Bougie Art

It's somewhere around here. I've been looking for a way to qualify art as a form. There's no doubt about it, the former codified lines are now blurred beyond recognition.

I've had a hard time when coming in contact with a piece or a presentation that carries with the conception of art and really caring. Most art, that I considered valuable or at least somewhat prestigious, comes from sort of classical period. Those were the real artists and those were true artisans.


I have no problem sticking with that, but now in current, when again the lines have been blurred by incoherence, I'm trying to define how I gauge art as a form. Most times when I get in contact I just don't get it and I don't see the value in it's performance because the creation lacks the skill, the work, the learning, and the valor of the classics. Or at least upon my exegesis.

Now this is not some Foucaultian critique. Anyone who's been involved in academia in the last decade has been bombarded with the deconstruction of power a la Foucault. And yes it's powerful and necessary, very for both, but again over assessed. For Foucault, I'd think he'd laugh at the "Author" he'd become. But yet, for me in this modern age where these lines of art have blurred, I think I can define art, or give something credible value of "art" if it comes from or as a voice not necessarily against power. But a voice whose existence is validated as an upheaval of the power that surrounds it.

I had a weekend where I was confronted, wrong word, where I entertained a lot of art and supposed art. It was fun. And I kept coming up with the same questions: "What is art?" "How is this art?" "How do I define this as form?" And I've come up with this conclusion, cause let's be honest, most art, like this blog, is mad bougie.


Without Relent,
Peace
Remoy