It is my opinion that art has to be seen/experienced to be art. A couple of artists I know have argued with me that what they create is still art even if they don’t share it with the world. I disagree. Kinda.

I believe that even if no one else sees it, if the only person that sees it is its creator, it has still been observed and the observation is a part of what makes art.

I saw a piece today that I think I can use as an example of how I’m thinking.

The artist has taken pieces of maps and painted over them. You can still see the lines and street names through the paint. Viewers will be moved by what they see differently depending on what they bring with them to the viewing. Someone who has lived in the cities that were mapped will respond differently to the piece than someone who is seeing a random location. The overlay of paint and the image that was used would cause a different response for someone who knew the places than it would for someone who has no connection to them.

I’m not saying that either is correct. Just that they are different. They may be equally visceral and shattering. Or not. What you bring with you to an art experience affects how you respond to what you see. The observer is part of the creation.

And the artist’s point of view is also a requirement. They have to decide when a piece is complete. It’s not finished until the creator says so. But… they have to say so. Until they are satisfied that there is nothing else to add, it’s still a work in progress.

And they bring their own perspective to what they’ve done. Not only vision, also perception. Because they have their own internal stories that affects what they see and what they have been moved to include in their creation.