home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- subject = philosophy
- title = can we debate art?
- papers = Can we debate
- art? When I first began thinking about this topic, it seemed as if
- it was
- a fairly simple subject. Of course we could debate art, critics and the average
- citizen have done it
- for years debating over which pieces are their favorites.
- As I began to think
- about the subject and received feedback from the class,
- this topic became infinitely more complicated with questions like:
- what is
- art, could we saw that one person's art is better than another's,
- and why
- is it (and is it justified) that people such as Van Gogh
- and Picasso have
- become famous? Looking back at what my initial feelings were and how
- they
- have developed over the weeks, I noticed that my ideas and principles
- were
- not changed drastically by the in-class discussions, but were refined and given
- more
- "ammunition" that took my thinking from a highly generalized level to
- one
- where I could express my feelings better and possibly inspire other's
- thinking as well.
- Can we debate art? Although it is perhaps an unanswerable
- question, there are a few
- points I feel should be discussed.
- One
- of the issues that I thought about was a problem in the basic definition of
- art.
- What could be defined as art? Does it have to be "pleasing to the eye"
- or "something that does not
- offend or ridicule"? One example was a piece
- done where a person had placed a crucifix
- upside-down...was this art? I decided
- that it was, based on my belief that anything, although it may seem offensive
- or
- even repulsive, should be considered as art as long as one person, maybe only
- the artist himself, was somehow affected by it.
- Reading that sentence over
- I suddenly realize how difficult it is to discuss this issue.
- It seems as
- if we are to debate art we needa list of requirements that need to be fulfilled,
- a
- "master checklist" on what can and cannot be considered art. It seems the
- more we think about what art is, the more the true
- meaning and feeling that
- is the nature of art is somehow stifled and suppressed.
- Let's leave this
- definition alone and move to the debate over why the master artists, studied
- and enjoyed
- for years, are indeed that--masters.
- The main issue I tried
- to debate on this topic was how people
- could deem some artist great and awe
- at his work hung in the Louvre,
- while the work done by "Lil' Johnnies" (metaphor
- for a work done by a child
- or any other "technically imperfect artist), produced
- with similar if not exact materials, make it only as far as the household
- refridgerator?
- To this question I felt that the master artist,
- regardless of the material
- or style, was somehow able to inspire people to such an extent that word eventually
- spread about his work.
- His fame and good name is ensured over time by the
- universal message a master's work presents. It may have been produced because
- of a past
- event, but the emotions and thoughts it provokes are innate in human
- nature. <pause for reflection>
- Writing this paper, I had prepared to
- attack this computer's keys and crank out several main points I felt were essential
- on the
- argument or whether art can be debated. The problem with this subject
- is that the further I began to write about it, the further I got away from
- the truth.
- Can we debate art? In hopes of getting a definite answer, no,
- we cannot debate art. It is my conclusion that people
- should discuss art
- by showing others what artwork you love and were influenced by, not by trying
- to figure out how many
- people have to like a painting to be considered a
- master artist. Talk about art, make art, and love art, but avoid trying to
- define
- somehting that by nature defies definition, abhors definition, and
- loses its meaning through definition. I love art,
- but I can and never want
- to tell it who it has to be.
-
-
-
-
-
-