Sunday, January 31, 2010

Should art be intentional and representational to be considered art?

There is no right or wrong answer to what people consider art to be. I think that art is interpreted and seen in various forms. I believe that everything around us is art. I also don't think that art has to be either intentional or representational in order to be considered art. Some of the greatest forms of art are unintentional and has no representation. Abstract art is a favorite of mine, just because you interpret it in your own manner. Each individual has lived and seen different things and because of it i think can make you see art in an individual way. Everything that surrounds us is a form of art to me. The snow and icicles that we have recently received are a form of art. The texture of each, the lengths and forms are a way of viewing and enjoying natures work of art. The way flowers brighten a day with their vibrant colors, the swaying of grass, the simple flow of a river or sea, a sunset, and so much more that is considered art to me without any part of it being man made. Art that is intentional and representational is very much a strong form of art. It has meaning, a story, and can portray knowledge of some sort. Like those in the beginning they started off by drawing in caves several images of animals and sculptures I can imagine that several of these images were to tell a story and teach their younger generations of what was safe to hunt and what would be dangerous to even approach. Making this type of art representational and with an intention. To conclude though i dont think that art has to be intentional or representational in order for it to be considered a piece of art work; and as for a solid definition of what art is i believe that there really isnt one.

No comments: