To be labelled a "work of Art", a painting, sculpture or other art form should display certain qualities that are unique. However, over the past century there has been a decline in the quality of prize-winning artwork and it is now possible for quite ordinary pieces of art to be labelled "masterpieces" whilst true works of art pass unnoticed. Do you agree or disagree? Give me you reasons. Thanks.
2006-10-08 03:04:32 · 5 answers · asked by Dorothy G 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The idea that one piece of art is a master piece derives its meaning from who ever judges that work as important.
The main friction in the art world i think occur between what is consider classical art and what is contemporary art. Both however influence the other as there is very little art though out history that hasn't had some cultural influence placed out in it's construction. I consider that art whether or not a masterpiece has to has emotional response from the viewer. This idea has be exploited by the (shock) artist those artist that choose the subject that has controversy connected to the subject. Popular art as such is not necessarily fine art or well executed art. The work of Andy Warhol is a form of fine art and popular but his subject and execution in my opinion is very consumer based.
I consider that the bravest artist in fine arts was Goya as he used all the tradition but wasn't captive to the sponsors and benefactors of his society..
2006-10-08 03:29:29 · answer #1 · answered by alfred jarry jnr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where do derive your used definition from, to say that contemporary art,does not carry a uniqueness that would be called a masterpiece is wrong, for how would you know as most labelling of art is retrospective, ie piccasso wasn't labelled a master when he first produced art,nor Michelangelo. hindsight is the only perfect science,
when Tracy Emin produced her unmade bed, as a landscape of her life, up to the point, she was awarded a notoriety that a lot of artists would have been worthy of, however they did not produce it,did they, wether your opinion of Ms emin or any artist contemporary or historical, differs from the accepted category of their worthiness, is surely a moot point, degas said, ''Art is not what you see, it the thing you make other people see''.
to compare an artist of say for example Rembrandt, with Damien Hurst, is not feasible quest, both have their merits in the society that they produced their art for, good question. FL
2006-10-08 11:06:40 · answer #2 · answered by lefang 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do agree. The quality of art has certainly declined - just compare rennaissance masterpieces to a brush stroke worth millions of dollars today. I think it's a sign of the current zeitgeist of impulsivity and fast-paceness that is contributing to this decline...because a Michelangelo may take months- years, but a line or two can take just a minute or two.
2006-10-08 10:16:17 · answer #3 · answered by vanillaspice 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah! most definately....nowadays the best art is the art that most best resembles a piece of s#!t, instead of rating a work of art by how good it is or by its purpose it is now rated by how absurd or disgusting or popular it is...the best art nowadays is the most absurd art...whatever is furthest away from true art is what this generation rates as the best art...everybody just wants to be different, unique...that is now a new standard in art...how unique, different it is...the idiots have got it into their mind that taboo = art???
...perhaps i just dont get it.
2006-10-08 12:40:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is true people are just getting lazy and would rather sit and watch tv than go see something beautiful or trying to create something worth while
2006-10-08 10:45:14 · answer #5 · answered by shimbals 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋