A Thought:
The problem with criticism of art is that it tries to create objective ways of judging art. We have yet to develop any truly effective systems, and thus we end up obscuring what's actually good art in favor of what merely seems like good art.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Yes, I agree that people can have an instinctual sense of aesthetics, but how does that explain the real BAD, tasteless art that there is out there? This sub-conscious theory of art has not stopped people from embracing artwork radical qualities to embrace in art. Many people blame the art critics for shaping what we see as
There were different movements which idealized certain qualities in art.
Some philosophers believed in a "hierarchy of the arts": to some architecture was the purest form of art, to some sculpture.
To some, art was a means to transcend our fake world and to achieve true spiritual freedom.
Others believed that art had a purpose in shaping society, as in Plato's Republic, or fascist art, for example.
Some believe that the best art clearly expresses emotion. Others believed art should be inspired by nature. I could go on...
Overall, it seems to me that although there are exceptions, people fundamentally prize the following qualities in art:
1. It has to serve some purpose.
2. Originality
3. General tastefulness
4. Overall pleasing to the eye
But is it a bad thing that we all judge art differently? I’m not so sure I think so…
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment