This made me wonder about what Dickie meant when he said that "every person who sees himself as a memer of the artworld is thereby a member." Perhaps we have been taking what he meant just a bit too literally. Maybe it is not just the people who walk into a museum and look at art that are suddenly part of the art world; they are just viewers, the art "IS" for them, but they are not necessarily considering themselves as sudden critics of the artworld. Instead, just as artists have to have an intention when creating a work (as many philosophers think), maybe so to do viewers have to have the intention of "open[ing] their minds [to] learn" when they enter a museum--viewers must want to learn something, or at least be introduced to something new, when viewing works of art.
I like how Natalie mentions that, "Perhaps Dickie opens up these possibilities as a way of sharing art with the world...The art is not meant to please others, but a majority of the time art is created with the intention of having an audience. The audience is the entire world. Anyone who is willing to look or listen."
Art cannot be appreciated or understood if there is no one "willing to look or listen." Surely, the artist can simply create anything with no intention, but even when they have simply thrown colors on an easel, there can be some sort of (subtle or abstract as it may be) meaning behind those colors and the way they bleed down the paper. And then if it winds up in an exhibit, the intention and meaning can evolve out of that simply splattering of paint.
A JACKSON POLLOCK PAINTING IS, ESSENTIALLY, JUST PAINT SPLATTERINGS; BUT THIS ARTIST HAS BECOME FAMOUS FOR HIS SPLATTERINGS AND THEIR MEANINGS
Natalie continues, "Art may be for the entire human population to view or listen to, but that does not mean that everyone who views a certain art work is a part of the art world. When we think about it the entire world is not educated in how to understand art." I agree that it's true that not everyone should be considered a part of the artworld; I disagree, however, that one must be educated in order to understand art. Anyone can get an emotion or thought from viewing a work of art, and, I believe this is an understanding of the work; it is only when one CRITIQUES art that they should be educated in order to be able to realize the meanings behind the way the colors, textures, etc. come together to portray a certain (perhaps intended) meaning.
Do you agree with my reasoning behind these separations of simple viewers who appreciate and understand as opposed to the educated critics?
No comments:
Post a Comment