By Jonathan E. Himlin

During the course of writing my Publisher’s Note in the September/October 2007 issue, I posed this question: Does creating art always demand talent, or can someone with little or no skill make a living as an artist simply on his or her ideas?

Perhaps you’ve heard of the work of artist Felix Gonzalez-Torres. I read about him in a magazine earlier this year when one of his “wrapped candies” displays was being exhibited at a New York gallery. Gonzalez-Torres’ displays use simple everyday items—candy, cube-like stacks of paper or 15-watt frosted light bulbs, for example—and invites viewers to take a piece of the display with them. This particular piece was comprised of thousands of individually-wrapped black licorice pieces, which were piled a few feet high into one corner of the room. The candy, gradually being consumed by viewers, was periodically replenished by the curator in order to maintain a seemingly unending supply.

Gonzalez-Torres, who died of AIDS in 1996 at the age of 38, has influenced many emerging artists since his death. His work is said to investigate methods of distribution, process and audience participation, but was most often political in nature, speaking to human mortality and the search for a cure for AIDS. His art represents the act of sharing his ideas and his art, literally, with anyone who wanted to take a piece of it with them.

Several works by Gonzalez-Torres were chosen to represent the United States in the 52nd International Art Exhibition at the 2007 Venice Biennale.

While much thought and creativity was obviously put into Gonzalez-Torres’ work, and much notoriety gained as a result, the level of artistic talent employed still remains in question, does it not?

I recently visited a gallery in Virginia that was featuring a landscape-themed exhibition of works from various regional and national artists. I happened upon an exhibit by an artist from New York that was made up entirely of Scotch tape. The piece used hundreds and hundreds of pieces of Scotch tape that were looped and stuck together in a seemingly random but continuous pattern covering about 100 square feet of floor space. It was supposed to represent a miniature topography… hundreds of tiny little hills, bumps and mountain ranges, all made from tape.

I wasn’t allowed to take any photographs of the Scotch tape topography exhibit, as I was advised that it was against the artist’s copyright to do so. Then I learned that the artist didn’t even install the piece, but instead provided instructions to the gallery via email on how the piece was to be created. The gallery’s staff actually used the instructions to loop, fold and place the tape, literally creating the piece for the artist.

Is this “conceptual art” a legitimate art form? Are great ideas made into art worthy of the same notoriety given to the work of great painters and sculptors? Or do these types of art displays that can be executed by anyone with little or no talent represent some lesser form of art?

I once saw a man on TV pouring buckets of paint into a jet engine, which propelled it in splatters onto a huge canvas located behind the jet. He would pour different colors into the engine and move the canvas to vary the application of the paint. But can the resulting work claim to have an ounce of artistic talent? I’ve also heard of someone putting paint on the paws of their pet dog or cat and having them walk on a canvas. Are these ideas, while perhaps original, legitimate ways to create art?

What about Jackson Pollock’s abstract expressionist paintings? True, he was a pioneer who challenged conventional processes and tools, developing a new way of putting paint onto a canvas. But do his dripping and pouring techniques require talent? Are his works just a random collection of colored lines and paint beads, or was there a method, and skill, to his process?

Does art require talent? I think the answer is not necessarily. Perhaps it is fair to say that art exists whenever its creator says it does. But good art is in the eye of the beholder.