What is art? -- 2001-2002 Cultural Literacy Class Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:30:56 05/01/02 Wed
Author: LR
Subject: What is art?
In reply to: Alicia Calisto 's message, "20th century - Is it really art?" on 15:22:02 04/30/02 Tue

I remember looking at art when I was in grammar school, and unless it was something concrete, like in the Classical or Renaissance era, among others, I would hate it.

Perhaps that was just my ignorance showing through. Due to a recent trip, I have a fresher, more enlightened view of art, particularly modern art. Perhaps one can say that art has a distinct, purpose: to mean something to its audience. If it accomplishes that, then does it matter what the piece looks like? It is very possible that a simpler piece of artwork, like Munch's "The Scream," has the same if not more meaning to someone than an intricate piece, like Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights." And if the artwork means nothing, then does it truely make a difference whether or not it is of picture quality or three squares piled on top of eachother? I don't think so because it seems to me that art reflects the soul--thus, one could almost know a lot about a person simply by knowing what type of art they like.

In addition, many of the modern, more abstract artists were Classically trained and quite capable of producing artwork to rival that of the Renaissance or Baroque period. Thus, if they ELECTED to paint in a simplier, more abstract style, there must have been a reason. And hopefully that reason was something more than just to make money by doing something different from a camera. Thus, as long as art means something to someone, it is art, even if no one else can understand it. [Like that painting in the Metropolitan Museum of art that is simply a blue canvas and its blueness is supposed to "speak to you." ;-)]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]