Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Should art be intentional and representational in order to be called art?

Should art be intentional?In my opinion the answer would be no.Take for example drawings placed on cave walls...A way to convey a story of a hunt,food source,clothing,lifes bare essentials of the time.And I believe as of yet they have no proof of any written language for that period in time.A long time has passed since stone age man left his mark on the world,the one modern day man claims to be art,but given chance for rebutle I would like to think cave man would say this was his lesson of survival.

Should art be representational?Whats that old saying"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...within there lies the conundrum.Who are we to say that what someone else sees or is moved or not moved by a piece of art is wrong or right.One person may find the very meaning to life in a piece of art that another person may consider to be the first thing going out the door on garage sale day.Take for example what most consider waste,i.e trash....old cans,bottles,toilets,hub caps...etc.,well some people see art in garbage and I would bet I am not the only one who has layed eyes on a "garbage" statue or who may have gotten a glimpse via TV of peoples homes made out of bottles and old tires.Another of my favorites for this topic,paint splattered,brush flinging thing they call abstract art.....nothing moves me more than art that looks like a 3 legged dog could have made.On the other side of the coin is graphic art,media art,portraits and the list goes on.With out these forms of art being representational,well what would be the point....could you sell me a new car with a paint splattered page and no words or pictures,yeah..good luck with that.

No comments: