Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Should Art be Defined?

There are many forms of artistry. Film, painting, sculpture, acrobatics, dancing, etc... Some forms are not viewed by the public as "art" forms. Some, a few, are considered destructive - as in graffiti or tagging. I think that through time, some of these forms, have come out of accidents, that when viewed by some people, they viewed that display as "art." Only when it becomes popular, it is then that it is accepted by the majority of people. In the paleolithic and neolithic era, statues were created possibly, as a symbol of fertility, and representational of deities in those religions . As for the cave paintings they were assumed to have been created as recordings or documents of certain events by the people. I think those paintings and recordings were intentional and later viewed as a primitive form of art, but I think that they had developed or had made a certain style in the way they painted on the walls. Other examples of unintentional art would be from the class discussion - a rubbed stone that looks like a face, the virgin mary seen in a piece of toast, and doodling. In my opinion, art doesn't have to be "art" if it doesn't move you to a feeling of "enlightenment." I think if you observe a piece and whatever the feeling it provokes in you, then I consider that art. I I feel guilt, sadness, if I think it's "pretty," or ugly, if I am indifferent, or I draw a blank, or if I question if the piece is purposeful, because I don't like it, then I consider that art. Art is always moving and always changing because of the different ways it is perceived by different people.

No comments: