Quote:
Originally Posted by Taz's Master
Your postulate that art is inherant in all objects and settings may be totally valid. I don't know. I've never come across that line of thought and don't lnow how to deal with it in terms of my concept of the world of art. But hey! I don't know how to deal with a lot of things.
No, I'm suggesting that art might be the result of the individual's perception, and not inherant in a work regardless of what an artist was trying to express.
|
I guess I really wasn't understanding what you said. I agree with you in that I'm saying that art IS the result of the artist's perception. What you seem to me to be saying above gets us back to the same old question - is it art or isn't it art? No?
As far as I'm concerned art is, to an individual, whatever that individual deems to be art. That's totally subjective. But to consider a particular piece of art in the broader context of all other art is not totally subjective. If it were, there would be no interest in trying to define art history because it's not possible to categorize that which is totally subjective. There's no defineable structure to work within if everything is totally subjective, right? Unless the evaluation of art was decided by popular opinion polls, maybe. I'm sure that there are some who would say, yeah! That's the way to do it! Of course then that should apply to literature and music as well, no? So we'd end up with an ongoing history of what is popular at any given time with a horizontal audience.
Well, we do have that now in terms of knowing what is popular, what sells, what constitutes the current rage or fad, etc. And it changes from day to day, based on the whims of the consumers.
But there's another audience that the horizontal audience isn't much interested in and that's the vertical audience, which is the audience that exists ongoing into the future, that continue to be interested in, appreciate, view and read that which, over time, has proven to have a worth and life far surpassing that of the temporally popular. And it is this audience that historians and critics in all fields of artistic endeavour concern themselves with.
So no, the value and appreciation of art is not at all totally subjective. And historians and critics are involved in matters which transcend popularity and saleability.
Gettin' finger cramps here. Are ya with me so far? Am I out in keft field spouting nonsense?
