Things That Are Not Art but Are Consered Art
The nature of creativity
Recently I engaged in a conversation with a swain alumnus of the University of Kansas' School of Fine Arts, and we spent fourth dimension comparison what we understood and appreciated about fine art, both as creators and followers. Nosotros asked the question "what is fine art" and "what is not art" and debated the answers. I enjoyed this chat a great bargain, but realized we were diametrically opposed in what we accepted art to be and tried to accomplish equally creators. I recognized some opinions and philosophies as a product of his pedagogy as a KU art student, just shook my head in disbelief at the artistic psychobabble he embraced with such passion. The conversation provided the impetus to question the nature of creativity and reexamine what I believe near fine art. This article is meant only to pose questions and offer opinions—not supply answers.
The splendor and magnificence of art
Standards for the classification of art
What is art? Defining fine art and judging the quality of fine art have been the preoccupations of human beings for millennia. The New Webster's Lexicon defines fine art as "the utilise of the imagination to make things of aesthetic significance." Wikipedia probes farther and tells us art is the "process or production of deliberately arranging elements in a way to bear upon the senses or emotions." This leads to the question of establishing objective criteria for defining fine art. Is art a procedure or a result? Does an inherent connection exist between art and beauty? Is art anything we say it is? Is it intended to be appreciated or enjoyed? Should information technology have a office across its appreciation?
Richard Wollheim, a British philosopher known for his work on heed and emotion relating to visual arts, defined art relative to iii approaches: the Realist arroyo, establishing aesthetic qualities as absolute while independent of human view; the Objectivist approach, which defines aesthetic qualities as absolute just dependent upon human view; and, a Relativist position which asserts that fine art is non absolute but incorporates the human feel.
Applying this information to my personal beliefs, I tin accept aspects of Wollheim's three classifications of fine art. I struggle most with the Realist perspective. I tin accept the aesthetic beauty of the universe and nature equally absolute while remaining contained of human view, merely I struggle to take anything man-made as intentionally Realist. Michelangelo's "David" meets the strict criteria of a Realist arroyo—its artful qualities are accented and timeless. However, this magnificent statue was certainly created to evoke a human being experience. Vincent Van Gogh's melancholy "Crows over the Wheat Field," for instance, swallows the viewers in its intensity, intentionally or not. The idea of art contained of homo view puzzles me on some levels and leads to the question of what is achieved through the act of creating a cartoon or painting? I have been baffled by artists who claim they create only to satisfy a physical need. Physical experience as the only goal excuses the creator from coming together any type of artistic standard. I was scolded at a lecture I attended as an fine art student when I suggested to the visiting creative person that if his only purpose in painting was for a physical experience, he should endeavor button-ups instead. His lengthy lecture and slide testify revealed that his art existed for other reasons; he desired it exist seen, or he wanted admiration or notoriety. Mayhap he wished to be paid for his work. If his sole purpose was to piece of work up a sweat, there was never a demand for his paintings to see the low-cal of solar day.
I remain convinced that art serves a higher purpose than concrete gratification, and that purpose is connected with the viewer and subsequently embraces an Objectivist perspective. The purpose seemingly involves a grade of language—a means to create shared meaning. A 2nd goal might exist to create beauty; a 3rd would involve earning coin. These reasons and many others are all valid and dependent on the viewer's experience. The utilitarian design of objects for utilize or consumption, such every bit a chair or article of clothing, would seem to reverberate a Relativist approach—its artistic success is inexorably connected with the human experience.
Are these purposes valid? While I belittle at many of the justifications painters employ for their art to be as it is, there are certainly reasons I accept. Art as a product created without pretentiousness or cosmic rationales in exchange for money makes perfect sense to me. Artists might non create to make money, but existence paid for their efforts becomes a valid reason to create. Why put a price tag on a piece hanging from a gallery wall or offer students a scholarship to encourage continuation of their piece of work? It is an incentive to create.
Creating beauty is another acceptable rationale if the beauty is 18-carat. My appreciation for so-called "calendar art" is based on the realization that it is nice to look at and is oftentimes quite beautiful. Being pleasing to the eye is its reason to be, and the labor of painting serves the cease result, not the other fashion around. This rationale can be obscured by subjective definitions of beauty, but hearing "I know what I like when I see it" from patrons typically encompasses an appreciation of beauty that stems from shared meaning.
It is what information technology is
What is Not art? It is more difficult to apply an objective standard for defining art past identifying what is not fine art. For example, I strenuously object to the concept that art is annihilation its creator wants it to be, simply many hold fast to this belief. It is my opinion that a framed sheet of notebook paper is non art just because a "creator" states that information technology is—how we view the sheet of notebook paper is besides a consideration. In a critique as a college educatee, a classmate generated fifteen minutes of conversation apropos the nature of art by hanging a calendar upside down. The artist knew he could capture the imagination of the class with his pseudo-intellectual ramblings. The same rules didn't apply a calendar week later when I proudly presented a Woolworth's "spring clearance" window sign with auto wax applied to it. My creation was repulsive and my annunciation that it was equally much art as the calendar hung upside down was rejected. I was ridiculed past my peers equally I defiantly contended they proved my bespeak for me: my assertion as its creator that my car-waxed sign was art was insufficient because no i else accepted information technology equally art.
What are NOT valid reasons to create? Artists sometimes claim they don't need a reason to produce art, but I am uncertain how the creative procedure sustains itself without a motivating strength. Some seem convinced they are an elemental force, painting considering nature abhors a vacuum. I laugh at such chatter, recognizing that our planet is full and rich with natural beauty which ceaselessly captivates our listen and senses if we are attuned to it. In a globe of magnificent perfection, I never discover or sense the vacuum they speak of and consider it delusional for artists to believe they are creating beauty because it is lacking.
I consider repetition a poor reason to paint. As artists build a series of works forth the same theme, I question the need for multiple paintings that await essentially the same. Why have vi paintings instead of only one? I empathize that it sometimes takes more than one endeavor to attain a item combination of skill and expertise culminating in the solution to an creative problem. My question is why the earlier paintings are kept. If their final painting solved their creative quandary, what purpose do their earlier efforts still serve? As a collection or series, they lack inventiveness and simply recapitulate what has already been stated with varying levels of success. I is enough.
Negativity is a poor reason to create. I take personally used negative feelings and emotions to create, but negativity is not the point. If my purpose is to work through negative experiences or emotions, I feel obliged to communicate something positive in the stop—to make experiencing my piece of work part of an up trend. If I projection negativity and inflict information technology on others it might be creative, merely is it art?
What practice y'all believe?
Every bit promised, I accept asked questions and offered opinions just. No answers to the questions of what is and is not fine art have been forthcoming. I pose this question to you: have you lot ever seen a painting or sculpture and exclaimed, "THAT'S Non ART!" If so, why did yous feel this style? Was it ugly? Did it evoke negative feelings from you? Did it seem amateurish? What made yous decide that what someone considered fine art wasn't?
Source: https://letterpile.com/personal-essays/What-is-Art-What-is-Not-Art
0 Response to "Things That Are Not Art but Are Consered Art"
Post a Comment