It is hard for one to define art, even though it is usually obvious to one what is art. I believe that art is that which we can label as having a greater significance after observation by aesthetic principles. There are certain qualities and criteria an art critic will look for; these can be culturally, personally, and socially biased. Not to say that art is subjective, only the person's perception of the art. A work can be considered art without necessarily appearing as such to each and every observer. If that were the case, than a vast majority of the younger population could declare Mozart no longer a valuable composer as all his symphonies are not art, and their four-chord-progression screaming would be the new high art. Thus, art cannot be subjective to either one person or a group of people. However, art is still observable by those who can find, aesthetically, a greater significance in the work. Once they find something pleasing that elevates the work higher than just the ordinary, it has the potential to be considered artwork. However, just because it is aesthetically pleasing does not make it art. Art also has to exist on some level of intellect; it has to provoke thought at some level. Without this, it stops being art, and simply becomes entertainment. So those are my criteria for art: it cannot be subjective, it has to have a greater significance than the ordinary, it has to be aesthetically pleasing or displeasing, and it must provoke some level of thought.
Why might be other definitions of art that contradict this definition?
No comments:
Post a Comment