Artists work in all different kinds of mediums. Some work in oil. Others in stone. Dave Powell's medium is cats. He breeds cats and then displays them as art in plastic containers. He tries to breed for mutations such as polydactylism. He seems a little sensitive that people won't think his cat-in-a-box displays qualify as art, but he argues that they are since anything created with 'artistic intent' is art. I actually disagree. I think that art is whatever art critics define as art. In other words, it's up to the audience to decide what qualifies as art, not the artist. But as a cat lover, I'm perfectly to happy to regard cats as art.
Comments
Now, if he'd built interesting enclosures for them, then maybe. Artistic cat habitats, to go with the 'artistic' cats.
Still, I'd be concerned for the cats on 'display'. Cats don't enjoy confinement one bit.
But everything anyone does is criticized.
Then, it is art only if it is criticized by an art critic?
So... one should not try to define what is art or what art is, but, rather, one should work towards the definition of what an art critic is. Thereby whatever they critique or criticize can be considered art.
Personally, I have an uncle named Art and all he does is criticize.
But really, art is a concept. Like good and evil. Defining it is like naming colors.
Or, as they say in Family Guy:
And personally, those enclosures look a lot like the Cat Boarding Prisons at my vet.
I'd like to know more details about the exhibits... how long do the cats stay on display at a time?
It's almost cat performance art.
Which makes me think of something much more interesting- the Why Cats Dance, Why Cats Paint, and Why Paint Cats books!
Performance artists.
And ART isn't art b/c it's up in a gallery. Things go up in a gallery to MAKE MONEY.
This isn't art. It's CRAP. CAT CRAP. Thank you very much.
However, the cat thing? Not art.
Whoop de doo.
Host-Header: The notion that art critics decide what is art is pretty silly, and the same regarding an audience providing validation. Art critics are a very recent phenomena (i.e., are cave paintings art, sculpture in Tut's tomb, etc?), and incidentally, since I am also an international published art critic, either: A. My work is art because I say so; or B. You'll take my word for it when I say critics are a necessary evil of the Art World, no more, no less.
But regarding an audience: suppose I throw a beautiful pot from clay, glaze it, fire it, and bury it... Is that thing in the ground art, or will it only re-become art when it is dug up again? There are numerous criteria for determining what is art and what isn't... For instance, quality. Yet quality and the other determinants are so relative (as most of the serious professional art world agrees), that in the final analysis, my personal (well-considered) opinion is that the essential, primary, and fundamental criteria for art is intent.
Bobcat: If controversy were my goal, I would have accepted the recent offer to have a New York Times feature story on my work, but I turned it down... And PETA would have shown up long ago if there were anything to protest over (bet your ass on that).
Furthermore, I attempted to be as explicit as humanly possible in explaining that the enclosures are simply for the ArtCats' protection when they are being exhibited. If and when I am ready to sell an ArtCat as a finished work, of course the display of, and interaction with the art in the buyer's home would be as a typical housecat functions (though I'm sure far more pampered than usual, if only for the price of the investment). An ArtCat is "The art that loves you back." And cats raised spending some part of the time in enclosures do not mind limited stints inside... I do in fact, care about the well-being of my animals.
Splarka: On the part about art and pornography, this is an aside, but as a Libertarian I am against the government sanctioning of any art (that is not to say that the government doesn't need to hire architects to build buildings, sculptors and painters to put art in given locations, etc... Just that I feel the government subsidy of art hurts the quality of art overall; at least in our culture, in this socioeconomic period)...
Actually, I was trained as a painter. Now this is what I could have done: Grown flax, hewn a couple trees, slaughtered and boiled a few rabbits, dug some minerals and chalk, and gave a rodent a haircut... Then, I could have woven the flax into linen, planed down some bars to make the stretcher frame, sized the linen with rabbit skin glue, then my homemade gesso, pummeled the minerals into the oil I crushed from the linseed pods, and bound an application implement from the sable hairs... That's what it would take just to have a blank canvas stretched, some paint, and a brush!
There's probably some obsessive nut out there doing that, but at any rate, considering the fairly ridiculous example I just offered, even the most controlled, technically representative illustrator does far less than 75% of the effort (real work) that goes into making a painting physically possible.
Also, to say that the only work executed on a computer that qualifies as art is that which looks like objects is severely shortsighted.
Maegan: The "bonsai kittens" are an intentional hoax; but it does raise the interesting question whether or not hoaxing can be an artform. Certainly many of the crop circles are quite aesthetically pleasing, require considerable skill, creative imagination, and are even spiritually uplifting.
As far as my art looking like a pet store window, again, the cat itself is the art, not the display. The displays are simply - pedestals for statues - frames for paintings - stages for a ballet, etc... I would not directly subject a cat to the crowds at an art opening, and the times I've shown so far, they were quite content and calm in their TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE DISPLAYS.
Katey: It seems you get it at least somewhat, however, I would correct one point... The ArtCats are not art because art galleries are willing to show my work, galleries are EAGER to show my work because it is interesting art.
To answer your question, "US ArtCat 1: Baxter (B1m1)" was on display only for the opening (say eight hours), "ArtCat C5F1 (Callie)" was on display for less than 24 hours, etc. I leave the displays up after deinstallation with a photo of the ArtCat in situ for the duration of the show.
Big Gary: I would say cats are not performance artists, they are predatory carnivorous animals. Wanna know the real difference between a cat and a dog? If you're out in the wilderness with your 90 lb dog and you break your leg, he will bring you a rabbit to eat. In that same situation, if you were with your cat (who hypothetically, was also 90 lbs), she would eat you without a second thought. It's a hard idea to swallow, but it's true... Take it from someone who knows cats VERY well...
Maegan: Not all art in the gallery makes money, as my work is posted with a clear notice that the "piece" is held in the artist's collection (for breeding purposes).
Gallery/museum owners like my work because it's interesting and "a draw." It sparks animated conversation and always has a crowd mulling about it murmuring over their glasses of chardonnay.
As for it being "crap," it's funny you say that... Instead of a photo at one show, after I removed the ArtCat there was a big poop in the litterbox. The museum owner wanted it left there as "trace" (evidence art had happened there). I obliged... Thought it was funny and a great idea to boot.
Boo: I won't argue with you. The ArtCats are art and it is really neither here nor there what your opinion is on the matter (and in fact, my website has been {seemingly futilely} aimed at people with the views I've read here, not those who are educated regarding the ongoing discourse of art who would require no explanation and accept my work as art simply as a matter of course).
Either you post statements flippantly on the net regarding other people's serious, hard work without really considering what you are saying, or you are simply uninformed and closed-minded. Since you and Maegan had "stuff up in the gallery at the moment" as of this posting, I assume you are based in Tampa as well. I am also guessing there is a good chance you are a student at USF (where I taught art incidentally), or UT (where one of my best friends and fellow artists taught). In other words, what I am getting at, is perhaps opening your mind and asking questions of people who might be able to enlighten you (instead of blurting statements of questionable foundation) might serve you better in your art, your career, and life in general...
UNLESS of course you're a hottie (female), in which case... I totally agree with your insightful comments! Why don't you eMail me your phone number and perhaps we might discuss this and other subjects more in-depth over dinner?
And yes, I am a cat breeder (among other synonyms)... But don't knock my "whoop de do" until you've tried it. 😉
Maegan: I'd consider finding a new leader. Oh, and same goes for you regarding the dinner thing... If you meet MY aesthetic criteria, of course.
So there we have it ladies and gents... As you might guess, I get my share of critics, and have even posted a printed sample on my site. Never before have I answered any of them personally. So feel privileged, pissed-off, or indifferent as you will.
My best, and thanks for your interest, -Dave