I wholeheartedly agree that in order to give the art world respect, it is essential to differentiate, not specifically between what is good or bad, but what is and isn’t art. Looking back to my first post, I definitely do NOT consider a urinal a piece of art by any means, signed by an artist or not. Picasso and Warhol’s paintings, though, took talent and study in order to come to their final formulation. “Skill of the artist” in my opinion is definitely one of the best, if not the best, ways to decipher an artwork’s quality. Looking to Cage’s 4’33, I agree that if Cage hadn’t been predetermined as an expert in his field that no one would have given such a ‘contemporary’ work a second look; certainly if I tried to entire the music world with a purely silent piece, people would dismiss my work and likely call me crazy!
I disagree, however, with the statement that “art in its basic form is something that the artist intended to use as a mode to move you in some way.” I think that oftentimes, an artist doesn’t set out to create a great work; many a time, stunning pieces are a result of improvisation or a sudden inspiration. And art shouldn’t have to move any audience. Isn’t it true that many artists create their work just to get out or explore their own emotions and that the piece wasn’t even originally intended to be shared with anyone?
And with Davion’s last point, I agree that more often than not majority rule is the ultimate deciding factor of what makes a work ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Certainly, a museum isn’t going to keep a work displayed or a theatre continue showing a performance that no one appreciates; and yes, this undoubtedly, but unavoidably, limits the world of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment