Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Should art be intentional and representational to be considered art?

Art is a way to express yourself. Not only that, but art creates a way to look at the world differently than you have before. I enjoy art because it provides an outlet for creativity and the chance to use all kinds of mediums (charcoal, paint, pencil, etc.) to recreate something unique. Basically, art provides a way to stretch yourself in new, creative ways that are limitless. I love art!
I do not believe art should be limited to being representational and intentional. Even in Paleolithic art we see art that is not exact but expressive. Even during that time period art had meaning behind it. Yes, it was intentional and probably represented something in their culture, but it was also expressive and constructed in a unique way. So often art is a personal undertaking; sometimes the message being portrayed through the art won’t mean anything to anyone else except for the person who made the piece. I think many incredible pieces of intentional art have been created, but even those have an element of abstraction, because a person will never be able to duplicate or recreate something into its original form exactly. There will always be a level of distortion. People have an awesome opportunity through art to create and I don’t necessarily think that should be limited to representational and intentional works. I, personally, prefer art that is representational, but I also appreciate the opportunity to experiment with more abstract pieces. In saying this, I think art should be open to many different forms whether it be abstract or intentional. This is what helps encourage creativity and promotes art to be approached from all sorts of angles.

No comments: