There has been a continuous debate over what defines art. I believe that art is something that arouses emotions. At the same time it is something that cannot have a concrete definition because “art is itself a phenomenon that by its nature defeats attempts to define it” (Wartenberg, 8). Nature is one of the purist forms of art. I have seen waterfalls, mountains, and sunsets that have literally taken my breath away. Many artists have tried to capture the beauty of nature in their own art which makes me object statements that do not classify nature as art. The artists intentions do not really matter, their emotions towards the finished product are important. Art is something that is used by many to express feelings. No one else needs classify a painting as art or good for it to define the artists. I agree that “art communicates emotion between a creator and an audience,” but I think that the creator can also be the audience. Since all humans are unique there is no way that judgments of art could ever be objective. “Marc’s taste is classical, he likes things classical, what do you expect … “ (Wartenberg, 4) Someone who appreciates classical art might find a picture with lines soothing. To that person it could truly be beautiful and represent calmness and piece. To someone else it could look like something that a 6 year old drew.
Art has changed drastically throughout history. Hegelian looked at art with a contextual approach where he focused on “a succession of stages of development realized in different historically and culturally specific contexts.” Art is an enormous classification; its range is so broad that even classifying types of art would be difficult. Following art as it has evolved with technology is a stepping stone to defining art. With the camera, then computer and now internet art has become more accessible allowing more people to become involved in its whirling network of people.
No comments:
Post a Comment