Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Mephisto
The whole point here is that should be considered in its context, not simply the paint on the canvas. If that were not the case, artists like Pollack, Picasso, Mastisse, Kandinski, Milo etc would be thought of as simple "scribblers".
One has to consider what the artist is trying to say, what they want to communicate, the medium in which they work etc.
Some art may not appeal. Indeed, I don't like a lot of modern art myself (Damien Hirst is a good example), but that doesn't mean the artist is a con-man.
|
I supposed there are countless ways to examine art. For me there are two that matter. The first is on it's own merits, the second is the context in which it was created.
A cave man's paintings when compared to more sophisticated art (say a Rembrandt), would not so much be art on its own merits? But it is art in the context in which it was created. It was revolutionary. A major progression if you will. But would it be art if a modern (time, not style) artist were to go into a cave and paint a crude cow? My answer is no, yours might be yes. Art is always subjective.
So I look at that piece of blue. And I ask my self is it art on its own merits? I answer, no, it is just blue, a color test at best. Is it art based on the context of the time? No. It was not revolutionary. It was not
that original. Perhaps the artist was trying to challenge our notion of art. Perhaps he was protesting war. Who knows, it could mean anything because it says nothing. We want it to have meaning, but it says nothing. So we can accept what the critic or artist say it means or we can stubbornly insist is means nothing because it says nothing. I am stubborn. It means nothing, it says nothing. It is neither pretty nor did it require great skill to make. It is a fraud.
Of course, art is always subjective. To me it is a fraud, to that museum's curator, it is art.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Mephisto
I don't suppose I will convince you though. :-)
|
Correct. Nor will I convince you.