Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Should art be intentional and representational ro be considered art?

I do not think art has to be intentional or representational to be art. I think that art is open minded in a way that allows for people to have an open and personal interpretation of any piece of art. Someone can easily begin creating a piece of art that has an exact purpose or has a deep personal meaning in their own mind, but others see it as something completely different; not acknowleding it as an art piece what so ever. All people view the world in a different and unique way, and artists create their artwork as a way to express their own views and feelings. This is the same process writers and musicians use. Which brings me to an interesting point, art is always being scrutinized and analyzed to declare whether it is "art." But when do you see a writer or musicians work being studied not to declare if it is good or bad, but to declare if it is made up of words and notes? Never. Art does not have to be a clear representation, because it can be a representation of emotions. Art does not have to be intentional, because you can express your emotions physically and not even intend on making a piece that someone would consider art. Art can also be accidental, which is an art piece in which has a creative expression that the artist did not mean to achieve or even something created in nature. An example of accidental art is posted above in a photograph of an old rusted truck.

1 comment:

Justine Schmidt said...

you are so inspiring :)