There is something off-putting about the phrase, "wall art," as two of my artist friends have acknowledged. Both Karen Jacobs and Maria Driscoll McMahon agreed with me on that. But why do we have bad feelings about the term? And how is the term actually being used out there in cyberspace?
I decided to take a sampling, and entered the search term "abstract wall art" in Google. I visited the websites of the first ten entries and found mostly mass-produced art that sold for under $100. I found nothing that sold for over $1,000. So, does that mean the term "wall art" equals "cheap"?
It may mean that for some, although it might also be a useful way to distinguish art that hangs on a wall when it isn't exactly a painting, a print, a photograph or a drawing. But perhaps "wall sculpture" might solve that one? Under that search term, I found wall sculpture, wall carvings, and wall relief sculpture. Here, the word "wall" made a useful distinction between art that sits on the floor or pedestal, and art that hangs on the wall.
Searching "wall art" again, one of the more fascinating entries I found actually looked at walls themselves as art:
"This exhibit features Wall Art - art that is transient.
The duration of a piece's existence is indeterminate.
The artist is often unknown.
The exhibit space is out in the open air, subject to the elements.
The medium, instead of being canvas, is architectural - brick, stucco, etc.
We have captured some of these pieces during their, possibly, short lives
and present them for your viewing pleasure."
Take a look at the website: Wall Art
What to conclude? As I said in my last entry, language is alive and always changing according to how people use it. We'll just have to keep our eyes on the evolution of the term "wall art."


