The Art and their Artists
What is Art? This question
often pops up every now and then, and has an infinite amount of answers. There
are many disputes that art can’t be defined. We could go about this in more
than a few ways. Art is often considered the progression of intentionally
arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses and/or emotions of human
beings. It incorporates a diverse range of human foundation, creation and ways
of expression, which consist of music, literature, film, and a lot more
different ways. The meaning of art is explored in different ways; one is
philosophy that can also be known as aesthetics. At least, that’s what
Wikipedia claims.
Art is generally understood
as any activity done by people with a communicative or emotional
purpose—something that expresses an idea, a deep emotion or, more generally, a
world view. It is a component of culture, reflecting economic and social
substrates in its design all throughout history. It transmits ideas and values
inherent in every culture across space and time. Its role changes through time,
acquiring more of an aesthetic component here and a socio-educational function
there.
Everything that’s been said has elements
of truth but also opinion. According
to Wikipedia, “Art historians and philosophers of art have long had classification disputes about art regarding whether a particular cultural form
or piece of work should be classified as art.”
The definition of art is still open, still idiosyncratic,
and still questionable. There is no agreement among historians and artists (and
there may never be), which is why we’re left with so many definitions of art. The concept itself has altered and
transformed many time over the centuries.
The very notion of art continues today to
stir disagreement among the art lovers and artists alike, with being so open to
multiple interpretations in different views. It can be taken simply as any other
human activity, or with any set of rules would be needed to develop an activity
so complex. This concept is beyond what is normally understood as the “arts”. The
word has many other colloquial uses as well.
Is most Modern Art not
really Art?
While
the definition of art has changed so many times over the years, the field of
art history has developed to allow us to classify changes over time and to
better understand how art shapes the surrounding world that environs us and is
shaped by the creative whims and urges of artists.
Over the Internet, I did an anonymous (some users did have an
account and had their usernames on the comment) debate online on a site called www.debate.org and when I had spent about two week
monitoring it. I have equated the votes and 39%
say yes while 61% say no.
One comment assumed, “Modern Art is Effortless to Create. I
don't see how modern art is art at all. Throw some lines, some color together,
and hooray, you've got yourself a modern art masterpiece. Now you sell it for a
couple of hundred thousand dollars. Sure, modern art is art. It just isn't real
art. It's the art for people who does whatever other people does, likes
whatever other people likes, and doesn't have a taste in art at all. Modern art
is bad art. It's a shame what the once-beautiful world of art has turned into
nowadays.”
Another had a similar opinion, “It is not Art is a medium
through which an artist can express an idea, either his or her own or a greater
idea. Specifically looking at abstract art (assuming that is what is meant
specifically when criticizing modern art); the work is too far removed to
properly express the artist's intentions. Another aspect, which although is
less significant is a symptom of the problem, is human intention. To my
knowledge, no formal studies have been conducted but I would be interested in
seeing the results of studies in which, for example, kindergarten paintings are
compared to those of Jackson Pollock, an influential American painter and a
major figure in the abstract expressionist movement. The subjects, who are ideally not supposed
to have a great background on the artist, are to then identify to the best of
their abilities the one that was done by the latter.”
But some did disagree. They say things like “Modern art is
still art because it is simply organization of the arts” Or “Art can be
anything from a painting to a crumpled piece of paper as long as it represents
something.”
Someone had answered my question in a very thoughtful way,
“Let's assume "modern art" refers to the evolution of abstract work
from the 1860's to around the 1970's. With that is mind, there is no doubt modern
art is considered "real" art. The problem is people define
"art" by what they understand and what they find aesthetically
appealing. This shouldn't be the case. If modern art isn't a form of art, great
works by Picasso, Dali, and Van Gogh wouldn't be considered art. Even far
extreme abstract painters like Jackson Pollock should be given recognition to
their work. The result of the painting is just as important as the process.
Whether a person likes realism or abstract art is irrelevant. Art should be
unique, and as a result it will appeal to certain people. To say one piece or
one artist defines all of modern art is fallacious.”
Art is ever changing in the future we will look back on the
art of 2000 or even and think "that
is true art, all the so called art we have now is garbage". Every
generation looks down upon the world in a different way, whether it is art,
music, or society itself. Art will never be the same, it is always adapting to
the times.
·
Sources
·
Images
o Image 1- Photograph taken by Kaitlyn
Robinkoff, Artist Unknown
o
Image
2- Photograph taken by Kaitlyn Robinkoff, Artist
Scott Marr
o Image
4- Photograph was taken off online
