Ecoart; ecological art response

This reading really struck a chord...or maybe a little bit of a nerve with me. For many years now, I have felt like I have had to justify and defend the aesthetics of Ecoart along with a variety of experimental art/installations/non-canvas-and-oil artwork. I found myself muttering "yes!" and "exactly" while nodding vigorously. The article says "All in all, a constructive dialogue beneficial both to art and to sustainability can take place only when it is accepted that art has, ever since the start of Moderism, increasingly become a form of knowledge. Far from restricting itself to designing surfaces, art is involved in designing values, and increasing becoming a medium for exploration, cognition and for changing the world." The frustration is acute when I hear "That is not art!" And my question in return is "Who is the judge of what constitutes art?"

Once the basic skill set is learned for the creation of art, the development of the individual's art is up to the individual. I believe that artists also have an obligation to consider not only how their work physically impacts the environment (materials used and consumed and disposed of) but how the artist can impact the viewer. As an artist, it is tempting to present moralistic personal opinions. However, it becomes irrelevant if the viewer is alienated and defensive. To be able to present a concept that encourages thinking and contemplation is a difficult task. I really concur with the phrase, "...an area of theoretical and practical responsibility" (referring to Aesthetics of Sustainability). An artist to be responsible and congizant in all areas of the creation of art: the concept, the materials used (and disposal/reusing of byproducts and waste), where it is viewed and the impact on the environment and the viewer. I do believe that artists can (and should) try to make a difference.

Lois B