"The point is, 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

This is true. It is in some sense completely true that every piece of art can change your whole perception of the world, however one must take into account that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so therefore this statement has truth, yet not in every case. I think that as far as individuality goes, which each person has, to see a piece of art can be objectively life changing to that person. For instance, I might think that Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux’s Ugolino and Sons is one of the most beautiful pieces of sculpture in the world, however some might find it disturbing. However, now that I think about it finding the piece repulsing might still make the quote hold truth even more because it is still having an affect on a person rather than leaving nothing with them. And even with more truth in that quote if a piece of art has no affect in it than maybe it truly is just a commodity.

Boring?

It makes me think of hotel art, that just seems to hang on the wall to hang and really serves little purpose to beautify the room or to have a person stop and look at it for a while… well unless you go to a fancy hotel where they can afford art with a purpose. Purpose being, not a work of art that just covers a blank space in the wall to just be there, but rather maybe fills the room to be part of a theme or because someone appreciates its look. When someone asks me “What does boring art look like?” I always associate this boringness with hotel art. They use pastels sometimes that make up a sort of abstract weirdness that sometimes is blended into the wallpaper of the hotel because they are so similar. Or sometimes it’s an elaborate landscape of hills in Colorado; Or maybe a scene of a lake in fall. And while, maybe someone can think it looks nice, if we feel nothing from it then maybe that is what makes that type of art simply a commodity and nothing more.

            And then I have a contradiction of thought. What if the fact that I can even remember some of these hotel art “paintings,” then they did leave a sort of affect on me? And in that way maybe that really does make them pieces of art. They did in fact change my perception of art in a way. Maybe not in the sense that when you first read this quote one would think of, that art that has a positive affect on a person is life changing, but maybe in a different way. Perhaps, if a piece of artwork has a negative affect, like hotel art does for me, then perhaps that means that it is not just a commodity but is still part of the realm of inspirational and life changing art. So when I think of the affect of hotel art on me, because I completely feel nothing from it, and recognize that fact, it is steering me into the right direction of what art should be, for me. It shouldn’t mask itself with a boring composition with just some splatters of pastels. And it shouldn’t be a boring hill somewhere in the Midwest. For me, it should house some sort of feeling, rather than a blank face that would sit on the wall.

            For that reason, then even the most unmoving and non inspirational of art, for anyone, can have some sort of affect on an individual, positively or negatively alike and therefore can make this statement even more truthful. Any piece of art has some sort of influence on an individual, so possibly there is no art that is simply just a commodity. Cause even when we walk past a piece of art and do not even look at it once, then that means that it is influencing us in some way. Maybe I can stretch this idea I’m making that the fact that we didn’t acknowledge that work of art means it is influencing us, pushing us towards some piece of art that is more attractive and therefore truly life changing.