Accidental Art

Professor: Rob Van Gerwen

Word Count: 1,925

American English

9 April, 2012

Analyzing “Accidental Art”

Giving the concept of “work of art” a set definition has proven to be a highly contested process amongst the ranks of art philosophers. Monroe Beardsley stated that its “usage is so variable that this task would prove a very difficult, and perhaps, impossible one.” Nevertheless, art philosophers have shied away from the challenge and have presented a multitude of definitions, each bringing their own flavor of what exactly art is.

This essay will explore the phenomenon known as “accidental art,” and attempt to give it a definition. Furthermore, I will establish that “accidental art,” should not be considered as a true form of art.

Consider a splatter of bright pink paint on a public street caused by the carelessness of a workman (figure 1). A passerby notices the blob and recognizes the distinct shape of a bird’s skull in the figure. The percipient is able to recognize the visual object as something aesthetically meaningful and considers its meaning. Perhaps it’s a symbolic reference of the millions of birds who succumb to traffic accidents each year, or it could be a vivid reminder to appreciate the minute details of life. Whatever the percipient may think one thing is certain: it was not the meaning of the creator, as there simply was none. If the percipient analyzing the blob of paint had the knowledge it was the result of an accident, would its inherent meaning be lost? Could it still be considered art?

In order to tackle this question, we must first set a clear definition for the premise of accidental art. It must meet two criteria. First, it must provide an aesthetic experience for the percipient. Second, it must have been created without the original intention of doing so.

Several notable examples have been accepted by the art world. One famous example came from a French artist who was in a heated brawl in his art studio. The dispute turned...