Tierney Gearon and What is Art Then?

These first photos are from Tierney Gearon's Explosure exhibition (2009). I like them because they're pretty, and I like the color schemes, and some of them have balloons in them. The press piece that goes with this series, however, talks about juxtaposition and kaleidoscopic depths, and an ephemeral misplacement of time, yadda, yadda, yadda. I guess that's why I like these too.

I have this eternal struggle in understanding what makes 'art' art. Is it art because it was created by someone who calls themselves an artist? Or is it art because it is technically savvy and you or I probably couldn't create the same thing? Or is it art just because you like the look of it and wouldn't mind hanging it on a wall in your house? Does it have to meet all those criteria? Or none?




The series above is from Gearon's I Am a Camera series. Those are her kids. I really like the style of these photos. These images will probably stay with me for a long time. But why is something that looks like a basic snapshot actually art? What's the difference between the photo above and the one my mom took of me watching TV when I was that age? (And, also, why do moms do that?)

I really think the only difference between an 'art photograph' and a photograph is that someone said it was art. If someone found my mom's old photo albums and wrote about what each photo meant for them - maybe the angst portrayed in my face as my favorite toy gets taken away from me - then it would be art.

The good news is, someday I want to be artist. And you know how I'll become one? By calling myself an artist.

P.S. I really really do like these photos! This is not by any means a 'that looks like finger paint - my five year old could do better' kind of rant! Partly why I now like Tierney Gearon so much is because her projects (and a little interview I read about her in Hobo magazine) have made me think this hard.
P.P.S. Hmm, maybe that's what makes art art.