The Artomatic firestorm rages on!

Joseph Barbaccia responds to Jamie Wimberly's posting:

I wish someone would explain to me why people feel that art needs to be defined, ruled or standardized. WTF?! Doing so is the antithesis of art. Does requiring artistic standards allow people to feel secure? By setting up narrow path to creating art are they defining their own way of creating and trying to impose it on others?

I understand the need for structure. Our lives would be chaos without it. But art, at least in my life, is one of the few remaining areas that are free of standards and rules. I value that fact immeasurably. This one area of unlimited creativity is a rarity in today’s over-regulated world. It allows us total freedom of expression.

My work doesn't have to be labeled Art. I really don’t care what it is called. Call it crap, call it interesting, or call it great. A label does not deny art's existence or its effect. Look at the history. As forms of expression change they must break from "standards" and stand on new ground. Of course, in a matter of time these changes become the "standard" themselves and must be changed again. Look at the history.

Jamie's "standards" are wonderful; for HIM to work under. I believe that setting up a structure, or defining art with a set of rules on a personal level is OK. It’s part of the process. Bring out your scales! Artists do the same with every decision we make when creating a single piece. We define the work by our choices. But I see no reason to lay my creative structure on anyone else. I would no sooner tell a person how to create art than I’d tell them how to be happy. I don’t mind getting a license and taking a test to drive a car, but please, allow me the freedom to make my art the way I believe it should be done. Anything else smells of sour grapes.