Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless_Hyena
after thinking about this for a while, it occurred to me that maybe we've been talking about (at least) two different kinds of art -- art which is stunning to the senses (like great visual art), and art that's stunning to the mind. does anyone follow me?
you can look at a painting, and just be amazed at the art in it's form. or listen to a tune and think wow that's incredible. or you could consider the blue painting, or listen to 4'33", and think about the effect it has on its audience. while all good art in any form usually has a profound effect on its audience anyway, it seems to me that there's a kind of art that focuses more on the audience, than the actual work of art itself...
|
I think you have a great point. One that I have been struggling to communicate, but that you have described perfectly.
Art does
not have to be just "nice pictures" (a la Rembrandt, Whistler, David etc), or even just "impressionistic" (a la Monet, Degas, Pissaro etc).
What about the abstract impressionist art of Pollack? Surely that does not constitute "bad art", does it?
Mr Mephisto