Schader entry 1

Should art be intentional and representational to be considered art? Well, I would have to say a little bit of yes and no. I think on some level all art is representational, whether it was meant to be or not. It may not have represented something in particular to the artist but it may look or represent something specific for the person looking at. As far as being intentional, sometimes things are created for a special purpose and then later become "art". Like an early civilization tool for building stuff. When it was created it was just serving as a tool but thousands of years later we come across it, and it's like wow...a cave man tool. Sometimes an artist has a certain mental picture of how they want their piece to turn out and before they know it the piece had taken on a whole new meaning. I would say that if that's the case then is the piece created intentional? No, not necessarily. As far as being representational, we have to look at the things around us everyday. If the Starbucks cups had McDonald's signs on them our day would just be all wrong. So for commercial or advertising purposes yes art does need to be intentional and representational. However, from just a regular Joe Schmo's point of view, it doesn't necessarily need to be either one. Art is what our eyes see on a day to day basis. It can be the way a certain painting looks, the way someone expresses them self with a particular hair-do, or the advertising on our TV. Art is a humans way of expressing their ideas, thoughts, feelings, and emotions in life. Sometimes we don't mean to express ourselves in the form of art, it just happens!