I used to have a strong conviction that I was not artistic. Creative yes. Artistic no.

Artists were painters, and sculptors, and those who could draw things that actually looked like the things they were drawing.

I was merely a consumer of art. (And not a very good consumer at that).

But then I got older, and things started to shift. I realized that the artist thing isn’t about WHAT someone is creating, or how good it is in the eyes of some expert, but about the very fact that someone IS CREATING. That we are all hardwired to make, and in our making to join something profound and sometimes tragic (I may or may not spend some time creating some really crappy situations for myself, and I may or may not know some other people who seem to do the same, and I may or may not know some other people who have used the majority of their lives as a canvas for poetic and ironic tragedy).

My guess is that most people are fairly open to the idea that the definition of art is broad, and that there are many ways to be artistic. But, still we put values to that art. There are still ideals that we use to mark art and say “this one is better than that one, and this one is worth more than that”. And this mentality serves a purpose. It gives us meaning about ourselves and those around us.

For example:

Noodle necklace made by kid = priceless to father/mother; cute, and disposable to the rest of us.

Feist Concert= $49 Canadian Dollars

Picaso’s Dora Maar with Cat Oil Painting= $95,200,000 (cha ching)

So we know that the first item for bid has sentimental artistic value, the second has experiential artistic value, and the third has status artistic value (along with philosophical and aesthetic artistic value).

Each piece of art is judged by a predetermined unconscious (unless we are thinking about it…like right now) standard of appreciation.

But it got me thinking. Because in reality the values are all man-made, and they all shift over time. The noodle necklace becomes obsolete as little Johnny gets a beer belly and a mortgage. The Feist concert is forgotten over time and becomes less important as her influence wains in the pop culture wrestling match. And the Picasso painting becomes more and more valuable the longer he is dead. But all of these things are made valuable by external influence and progression and not through some God-given innate value.

And so I wonder, on a more complex and (I would argue) important question. How do we ascribe meaning and value to the people around  us?

Does someone become more valuable when they have the same interests as we do (or the same skin color or the same religious cognition)?

Or because they take the time to invest in our stories and our deep human longings, or are hilarious, or are submissive and unassuming?

Or maybe we value people who seem to have more cultural leverage (ie. wealth, fame, influence etc)

How often are we actually aware of the way that we appraise art, or people? I think it takes alot of work to understand ourselves, and often alot of heartache. But I don’t think that we are credible critics until we have spent ample time unearthing our value systems and understanding the located/contextualized/limited flavors of our perceptions.

There is this dude, a musician dude, named Joel P West, and he had this brilliant idea about how to engage and transform the way that we value art. And in a way, I think he is also working towards the transformation of how we value humans.

His website….

www.DUSTJACKETPROJECT.com is a compilation of art work that people have sent him in exchange for his new CD. To me it not only puts a more accurate value on art (ie. someone’s poem or photo is as significant and someone’s studio based music project, but it also puts people on equal playing feilds. No longer is there a super human rock star guy and his fans, but there is a collaboration of the beauty that flows between people in the exchange of their artistic impulses.

It’s cool.

I’m thinking about looking at art and people with new goggles. Or at least trying.