Would you consider awork of art more or less serious if it was enjoyed because it fitted with decor? Can you give examples of work you consider serious
2006-08-09 11:24:40 · 10 answers · asked by uplate 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
Art is all about decoration as far as I am concerned, and those stupid arrogant fuckers who say it ought to be in galleries only and for it's own sake can all just go and die and I'll sell their rotting carcasses to the Louvre for a billion Euros.
2006-08-09 11:58:06 · answer #1 · answered by Kango Man 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
My living room has a celestial theme to it. So, I have my favorite painting The Starry Night by Van Gogh there, along with another one of his Night Stars. I would have them up no matter what since I love Van Gogh, but since they work well with the decor--I see no reason not to put them there since they compliment the room and the room compliments them. I have loads of black and white pictures of the Beatles hanging in my office (I consider photography art). They too fulfill multiple purposes. I love the Beatles, and the composition in most of the pictures is quite interesting. And they look really good against the walls. It's hard to say what I consider serious artwork. I would say anything that is created with a vision, whether it is expressed through film, paint, clay, wire, or any other medium an artist can think of. I don't think putting artwork in a room so it works with the decor detracts from the work of art. In fact going with the decor can enhance the artwork. It could take away from it, but I tend to think it would enhance it more than anything.
2006-08-09 11:36:58 · answer #2 · answered by Purdey EP 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, most people will only buy art that blends into their decor. This is not a bad thing, but I think art should be acquired for the plain and simple reason that it appeals to the senses. Art should be displayed so that it is outstanding and noticed. What better way to accomplish this, but to buy art that doesn't fit with the decor. I say, if you like a particular piece, buy it and admire it. Hopefully, its intrinsic value will appreciate with time.
2006-08-09 11:33:31 · answer #3 · answered by Call Me Babs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no defination for art and most art is used for decoration. There is no such thing as serious are there are only schools of thought.
Do what you want to do and create what you want to create. It does not matter how it is used after the fact.
If you want to make a career of art you better plan on fitting it with a decor. Do you think Michalangelo and Da Vinci didn't have to answer to the desires of their clients?
2006-08-09 15:15:28 · answer #4 · answered by Jason B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe sentimental value is the reason you should display art. If you get sentimental over a velvet Elvis, more power to ya.
Buying some poster at Wal Mart is not "decor".
I consider all the art my mom has done to be serious ( :
2006-08-09 11:35:37 · answer #5 · answered by the_turp 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can use a work of art for decoration, but if something was made solely for the purpose of decoration then you can't call it Art.
And why should Art be serious?!
2006-08-10 00:23:53 · answer #6 · answered by ARTiculate 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Art is art if the artist says so
2006-08-09 17:46:22 · answer #7 · answered by christopher p 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suppose we all have different views and aspects on art on which we like - art for me is to keep it simple and enjoy it for what it is without frills etc., then you can see it for what it really is and focus soley on the art.
2006-08-09 23:34:18 · answer #8 · answered by shariwharton 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Decoration offers no emotion, it's inoffensive and benign.
Art MOVES YOU.
Be indifferent, or be moved... it's your choice.
2006-08-09 12:44:03 · answer #9 · answered by joyfulpaints 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Greatness is still great no matter where it is, although it is easier to appear great if you are surrounded by mundaneness.
2006-08-09 11:30:09 · answer #10 · answered by _Picnic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋