(Untitled)

[boomerama_llama]

dear everyone...

WHAT DOES ART MEAN TO YOU??

some of the responses will be in my magazine im making for AP english...
so please reply...
much love,

kenzi

Comments

[thin_mint]

On a most basic definition, art is an interpretive and intentional form of self-expression. To say art is interpretive is to imply that the audience of a work of art is able to receive something from the piece of art, be it emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually. The audience is affected by the work in a stimulating way that can be extremely individualized. That is, art must be able to provide its audience (or viewer) with the ability to draw from it something significant to each person. Two people may look at Munch’s The Scream and take from it two very different aspects. One may be affected and intellectually engaged by the piece by the execution of the painting and its significance among the art world, while another may be completely engrossed in the emotional reaction to it. Art allows for room for personal experience and interpretation as to how to receive it. To properly interpret art, though, one must be soundly versed in the specific field of art. Entertainment often lacks this field of interpretation. Its meaning may be so rigid as to not let an individual react to it uniquely. Also, one need not be as well educated in the field of the work to be able to understand entertainment thoroughly. A certain degree of understanding and education separates appreciation of art and entertainment.

Second, it is important to discuss intention. An artist must have intention to create art. The artist has an intended purpose and meaning behind the work that is apparent in the piece. This creates a duality of artist’s intention and personal interpretation. Without intention of meaning, or the intention to create art, something meaningful may be created, but its meaning can only then be ascribed purely by the audience. Thus, the creator has no input into the significance or meaning, and it becomes a piece of social artifact - reflecting the view of society over the creator’s - rather than art. Entertainment needs much less intention from the creator. Entertainment is meant to fulfill and satisfy the audience and has no considerable meaning given to it by the creator of the work. Its intention is to simply create entertainment.

Similar to intent is the need for self-expression. Art is a reflection of the artist, or of something the artist wishes to express. This could be seen as the root of art, in general. Without expression, there is no innate intention to create art or meaning, nor is there anything for the audience to interpret. The artist’s choice and subject of expression can be limitless - as seen in the wide variety of performance arts to classic paintings and pieces of music. Each piece of art was a vehicle for the artist to express something - from beauty to hate to anger to love to God. While an artist’s intent is more intellectual in nature, expression resides more in the purposeful and sincere release of the soul and emotion. Entertainment can be discerned by a notable lack of expression. Often it is created purely for monetary purpose and reflects very little of the creator. Even if expression is found in a piece of entertainment, it may be unintentionally placed in the work or an insincere reflection of often clichéd sentiment.

By this definition of art, both the creator and audience become the judges of what is and isn’t art. If the creator of the work does not have any intention to create art, nor any intention of meaning or expression within it, the work cannot be presented by the creator as art, and as such, the audience cannot proclaim it to be art. Something may have artistic quality, but there needs to be intent. As previously mentioned, to be a reliable judge of art, the audience must be at least adequately educated in the field that the work is in. This being said, the audience that judges what is art or not is generally the art community itself. The art community has been educated and experienced in art, and they are the best to judge what is and what isn’t art - though naturally, personal disagreement will undoubtedly arise among the art community itself, but it is invariably the artist and this educated audience that is the judge as to if a piece is or is not art.

essay cont.

[thin_mint]

The differentiation between good and bad art is a matter of personal interpretation, impact and taste. Once it has been established that a work is a piece of art, it is then up to the individual to judge it’s “quality” for his or herself. Every person will be impacted differently by art, and this impact turns into the basis of such a judgment. This judgment is highly personal and will vary form person to person. Being educated in the field of the specific art will allow the person to be more precisely able to judge the quality of art. It is interesting to note, though, that consensus among the art community can create a persuasive force into whether or not a piece is good or bad that is then followed by individuals more or less generally. That is, if the art community unanimously praises a piece that strikes many individuals as not high quality, the individuals may begin to question their own judgment in light of the community’s declaration. There is an undeniable tendency to conform to the larger group, particularly when one knows the larger group is more educated in a certain topic than one is. So, an individual’s interpretation of good or bad art may be swayed by a larger, more knowledgeable body’s interpretation.

[boomerama_llama]

thanks dood.
you ROOL teh cool

[thin_mint]

my pleasure!
and yes, I know I do...lol

[boomerama_llama]

fo shizzle.