The word “art” has an evaluative value, we define art as something difficult to do, something that requires craftsmanship, skills and preparation – but we will not use this word in this sense. Our aim is to define the field of search, which we call “modern art”, where objects may appear without the “traditional qualities of art”, that is, apparently not requiring significant manual skills, or not expressing beauty. So if we remove something outside the “field of art”, it does not mean that it is done badly or without talent – it simply does not come into our field of meaning.
Our main assumption is that we will talk about the achievements of artists presented by art institutions (though not always), published after the Second World War.
If an object has a useful function, it’s not an art. A beautiful cake is not an art, an interesting chair is not an art, a cool car is not an art. Fashionable clothes are not art, and even a picture or a sculpture, if they have a decorative or decorative function, are already beginning to be suspicious, we are already having doubts, it is rather a decor.
An art object has no function and cannot be used as intended. This painting by Rothko has no function. Art can be created by depriving objects of their function or giving them perverse functions that are inconsistent with their original purpose.
A urinal can be an art if it stops serving to pee. African fetishes can be an art if they lose their ritual function. Fascist images can be art if they lose their propaganda and ideological function. The body can be an art if it loses its social and physiological functions.
A goat tire is an art. Anyway, it is a wonderful and passionate art that one would like to have. This is Robert Raushenberg, one of the American expressive abstractionists, highly regarded overseas.
Subscribe Newsletter
Polski (Polish) 
English GB (English)