Its been too long since I posted but when life doesn't give you time to think about school, things like this fall bythe wayside as well.
This debate is quite personal to me so answer long and honest and dont be afraid to comment on other peoples thoughts. But be gentle (i'm looking at you Matt!)
Can art truly be defined? Or what is art?
Kick Ass and Chew Bubble Gum
4 comments:
It appears to me that any one reading this question is afriad to answer it. So since my usual idea of using some one elses answer as a starting point is out the window I'll give it a shot.
Firstly I would like to say that this sounds suspicously like an essay question. Secondly I would like to say that it's a hard one.
Art in any of it's many forms is always a very personal thing. Much like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder.
For example, there is a very famous painting involving a white canvas and some coloured circles, which the majority of the world conciders art. I have a hard time acknowledging a peice that the ordanary man or woman could easily have produced as art. I have actually seen my nephew create very similar pieces when he was but a wee lad. Nor do I believe that a goldfish in a blender or fecal matter on a statue is art. However there are people who believe that all of the above mentioned things are art. Noticed that at this point i have only discussed static visual art, this does not even touch on living art (except maybe the goldfish). So what do I believe to be art, apart from the obvious mona lisa type stuff it is other things, a well lit room, a well placed tattoo, what I concider art is as undefinable as the concept of art it's self.
Yes there are techincal aspects that any student of art could rhyme off Form, Fuction, Mood, Theme, Line ETC these are but mere terms. terms that can be applied to the desk calander sitting before me as well as the Paintings Sculpters ETC of artists the world over. They mean little, unless applied with some type of emotion, and evoke a reaction; again the calander in front of me can do that, in a bad month at least.
Because of Art being such an objective mode of expression, there is no true way to define art that will be acceptable to how every one or even the majority of people will agree with. And I am certainly not quilified nor arrogant enough to apply my own opinion to a definition. Just because I don't like something or I don't concider it art, again the goldfish and poop, does not mean that people over and above the creator feel the same way i do.
And on top of that why is it that we listen to those who are qulified or arrogant enough to tell us these things. At what point did society as a whole begin to believe that Picasso was a genus. And why did any one change their opinion just because some hoity-toity, intellectual type said it was so?
This arguememt for me continues on to litarature, Living Art, Preforming Art, and just about every other form of personal expression one can think of. What one conciders art, beautiful, satisfying, heidous, and so one is personal, objective and as such beyond try definition.
Nita
It isn't art until someone says it is.
I know I'm late, but here goes anyway. I'm gonna expand off Nita, but I'm gonna get real pretencious about it (and 'apropriate' from a movie!)
Talking about art is like danceing about architecture. Spend six years painting a perfect black circle on a white canvas. Then you will know what art is!
oh, and I'm allllll out of gum!
Post a Comment