Wednesday, 2 October 2013
The Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), London have comprised a live site dedicated to compiling a collections of Art Rules created and curated by the public. Designed to generate debate around contemporary art, Art Rules asks visitors to answer the question 'What is art?', with their answers appearing on the site for other people to comment on. Rules can be agreed or disagreed upon and shared via the standard social platforms of Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. The more people agree with a rule the larger it will appear, the more people disagree, the smaller it becomes.
The website has been seeded with a number of rules written by leading artists, curators and critics to serve as inspiration. The site aims to become a repository of outstanding thinking as well as a community of cultural commentators.
Here's a sample of what you can expect:
Art makes its own rules
nothing is more coercive than "participation"
Art is the smartest kind of bullshit in the world
art is bla bla bla
Art should not be the preserve of the rich
You can search by Recent Rules, Popular Rules, Rules by Students and Artists, and they can be filtered to curators, writers, gallery owners and the public.
Aside for it's obvious entertainment value, I'm unsure of the validity of such a site. It's fun and inclusive, to be sure, but I didn't see much discussion happening or critical debate. People seemed more inclined to 'like' or 'dislike' a post rather than comment on it, as is the common way of social platforms. Perhaps this comes with time. Also, as is common with social sites these days, for every insightful response there is possibly ten ridiculous responses, but then who am I to judge. It's up to the public, through 'liking' a post who can truly judge what is a substantial contribution and what is the ramblings of an idealistic/cynical, self-important/unaware, entitled/struggling artist/critic/academic/gallerist/collector.....