Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Art: is it representational and intentional?

As an artist myself, I believe art has no rules or boundaries except the basic principals of design and of course the elements of art (color, line, space, texture, balance, etc.) Art has no set rules such as it must be "representational" because art is a liberating way of expressing ones self, you can not constrain art with rules because it is so personal. Art is captured emotions, and the depiction of fears. Art is a way to portray the struggles of life, and a way to deal with the unknown. It is more than the motor skills of creating the art itself, it is the essence of the soul bound to a physical object. So protesting that a work of art is in fact not art because it does not directly represent an object...is just simply ridiculous. This same idea about "art having no rules" is also true for the idea that art has to be intentional. An example of how art dosen't have to be intentional are the Paleolithic cave paintings. The purpose of these paintings are not known, yet it is believed that these were not originally created for creative expression but for transmitting information or religious purposes. Yet in history, these cave paintings are some of the earliest forms of ART recorded. Art is more than the "ideal beauty" on canvas, it is the expression of the human soul. Art has no rules or boundaries,shows no rejection to ugliness, and is always open for personal interpretation.

No comments: