Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Intentional, Representational: What is art?

Intentional?   At first I was 100% sure that no, art does not have to be intentional, but the more I think about it the more I feel that yes, it should be, since I have never seen art which was not intended to be art.  I suppose you could argue that a child might just so happen to create a masterpiece, but I would imagine that the parents are the only people to truly think so.  In the case of natural occurrences of art I would need a real example, for is it the occurrence or is it what someone does with said occurrence in a public forum with the intention of displaying the work as art which makes it art?  I suppose there are some indigenous people that create art without intent in the strictest sense, but I can't say that I have seen it for myself.  I am not saying it's impossible, and I could be swayed with a legitimate example, but prepare yourself for a friendly debate.   

Representational?   I strongly feel that no, art does not have to represent anything to be considered art.  In the case of extreme minimalism I might think differently.  A blank canvas does nothing for me unless it is a part of a greater collective with something profound to say. Otherwise, I just think the artist is lazy, but maybe that's just me, the layman. 

What is art?  Like the other two questions, art is subjective.  It is whatever the individual person thinks art is. To some, Dog's Playing Poker is art.<span class=>
And I'm not saying it isn't!  I really don't think any limitations should be placed on art and what is considered art, because like I said, it's all subjective and really our opinions stem from our own personal they not?

1 comment:

Steve Wright said...

The dogs playing poker example is classic. And yes I think it is art.