(no subject)

Mar 16, 2009 21:37

This past couple of days I've been having conversations about what distinguishes high art from low art, why the distinction might exist, and why I make the distinction.

Here's the main vein of the dialogue: artlanta: Just a suggestion, Atlanta

But really, why am I so driven to hold the line? I still don't think it's wrong for me to do so, but I have been thinking about why this issue exists, where it comes from.

Where does the meaning of an image come from?

Is the meaning subjective?

Is the value subjective?

If the value is subjective, then why are there some works whose value is more widely agreed upon? Doesn't that fact, that convention, provide evidence for some kind of fixed, objective value that rules over all imagery produced?

Why are Starry Night, Guernica, David, the Wave Off Kanagawa, and other world-famous pieces, well, world-famous?

For me, I think I hold the line because I don't want all my research, study, and handwork to be put on the same block as people who haven't invested as much time and effort as I have. It's an ego thing, but why not? I have spent more time to get where I am, which I would at least hope is a more sophisticated place than the lowbrow work.

Give me some thoughts, folks. Let's have a conversation about this! :)
Previous post Next post
Up