Art is the result of the language of the artist. The audience to appreciate it cannot look for what "they relate too" since a true artist cannot be speaking your language only their own. If you choose to view art you need to open your mind to what the artist is trying to say, and sometimes (especially if the artist is successful), it is difficult since they are using images in a new way to make a new statement (but without words).
2006-12-10 15:43:00 · 6 answers · asked by ♫ giD∑■η ♫ 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
I guess that's why my art teachers always said to understand the "context" of the artist. Obviously great artists from a thousand years ago weren't thinking about our culture when they created their works, just as great artists today can't be considering cultures that will exist 1000 years from now. They [artists that is] just have to do their work and hope some people will do the work of appreciating them.
2006-12-10 23:23:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art and the artist. Your missing half the world with that statement. Traditionally painting, sculpture and architecture were the golden three. Today art is defined as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation to aesthetic objects , environments, or experiences that can be shared with others". Thats not mine, its Britannicas. We've changed the paradigm of what art is. With our modern ability to record these experiences. Music, performance arts, theater, film. The quandary comes with the term, craftsman, or craftsperson. Some people elevate their skill as an aesthetic practice or endeavor without ever attempting to or desiring to make a statement beyond the perfection of their craft. Can a watchmaker elevate his skill to the level of art? Yes! is he making a statement? In a way. Can a swordmaker create art? I think so! But in my humble opinion, a craftsman works within the confines of the form he chooses and attempts to elevate or create something unique within that which he does. In other words, art has been broadened by the observer not the artist or the craftsman. Art isn't art from its inception its art as a conclussion! If you've ever studied chinese ink paintings, you'd see what I mean. They are fixed forms with even the brush strokes numbered and calculated. An artist could reproduce the same painting (more like caligraphy) for years before he starts understanding how each brush stroke becomes a single element in the whole balanced composition. The statement is the same, the goal is perfection.
2006-12-11 00:45:52 · answer #2 · answered by cuttlekid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it art if it doesn't communicate or just self-indulgence? Take a tour through art history, and I think you'll find that great art always communicates. By the word "communicate" here, I mean "generates a response in the viewer."
Point two: The content of what is communicated is really not that often "the message" the artist wishes to communicate. That is, the artist might want to communicate grief, but the viewer sees love in the painting, for example. Viewers bring to a work of art their own experience and understanding, which can differ greatly from the artist's.
Great art generates a response in the viewer, and in this way the viewer becomes part of the art process, part of the art. But the viewer adds his or her own interpretation.
In the work of the artist, there is always this tension between the artist's need to express himself and the need to express himself in a way that viewers can relate to. If a viewer can't relate to it, he'll give it little attention, he'll walk away from it to a painting (example) he can relate to!
Yes, an artist can use " images in a new way" but they need to be recognizable to the viewer, so that he knows what he is looking at. If you paint a tree, but it looks to the viewer more like a rock, how is the viewer supposed to get any of your meaning?
The "audience" always looks at art for what they can "relate to." To expect them to do more than that, or anything less, is hopelessly idealistic and unrealistic. Put crassly and commercially, you'll starve. Put another way, you'll be like a bird singing in a forest all alone. It's nice that you're singing, we're happy for you, you might even enjoy yourself, entertain yourself, but beyond yourself, no one is inspired.
2006-12-11 02:04:11 · answer #3 · answered by Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speaking as an English major, your statement would be called the "intentional fallacy" meaning the work ( painting, sculpture, book, music) stands as a free object and means what it means to the receiver. What the artist intended to do has no specific value here. The effect or affect of the piece is its recieved and perceived meaning. What you see is what you get, sort of.
Happy holidays and peace to all.
2006-12-11 00:19:39 · answer #4 · answered by sammy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not completely accurate. Just because a person speaks another language does not mean they cannot make themselves understood. This is true in art bc you may not know what art is but you know what you like.
BTW that is why there are art appreciation classes so a person can say why they like a particular piece of art
2006-12-10 23:51:33 · answer #5 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
too much for this site I think: hey morons check out R.G. Collingwood's "The Principles of Art" chapter 12 entitled "Art as Language"
Yes the audience needs to understand the artist's work not the other way around.
2006-12-11 07:31:11 · answer #6 · answered by Harlan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋