Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Does art need to be intentional or representational to be considered art?

To approach this question with any validity I think we first need to define art. Websters Dictionary defines art as "the use of skill or imagination in the production of things of beauty; also works so produced". Beauty of course is defined as "qualities that give pleasure to the senses or exalt the mind". By these very definitions I feel it's safe to say that work has to be neither intentional nor representational to be considered art. It becomes a question of whether or not it strikes a chord or appeals to an individual. Some people have paid large sums of money to hang Andy Wharhols picture of soup cans on their wall or own human excrement canned by one french "artist", neither of which appeal to me. I , on the other hand have a facination for vintage guitars, James Trussarts steelcasters amaze me. But of course some people would just see another guitar. I think it all comes down to individual taste.

No comments: