An evolution in 'art'?

I have a personal interest in the world of 'art'. I use inverted commas here as the definition of art will vary from person to person. Having browsed through various galleries across the globe one thing that became increasingly apparent was the number of 'modern' pieces which I questioned how they could be classified as art. Now obviously this is very subjective as is the nature of art... to create an impression upon the viewer which will vary between each person individually. The piece that made me question "what is art?" more than any was the famous piece by Duchamp called the Fountain.

This is a urinal.

That is it.

Placed at 90°.

At first this piece irritated me greatly... how can this possibly be a work of art, one which won the Turner prize no less? Is Duchamp ‘taking the piss’ out of the art world in a poetic manner – attacking and ridiculing the pompous critics? What constitutes as ‘art’ seems to be ‘originality’ rather than ‘merit’ or ‘commitment’. I believe that this may well be true in part but may disregard another potential point of the Fountain – deliberately challenging the concept of art and in doing so can itself be seen as a visual expression. I perceive it to be a deliberately provocative piece and a statement though not a piece to marvel at the technique, passion and devotion to its creation. I suppose this is in a similar way to any famous quote – statement to be considered in context to the subject but not necessarily a meriting piece of art on its own. This got me thinking how art has evolved.

Art has always been a means of communication whether you look at the cave drawings of prehistoric times as story telling vehicles – to pieces like the Fountain as a contradictory statement of the state of the ‘art world’.  In between you have the religious pieces to express the notion of God’s might, or the self portraits of powerful figures to express their wealth. This is obviously just looking at European art history... across the world art differs significantly but always remain a means of communication.

So why the change from images of beauty, or from pieces of incomprehensible skill... to a toilet? Aside from the changing times and therefore what people want to express through various mediums, I believe that technology has had a strong impact. While you might not get passionate brush strokes in a photograph you can still capture the emotion of the moment for example. Is this why many ‘artists’ have changed their tools? Perhaps this is in part why a portrait now is far more likely to be a photograph than a painting. With a wider breadth of mediums artists can use I believe art has evolved – no longer is it about ‘painting an image’ but instead ‘creating an image’. Surrealism embodies this perfectly. It is not so much now about the image but maybe of the emotion or to create works to make viewers interpret a piece on an individual level... to question the meaning.

As much as I enjoy classical works, their meaning and purpose seems clearer and more universal than contemporary art. European art used to be commission for a reason or a purpose... now it is created for the artist.

Perhaps gone is the era of classically beautifully crafted works, but possibly has progressed into something that can touch people at a personal level, or to make a personal statement from the artist (or simply that they created something for purely aesthetic reasons).

Art is still a means of communication, but instead of communicating to the masses, perhaps now it is a means of communicating with the individual... a message from the artist to each viewer.