Quote:
Originally Posted by Oskatat  I read through most of the preceding posts, and there is one thing that i am missing. division. in all statements i have seen, all the things that make art an art in human view, are discussed, but on an and/and basis. in my opinion, art is a matter of popularity (nightwatch isnt the greatest painting), originaligy (pop-art, who would have thought of common objects as art) or skill (no example atm)
originality is a value determined by refering to other works of (accepted) art
popularity is valued in a head count, though that might be difficult in reality
skill is a value determined by specialists, mostly, and more subjective than others. some might argue that picasso had no skill
to accept the word art you have to accept that it is not a uniform concept, but multilayerd and subjective thing, that only has a meaning in a specific culture |
I tend to agree.
To be perfectly honest, in spite of my disdain for all forms of contemporary art, my own definition of Art is more flexible than my taste - Art is a product of human creativity that has a potential to affect at least some of us both sensually and intellectually, connecting with us in a meaningful (to us) way. In that sense, art value is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
Although deep in my heart I still believe that there is (or there should be) a huge difference between professional art and casual, amateurish "arts and crafts", I have to say the difference is not so huge. Being skilled with a particular medium or not being skilled does not really matter. The final product is still some sort of art, if intended as such. That is, if we are willing to admit that art, even inferior in our eyes, has intrinsic value, in addition to being in the eye of the beholder.
Not all pieces of Art are created equal in terms of skills, talent, invested time etc. Not all pieces of Art receive due attention from the public. Thousands of artists (and "artists") create their art according to established canons. Other thousands dedicate their lives to breaking these established canons in every possible way, sometimes with a quite undeserved financial success.
The canons are being broken all the time, just to form new ones that will become broken later. How to discern the "real" Art in this chaos?
Sometimes, people literally believe that something is "great" just because it is "common knowledge" or because they trust the esteemed opinions of "those who know better". According to "those who know better", a splatter on canvas is a piece of Very Fine Art. Yeah, the king is naked and lovin' it. I dare say a modest "arts and crafts" project can be more artistic and inspirational than all heaps of professionally crafted junk displayed in Le Centre Pompidou. But this is just my personal aesthetic perception. Apparently, another person's perception can be vastly different. Whose perception is true?
Actually, any junk can be art, if placed on display. I might look and say, 'that splatter is a splatter is a splatter is a splatter; just a silly splatter, for goodness sake, even if it is splattered by the Famous Splatterer Himself'. But someone else might look and have a life-altering experience. This person will assign value to what might seem worthless to me.
Linear Mode
