"The point if, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity."
--Lawrence Weiner
After reading this quote I immediately came to the conclusion that I was in disagreement, every piece of art does not change your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. I don’t know if this differs for other people, but in my opinion art can be life changing for someone but it isn’t every single piece of artwork. I don’t believe that a piece of artwork can appeal to a bunch of people, rather art is meant to focus on a single type or group of people, and it may not always be interesting to every viewer. What may be appealing to one person may also be repulsive to another. A good example of this concept is observing art museums. Some people will stop and spend a great deal of time staring at a piece of artwork, while other glance and pass by. That one person that stops may see something in the piece that changes their perception of the world, but it may only be that one piece or pieces similar to that one that changes it, and every other piece of art doesn’t have the same effect on them. I also don’t think it can change your perception for the rest of your life, maybe while you are interested in that particular piece of artwork it may change your view on other things, but I don’t think your perception is completely changed. It could “boggle” your perception or add a new element to the way you think about the world and art. I also disagree with the last part of this quote, “if it doesn’t, then it’s not art, it’s a commodity”. A commodity can also be art. Every piece of art that I observe or take interest in may not be life changing however it can be a commodity -- something of use, advantage, or value. We value the way we see things and we value what we are able to take away based off of our own perceptions and the way the piece influences us. Everything the human eye can view is something of use, they can disagree with it, agree with it, be able to contradict it, relate to it, etc. If art was not a commodity what would we be able to take away from it? It is always something of use or value in my opinion. A piece has some amount of value put into it, even if the artist is not satisfied with it, they still have some attachment to the piece due to the amount of time they placed into it. Art always seems to have value too, to those that view it. People who enjoy the piece value the elements of design, the beauty of the piece, and the overall aesthetic qualities. To me, art is always something of use; we use past and current works to influence our own work. It is to other artists that we look, especially as young artists, for inspiration and reference. Just because art does these things however does not make it change an entire perception of the rest of the world. It could alter a perception in some way but I don’t believe there is any way that it can be that life changing, however though it doesn’t change your perception, it can be a commodity for the reasons I described above. Art and commodity are definitely not a dichotomy, I don’t think they contradict, rather they work with each other to provide an overall ability to influence others views and the way that they look at things both as pieces of art and as objects in the world. I think art has always been a commodity in earlier times; we spread our ideas by having other people try them out and practice them. We value the concepts we learn from each other then pass on to those we know, in hopes that these ideas grow and are added on to with the changing of time. We also use art as an advantage; it can help describe those things that some people cannot put into words and are able to express through powerful visual interest. It is those images that make a major influence upon out lives and become those ideas of value we continue to carry with us in conversation, interaction, and other observations.
