical of the art world and yet functions so well in it. Perhaps he should focus on defining artists rather than defining art.
ReplyDeleteYour statement about how Fletcher is hypocritical in the way he denies the validity of traditional art really struck me. How can discrimination work one way but not the other? And although I believe there is a grey area when it comes to defining who an artist is, there must be some sort of boundary or else everyone is an artist all the time.
ReplyDeleteFletcher seems to want the definition of art to be broadened to include everyday people and everyday acts rather than art being an elite pursuit blessed by art institutions. Isn't it all about perceptions?
ReplyDelete