not working at work (after lunch)

I guess I should preface this post by saying my definition of art is NEBULOUS at best.

I was eating the most blah club sandwich of my life about an hour ago when I saw a woman strolling around the campus of the University taking pictures of windows. Incidentally, I saw this same woman taking pictures of the windows of the Wells Fargo building on my way to ingest this blah sandwich. This woman was not taking snapshots. No, this woman was using, what looked to be, an expensive SLR digital camera. This woman was a serious photographer. This woman was an artist. Or so it goes. This means of production, this technology we all brandish says something to me about art and about our generational artistic struggle that is to come.

We take from the earth and syphon it through box after box after box until the product is so filtered and abstracted that there is nothing else to call it but art. And that is alright. Or maybe it is wrong. That is not really my point. Point is, art is becoming less organic and more artificial through these lenses of technology. Automatic cameras, Flarf poetry, lasers, gadgets, robots, etc. I get the feeling that the long standing split between traditional and avant movements (forgive the crude dichotomy, it's just a blog) that have, until the last generation or two, been organically based, is rapidly being replaced with a split between organic (that is, structurally the products of humans, and often times directly influenced with a human hand) and artificial art (that is, products that are influenced largely by an electrical or artificial means). I will accept most anything as art, so what this means to me is largely peripheral (if it's good, it's good. No?). But while I was eating this sandwich I envisioned my generation taking stances on this idea, because let us face it, drama is inevitable with art.

I had a conversation with a roommate of mine about art the other night where I found out she had some very strong feelings about what art is and what art is not. I mentioned Marcel Duchamp (and explained a bit about him and his ideas), and according to her, his creations were not art. Let's say we discount Marcel Duchamp's politics and artistic theory and place a toilet of his in a room. If we know nothing of Marcel Duchamp, is this art to us? Possibly. But because "we" do know something about this man, and because of where this toilet is generally placed, we assume it is art, because what do you call exhibits placed in an art gallery? Is this toilet art because of or in spite of the context in which it is placed and what surrounds it? Where you sit depends on where you stand, or so the saying goes. I guess I can actually see a valid argument in saying that if a piece of art is dependent upon its surrounding, or the motivation behind the artist, then it is not necessarily full art, maybe half art? Kenneth? It reminds me of New Criticism in Literature in that one should factor in an author's biography when analyzing that author's work instead of taking on the text by itself, without a frame of reference. I've always been very suspect of that approach, and assume it is for the same reasons why I am open to the possibility in the argument I just mentioned. As much as I appreciate people like Marcel Duchamp and the ideas he provided us with, I can see where people would be hesitant about it.

Technology seems to be blurring this line of what art is for some people and what art is not for some, even more. I guess it's good art to me if it affects me somehow. Either because of what it projects itself, or what I project onto it. I remember when I thought fractals were the coolest things ever in 5th grade. I guess that was the beginning of my fascination with artificial art that only briefly lifted the curtain on what would become a slight obsession later on in my life.