Friday, January 23, 2009

As for me, give me representational art and I’ll be happy!

Art doesn’t have to be representational to be considered art, but I do believe it should be intentional. defines ART as: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

People define art in many ways, but it requires the act of creation. To me, art is an action in order to create. So therefore it has to be intentional. A beautiful sunset is a natural occurrence, but till someone puts it on a canvas or photographs it, it is not art. The Grand Canyon is also a natural occurrence, but it requires action on the part of an artist or photographer to make it into art.
My personal preference is for art to be art it should be representational. I believe that abstract art can be beautiful, but it doesn’t represent anything to me. I can look at a Picasso and wonder what it is he is trying to convey to me, but give me a Norman Rockwell and I understand it immediately.
Art, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone sees things differently. My interpretation may or may not be what the artist is trying to tell me. If it is representational, then I understand it much better. There may still be a hidden meaning, but at least I see if for what it is. Abstract art can be confusing and I may not even begin to see what the artist is trying to show me.
As for me, give me representational art and I’ll be happy!

No comments: