I've been thinking more today about my defect art. I have been asking myself what it is about these innocuous little examples of graffiti that I like so much. All I am doing is painting holes and marks. The question I now ask is: why is this art? These replicated holes aren't particularly aesthetic and they don't take long to do. They don't have much in the way of compositional thought or feeling behind them. Nobody is going to seek me out to ask me to paint marks or holes. So what is it all about?
Another question I have been asking myself is: why do I like painting holes? On one level, I think it is the humour that appeals to me. After all, what sort of person goes around painting holes and marks? They aren't expected and they should catch the eye. But on a deeper level it is the underlying, oft-asked question that these little 'pieces' raise that appeals to me: what is art?
All art, it can be argued, is a form of copying or imitation, whether that be of life, thought or feeling (I'm not going to go into that debate here).
An imitation or representation of an object, a landscape, a face, an emotion, a pattern or a feeling is valid as art. So, how about an imitation of a mark or hole, a blob of paint, an accident or a staple? If there is no such thing as originality and all art is copying. I'm copying and this is art. If I'm going to copy something I may as well copy something nobody would normally consider copying. Why not turn the really band into an interesting 'stilled' life? Why not still the irritating and the mundane?
Putting the copy next to original seems to give the copy some degree of agency. To me, it feels as if the copy is saying: Hey! Look at me! I'm more interesting than that boring old hole next to me because I'm deliberate and I'm a fake.' The copy seems to be defying the urge of destruction. Defects should be filled in, painted over, washed away but would you do the same to a painted defect? By doing so, the artwork will be destroyed. My painted holes and marks of course will definitely be destroyed at some point. I have no doubt about that. They aren't regarded as valid artforms when compared to a painting or a sculpture, or an installation or performance. That is just a fact. I can't dispute that.
So, perhaps the conclusion should be that this isn't art. I would like to think it is but the fact that they will be painted over and without much conscience to me says that they aren't valid, or at least aren’t regarded as valid as other art forms. This does not answer the question: what is art? That question will remain forever unanswered I fear.
While engaged in this project I have come to the realisation that I am not an aesthetic artist. I am not a representational artist. I'm not an abstract artist. I'm a philosopher who uses art as a medium of expression of ideas.
Philosopher first; artist second. Despite all the self-doubt I have the further I get towards my degree, perhaps there is some purpose to all of this 'playing' I do.