That DD isn't art!

Abandon all opinions at the door here. Try and ignore what your eyes tell you is art and consider a different perspective. Before you read, ask yourself this: What makes something art? What, in your opinion, makes a great piece of art? What makes a piece worthy of a daily deviation?

First, let's get one point across. What does dA classify as a Daily Deviation?

“A small assortment of submissions are chosen each day by a select group of staff/volunteer members who wish to showcase an image which they found impressive or otherwise interesting enough to deserve being brought to the attention of the community-at-large.”

Now, let's break this down further. There are two important words I'd like to point out: Impressive and Interesting. What this means is that it is chosen based on what the staff member thought about the deviation. Remember, the staff and volunteers still have these things called opinions and views. A DD is simply a showcase of something they liked and thought they should share with you.

Is it some mega super awesome award given to only the best works ever? No, it isn't. It's a community wide feature box thing. Deviants all across the community do features in their journal. A daily deviation is no different.

Also, there are no specific qualifications to getting a DD. This means that everyone can get one no matter what their art looks like. There are no limits on artistic skill or even subject and content. This gives everyone a chance in the community to get one. Take a moment to consider the possibility that restrictions were put on daily deviation selection. Let me set up a scenario:

1.Deviations must not contain anything that would warrant a mature tag
2.Deviations must show a level of high artistic skill
3.Selected deviants must be under a certain amount of pageviews in order to be eligible.

At first glance this seems pretty harmless, doesn't it? The first rule would eliminate any exposure to things you might not want to see like blood or nudity. The second point would eliminate all of the debate over something “sub-par” getting a DD. Finally, the third point would showcase unknown artists.

That sounds like a pretty good deal. It would keep everyone happy, right?

Wrong. Art is a subjective term to begin with. Even if rules were placed on DD's, they would still very depending on who features it. What does the staff member see as “high artistic skill?” What do you understand to be “high artistic skill?” There is a pretty strong chance that your opinion will differ greatly from a staff member's opinion.

Even limiting by pageviews would obscure a stunning deviation from a popular artist that is less known.

Just because a deviation has a mature tag doesn't make it tasteless either.

One of the biggest issues with art is our perception of it. No one sees anything the same. Therefore, no one agrees with each other. If there is one thing that I learned from my art appreciation class that is quite relevant to this issue it's this: most of the general population has no clue how to see.

I'm sure someone reading this just straightened themselves in their chair and is incredulous that I'd suggest that they don't know how to see. Well, let's say that it is easier to see a photo, than it is to understand it. We all live in a visually imposing world. We are bombarded with visuals. TV, advertisements, etc. Just think about how many images you saw on this website alone today? In the past hour? Over a few minutes? We see things but we don't appreciate them. Our eyes drift from one thing to another until we see something we like...or something we don't like. With all of the visuals around us, we don't take the time to appreciate anything other than visual aesthetics.

What pretty colors! What a nice composition! I like the perspective! Kawaii desu!  

When you read comments on dA, how many comments say something about the meaning of the piece? How many people comment on what emotional effect a work had on them? How many people challenge a viewpoint posed on a work? How many people understand what is going on in a piece instead of what visually pleases them?  

Not all art needs to be well executed in order to convey a message, feeling, or personal understanding of the world. Sometimes art has no point at all! Sometimes the only point of an artwork is to spark debate or to make you think. Some art calls on you to question yourself and doubt your beliefs or what you believe the world is about.

Art isn't just a visual experience, it's a mental and emotional experience. Some art isn't meant to be seen and appreciated for the great angle, but only understood. Our problem isn't that we're over-thinking art. The problem is that we aren't thinking at all.

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions. But sometimes all we need is a slight change in perspective to alter those opinions. If you get anything out of this news article, I hope it's that art is much more than a visual experience. It is a conversation between the viewer and the image. You can't understand a work if you don't try. Just like you can't continue a dialogue if you don't speak. The image has given you a statement. Now it is your turn to respond to it.

Thank you to all who read!
~Cat CatWoman4ever