"All art is quite useless." – Oscar WildeThe quote above comes from my favorite treatise on art, the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray. I've revisited the preface regularly ever since I first read the novel maybe seven summers ago. Every time I read it, I get something new out of it. I recommend looking at it before continuing to read – it's not very long.
The definition of art varies from person to person. Is Eminem a poet? Does popularity define the success of literature? Is Jackson Pollock's style superior to realism or inferior to preschool finger painting? Does something have to be intentionally created in order to be art?
I have a very loose definition of what art is. If I can see something in it, then it's art. Even if I can't (which really doesn't happen), then it probably still is.
I don't mean this as a subscription to an ideology – it's a genuine feeling. Usually I don't take the time to look at things carefully enough. But when I do, I can always be intrigued by the visual/verbal/auditory/tactile/flavored/psychological/emotional/etc. aspects of what is presented to me. Perhaps I should start doing more mindfulness practices again.
Anyway, I had an idea recently about how collaboration relates to art. Take a look at this image:
Let's operate off of the assumption that you can consider it a piece of art. What aspect is art? Most obviously, it seems the creation of the art is in taking the photograph. But is the model being an artist by posing? Did the makeup artist contribute? Was creating the surroundings and setting the lights up art? What about retouch?
Suddenly, clicking a button seems less artful.
Ultimately, is the process or the product the greater artwork?
Personally, I believe very strongly in the process. I've been known to say that my paintings are corpses. Making them is what matters.
By the way, I took the picture of my friend Loran for a book of ghost stories he's working on. Does the context change your perception?
What do you consider art?

