Had a good conversation about this today (though if it had a fault, it may have been a little one-sided).
As I mentioned in my other blog, we've been watching Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" video series. Today we went over the ages of Non-Reason (post-Renaissance) and Fragmentation (post-Non-Reason). Included in this were artists like John Cage, whose art was more anti-art, more philosophical statement than art, really (imo).
What is art? Can it be anything we say it is? Are there standards? Is it solely based on subjective opinion?
A friend of mine said this: "I kinda figure that if I could do it, then it's not art."
I know another guy who believes that art is really anything we claim it is.
Dictionary.com says this:
"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."
"The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group."
"High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value"
Merriamwebster.com says this:
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art"
It seems, based on these definitions, that art should contain the following:
- a conscious effort
- skill
- creativity
- beauty
- aesthetic value
I've been in some modern art museums where every few exhibits I thought, hmmmmmmm...what the HECK is that? And how the HECK did it make its way into a museum? Maybe I was just missing something...
I understand the need to push limits--it sometimes leads (eventually) to great new ideas, but wow it can result in some crap along the way.
I really think, however, that the next great thing in art will still follow the definitions above. Don't we have to WANT to look at it for it to truly last?
No comments:
Post a Comment