Photography, painting, music, and writing all fall under the domain of creative art, and therefore, are covered by the term "artistic license." According to Wikipedia (not exactly recognized as the final or most accurate word on such discussions) artistic license is:
- Entirely at the artist's discretion
- Intended to be tolerated by the viewer (cf. "willing suspension of disbelief)
- Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps
- Used consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally or in tandem
This question also came to my mind when I read a scathing review in one of the national news sources about how pathetic the currently popular British television series Downton Abbey was as a fictional series. The reviewer felt it was not historically accurate enough to portray the time period and the dangers of such a class system. I view it as a wonderful soap opera and do not need all the realism of that time to enjoy the series. Yes, there was more disease, dying, poverty and cruelty during that era, but I just want a good story with interesting and stable characters. Let the writers take their artistic license.
After all, art is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. The result being that I am amazed at what passes for art these days and how people compete to spend money on it. But as was discussed in a New York Times article, the satisfaction of being the highest bidder gives more credence to the artwork than the actual enjoyment of the artwork.
Is Damien Hurst really an artist?
Or is this collaborative project actually a form of art at this museum ?
What about Isaac Layman and his photography?
Or this, the worlds most expensive photograph?
All of the above brings me to the big sigh about those artists who were never recognized by any marketing machine and are lost in time. Street artists whose art appears and disappears daily, women artists who worked as nannies and died in poverty with their photographic art destroyed, soldiers whose writing was lost in the dust of battle. Does it have to have an appreciative eye or ear to be art? I do not believe that it does. It just has to have the passion and soul of the artist.