Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Does art have to be intentional or representational?

I think art should be intentional but not necessarily representational. In the making of art I think it should be the intention of the artist to be creating something. I do think that when someone is creating something and happens to do something that is unintentional in their process that makes the piece, than that to me is still considered art. It just has to be the intention in the first place. In my opinion art does not have to represent anything to be considered art. My definition of art is anything that was intentionally created by someone. Regardless if it does not look like art to anyone else it is to the artist, therefore it is art. Say you find a rock or a tree that is beautiful or has a certain characteristic that makes it beautiful that does not make it art but say you draw or paint or even take a picture of it then that is art because there was the intention of creating something. For example this picture was taken because of the face in the trees and it is beautiful but it was not art until someone took the picture of it and called it art.

When a child is scribbling on construction paper with crayons that is art to them and to their parents. Just because some people see it as art does not mean other people do not. Though most art is representational in some way, even maybe the mood that created it but it is not something that has to be.

No comments: