In my view the work of art has its own individuality, its own identity and uniqueness. It may belong to some family, to a generation or group, still there is no other comparable. It is there for its own sake, needs no justification to be. It defies us, questions us, and therefore we love it or we hate it. It does not need to be beautiful or ugly, as long as it communicates with us. So it is alive, because a work of art that does not communicate is dead, it does not exist, it is simply no art.
Does the artist create, or does the work of art create the artist? Might it be that the work of art creates itself, coming into being with the artist just being instrumental? OK, when its has become mature, the artist signs it, gives it a name, in this way confirming its identity. The artist gives it a date, yes, the date of birth, because from there on it starts living, separate from the artist, communicating with the spectator.
So I am not really sure about the role of the artist. And how should we perceive the relation between the work of art and the artist? What comes first, what last? What is more important? Sure, without artist there is no work of art, but the contrary is also true, without a work of art there is no artist.
In a world of full of imitation, the work of art is the big exception. In plastic arts, in pop-music, in fact everywhere in daily life, we continuously imitate and reproduce, because that is the only way our world and society can function. Too much originality, too much art would result in chaos, anarchy. Nevertheless, for reflection, for introspection, we need the exception: the work of art…..
Who decides what is imitation and what is art? There is no final verdict here, the observer decides himself. Did the work take his breath? Did it silence him? Did he feel the poetic beauty, the tenderness? Or did it increase his blood pressure, make him anxious? Did it incite emotions or raise questions about his own life, about our world? If so, then it is art.