Some people splash paint on a wall and call it 'art', others take their time and make finely beaded costumes over twenty feet tall and call it 'art', the question is... what is 'art' really? Now please do not give the cop out answer of 'Art is in the eyes of the Beholder' since that does not define what art is or is not.
Yes, I hate the cop out answer. To me, art is something that adds beauty or something positive to the culture. Art is not degrading, though it can be in protest and offensive to some, it doesn't deliberately degrade or take away from the beauty of something. Art is not a down grade of nature, its another expression of it. Some art is ugly and some art is dull and some art is offensive. If its not deliberately degrading something then it can still be considered art because someone can find it beautiful. An animal cut up into pieces has no value. If I can see the same thing at a slaughter house, then what value does it really have? That type of thing is for science class, and is not art in my opinion.
QUOTE (konquererz @ 3-Sep 05, 7:10 AM) |
If I can see the same thing at a slaughter house, then what value does it really have? |
First of all, forgive me for repeating myself, I want to be sure that I am understood. Really art can be established in everything based on the person that refers to it as 'art'. I believe art is based on experience and persepctive, but mostly on what is considered beautiful enough to be treasured by the viewer. For instance there is 'ugly' art (see definition to follow), and for me it is not worthy of being hung on my wall, it just not appeal to me, it does nothing to help my self-esteem or imagination in a positive manner, but the same may not be true for someone else because of their experience and / or perspective it is considered something to be admired, viewed and pondered. Remember one can also come to appreciate art which is based on learning about the artist's perspective and purpose. Here is a simple example: if you saw a painting of just the color red splattered on a white background you may find it boring and not 'art', but if you learned it was made with the blood of Christ when he was pulled from the cross then it may suddenly have some kind of interest, value and beauty for you.
I have an achronym for art. A.R.T. -> Another Relative Timepiece
Art to me is a timecapsule; a piece that defines the moment of extreme feeling or perspective that one takes precidence on. It is over-dramatically inclined, and underdramatically represented in most cases. Middle ground in artistic representation is hard for me to imagine. If there is middle, it can only be half-way done.
I believe there is a loss in creativity and originality in today's art. So few times have I seen something that captivates completely with jaw-dropping effect. Those are the things that make me realize that there is life to live, and I know I'm not alone. So many wait for the next big thing to come about, as it did in historical artistic expression, but find ourselves lacking because this "next big thing" has roots in something that was already done.
Might be that I'm just beating a dead horse, but someone said everything important has already been said before. I'm just accentuating my point.