Saturday, November 17, 2007
19) Why all the fuss about what IS or ISN'T mail art?
I am fairly new to the genre *and some would say there IS no genre officially* of mail art, and think that waaay too much discussion has been exhausted on what is mail art, what ISN'T mail art, what is the importance, why it's NOT important and so on...the whole thing is simply overwhelming. Can't we all just agree that mail art IS anything sent through the postal service to another person containing some form of artistic merit? It can be a stamp, faux postage, drawing, painting, collage, political commentary, social commentary or other societal topic using MAIL as the venue to present the IDEA, if not the art? All of us have a "set" description in our minds as to what we each consider "art" and if not art with a capital A then is it "craft"? Do we really even need a distinction? The high society of art dealers, critics, salespersons and collectors would say YES! But mail art has been an outsider type of art from the start. Right? Well, it's been said that Picasso mailed some small paper collages to his cohorts in his day and is this considered MAIL ART? Hmmm. I say we wrestle ourselves free from debating this whole art vs. non art discussion and just make what ever it is that moves us. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
... i wouldn't go so far to call ever letter sent by postal service mail art ...
as told before. Mail-Art has to do with the concept: creative use of communicationforms. Letters is just the paper and envelope....
Yes, I know what was said before and I am not disagreeing, Ruud. Creative use of communication forms...my point was that isn't there too much emphasis on discussion of what is or isn't mail art and not enough practice of mail art??? Maybe I wasn't clear enough on my statement? Not every letter is mail art. Of course not. Art that has been sent through the mail in and of itself is not mail art necessarily, but art mail IS mail art. Now I'm sounding confusing too!
Post a Comment