Art as Context
Aristotle said, “all art is concerned with the realm of coming-to-be, i.e., with contriving and studying how something which is capable both of being and of not being may come into existence, a thing whose starting point or source is in the producer and not in the thing produced. For art is concerned neither with things which exist or come into being by necessity, nor with things produced by nature: these have their source of motion within themselves.”
For Aristotle, art is a characteristic of rationally producing; his context is of the Grecian sculpture, where in this case the craftsman produces a beautiful form through simple mathematical forms. Our modern view of simplicity probably doesn’t scope the incredible detail of archaic marble carvings. Instead, it most likely consists in the square, or the line in minimalist structures and representations.
Considering the great scope of objects that have been donned art, could you consider a gallery space a work of art itself? It houses art yes, but the spacial decor, or lack there of, is something deliberated upon in order to accentuate the artwork itself and give the viewer a particular experience. If Art does not stop at the canvas or at the sculpture, could we see every space we walk into as a unique aesthetic experience?
In this case, art would be in our dress, our hair, our observation of someone’s smooth drag of a cigarette. It would be the entire context of every moment of our life. If the definition of Art was extended to lucid observations of the structured world around us, would it devalue the gallery space? The museum space?