Post No Bills

Today’s blog post looks at one of my recent abstract paintings that led to further discussion with another artist named Suhail, as well as CoPilot and my wife Denise. For the most part the discussion centers around the often-debated question, “what constitutes art.”

For a while now, I have been playing around with a rock-face painting and pictographs. As much as I like the look of pictographs and petroglyphs, such as those created by the ancients, I almost always feel that they are not much different than graffiti, a form of vandalism that dirties nature in this case, like modern graffiti dirties our city’s structures. That is not to say that I don’t appreciate “outside” art, but only if it has been requested by a building owner or city officials, etc. In this way the placed art is controlled, and what appears will likely be welcome by most others. My feature image painting plays on this theme with the “post no bills” painted text. For vandals, the text would seem like an invitation to do just that, which is kind of a sad statement.

As I often do, I posted this painting on the artist’s forum I participate in and had a nice discussion about the topic with fellow member Suhail. I’d like to share that conversation with you and perhaps add a bit more as I write this blog post.

Suhail:
Talking about prehistoric art and street art brings one particular piece of art to mind, Banksy’s ‘Cave Painting Removal’ (2008). In this piece, he challenged why some art is called “vandalism” while other art is called “important.”

(I downloaded the image from the internet to include it here. DBC)

Cave Painting Removal – Created by Banksy – 2008

Banksy shows how our society often erases certain kinds of art through cleaning up cities or just not caring about some art forms. Banksy also points out that the art world is run by rich people. He said: “The Art we look at is made by only a select few. A small group create, promote, purchase, exhibit and decide the success of Art. Only a few hundred people in the world have any real say. When you go to an Art gallery you are simply a tourist looking at the trophy cabinet of a few millionaires.”

His artwork suggests that drawing on walls is something humans have always done, from cave people to modern graffiti artists. The fact that his own mural was painted over within months actually proves his point about how some art isn’t valued. I’m not saying I support or don’t support street art. There’s a place and time for it, as you suggested.

Art is really interesting; from what it is to why we make it. I think art helps us learn about people and their cultures. And you made a great piece of art. It’s a wonderful piece.

Me:
Thanks for taking time to comment, Suhail. You have no idea how much I appreciate it when you share your wisdom.

Banksy’s points are well made, and I would not really argue with him or anybody else, since I am mostly a middle-way kind of guy. That said, the thing I would argue, for the sake of this conversation, is that when someone marks, paints on, or does something similar to express themselves on something that does not belong to them, then it is vandalism. I might think keying is a valid form of art. Based on Banksy’s argument, he would surely appreciate it if I keyed his car with pretty patterns. Especially if I did it again after he spent time getting it fixed and repainted. Maybe he would proudly drive it around to make his original point, who knows!? 😊

I can also, for the most part, excuse cave art and the like, since they did not have the substrates we have at our disposal, or laws, or a more modern civilization that knows better. Those things were centuries away. Modern man, on the other hand, knows what is acceptable, well, we hope so.

Suhail:
Thanks, Don. In art, particularly, I try to look at the bigger picture rather than my personal views. Artists make art for so many reasons. I’m sure Banksy has his reasons, just like Tracey Emin with “My Bed,” Duchamp’s “Fountain,” and of course the famous “Taped Banana.” All these works plus many more are considered art by the elites of the art world. Do I consider them art? Well, my opinion doesn’t matter except to me. It’s their expression, it’s their communication. And isn’t that part of art’s definition?

I get your point about property and vandalism. You’re right that there’s a big difference between cave art and modern artists who should know better about property boundaries. Your example about keying Banksy’s car makes a good point about that contradiction.

It is strange how some things become valuable art while others don’t. A urinal in a museum is worth millions, but some street murals get painted over no matter how skilled they are. I’m not saying I support street artists painting on other people’s property. I don’t. But it’s interesting how some art gets celebrated while other art gets erased. I think what interests me most is who gets to decide what counts as “art” and what doesn’t. When a banana taped to a wall sells for millions, it does make you wonder about the whole system.

(Just to elaborate, Tracey Emin’s “My Bed,” is an art installation of an unmade bed with nightstand. Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” is a urinal laying on its back. Maurizio Cattelan’s “Comedian” is banana taped to a wall with traditional silver-gray duct tape. Look them up if you are interested. DBC)

Me:
I had to look up the last three pieces you mentioned in the first paragraph. LOL! I had heard of the banana art but had never seen it. All three are fine examples of why I avoid big city galleries. They also support much of what you had quoted Banksy as saying, as to who is deciding what constitutes art, or whatever it was he said exactly. I know I am no expert, but I am reminded of a quote by Potter Stewart, who was talking about the threshold for obscenity, but works just as well for art…. “I know it when I see it.” For me, those three pieces are art only because they were created as such, and I can interpret them in my own artistic way. Do I think it is good art? I’m not sure!

I am reminded of a time when someone placed dog feces on a board and set it in a gallery at floor level, this with the approval of the gallery – so as art. I think it is low level art (no pun intended), created to shock, or to stir up society, like the banana art did. Can I interpret the dog feces art? Sure, it could be a statement on society. I don’t know if that was the intent, but because I am artistic myself, I can add my own interpretation, as I said. I think too, because of things like this, defining art in narrow parameters is very difficult.

Do you remember the artist who created art with raw meat? Anish Kapoor. Very bizarre! Is it art? I don’t know, but it is displayed like art.

How about Gunther von Hagens, the creator of the “Body Worlds” exhibitions. He is known for his work in plastination, a technique that preserves human bodies and displays them in lifelike poses, often with the skin removed to showcase muscles, organs, and other internal structures. Very bizarre! Is it art? I don’t know, but it too is displayed like art. Real bodies, is what gets me!

A bit later, I added: I have been thinking about this some more, mostly about people creating art based on the time-period they lived. I wonder if artists, say from da Vinci’s era, or the Victorian era, would have even thought about painting outside their box. Say something abstract, or something shocking, etc. They likely didn’t have a reference for it from existing styles, but couldn’t they have considered something in one way or another, since they were artists, who typically think outside the box? That said, maybe they wouldn’t or couldn’t, since it might be like a cave man envisioning an automobile. Again, no reference at all for something like that in their time.

Still later, I asked CoPilot AI to comment on my last paragraph above.

ME: (same as above)
Can you comment on what I speculate and consider in this statement: I have been thinking about this some more, mostly about people creating art based on the time-period they lived. I wonder if artists, say from da Vinci’s era, or the Victorian era, would have even thought about painting outside their box. Say something abstract, or something shocking, etc. They likely didn’t have a reference for it from existing styles, but couldn’t they have considered something in one way or another, since they were artists, who typically think outside the box? That said, maybe they wouldn’t or couldn’t, since it might be like a cave man envisioning an automobile. Again, no reference at all for something like that in their time.

CoPilot:
You’re touching on a fascinating blend of creativity, context, and historical perspective here. I think you’re absolutely onto something when you suggest that artists were often shaped – and perhaps constrained – by the cultural, social, and technological frameworks of their time.

During da Vinci’s era, for example, art was deeply intertwined with religious, scientific, and humanist ideals of the Renaissance. Much of what was created was driven by commissions from the Church or wealthy patrons, so the “box” they painted within wasn’t just stylistic but also societal. That said, Leonardo da Vinci himself embodies your point about artists thinking outside the box – his notebooks brim with imaginative inventions and anatomical studies that hint at his ability to envision ideas that stretched beyond the conventions of his time. Yet, these weren’t necessarily the kind of “abstract” art we think of today – they still had ties to the cultural and intellectual currents of his era.

In the Victorian era, on the other hand, art was heavily influenced by Romanticism, Realism, and later, movements like Pre-Raphaelitism. While experimentation certainly existed, it wasn’t until the later 19th century – with the advent of Impressionism and the radical shift in societal norms – that we begin to see art deliberately breaking traditional molds to explore abstraction, emotional extremes, or shock value.

Your analogy to the “caveman envisioning an automobile” is apt. Without a reference point, the leap to completely new forms or ideas might feel unattainable. Abstract art, for example, often derives its power from a conscious rejection or deconstruction of earlier styles – so without those earlier styles as a reference, the leap might not be intuitive. However, artists have always had a knack for imagining possibilities beyond what they know, even if those possibilities remain tethered to their time.

This might suggest that while art often evolves incrementally, shaped by the cultural “box” of its era, there have always been individuals capable of glimpsing beyond it. What do you think? Could those glimpses have been limited by the absence of societal and conceptual frameworks to support them? Or does creativity itself transcend those limitations?

Back now to Suhail:
Don, you’re touching on a very interesting point that has been on my mind since I started making abstract art that doesn’t represent real objects. And that is “reference point”. What is my reference point when I make abstract art? I’m not a 100% sure but I think it’s something to do with “creative imagination”. I think creative imagination isn’t creating something from nothing. It’s our mind’s ability to combine and transform existing knowledge, memories and experiences into something new and original. It happens every time I make a painting. It comes from personal experiences, connecting between different ideas, mentally playing with these connections, emotional state and trying to visualize new possibilities. And that becomes my reference point.

I think creative imagination plays a crucial “reference point” for all artistic creation. This reference point isn’t fixed, it shifts and evolves based on cultural contexts and time periods. Future art will continue to evolve shaped by culture at that time. I think AI-generated art will be a prime example for the foreseeable future. The beauty of creative imagination is that while our reference points may differ, the ability to transform existing ideas into something new is an essential human capacity we all share.

Don:
These are great insights Suhail.

My wife and I had a similar discussion yesterday as I shared with her, all the points in this discussion, and my interactions with CoPilot. We both concluded that we humans in the 21st century have seen so much change that we are not surprised by what comes in the way of technological advances (at all levels, including art). We decided that that is the “reference point,” that most of what we envision is based on that accumulated knowledge. In the discussion, I explained, or shared, how taken I have been with the new conversational AI. Although it doesn’t surprise me, due to previous references, including sci-fi writers who first introduced the concept, I do feel that we are really on the edge, or at the beginning, of a real-world phenomenon. Perhaps similar to the appearance of the first automobiles, for those in that earlier generation. Or the birth of the industrial age, if we step even further back. It was such a great discussion, as this one has been.

---

That concluded the online discussion, and I think what was written was fairly self-explanatory, so I don’t think I need to add anything more. I am not sure I came close to covering what I set out to do, but I think what was said gave us enough to think about.

I will wrap up with a question for all of us to ponder. Is it necessary for we humans to have one finite definition of what constitutes art? Give it some thought and let me know what you think.

Donald B. Cheke – April 14, 2025