forced art

the general assumption is that art is a freedom of expression. or a form of expression. a medium in which we show our innermost feelings. art can also be regarded as a tool for communication. a tool to bring about a message we want the world to know, or only a target audience.

but what if art is forced?

what if we force ourselves to draw. to paint. to sculpt. what would it be then? would it be an expression? the only expression that comes to mind would be anger or boredom. but if thats the case would it still be art? i can only imagine the misshappened figures or drawings, distorted and contorted because the artist is too lazy to observe proportions. or the crazy lighting, due to the same reason.

but isnt that art? when is art NOT art then? when there is no meaning? or aesthetic value? in the case of andy warhol it is all about the aesthetic and not the meaning. whereas some contemporaries have a lot of meaning but little aesthetic. then again aesthetics are all opinionated. subjective.

so forced art is still art. not only because the word art is there but. where aesthetics and meaning come into play, i guess it still is.