2007-01-30 00:40:26 · 11 answers · asked by lele 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
If you ask Renoir, he'll say beauty, for there's enough evil and ugliness in this world, that the artist does not need to paint them. Rather, he felt, the artist should uplift and celebrate that which is beautiful.
I think I'll go with him.
2007-01-30 00:48:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
" Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Keeping that in mind I think every artist feels there are at least fragments of it in what they do. Even us lowly horror artists use beauty as contrast in what we do even if the complete outcome isn't.
As far as creating thought goes I don't think in most cases that's even a part of it. Take a Kinkade painting or a Rockwell. No thought provoking going on there. Not that it's bad stuff just not real brain teasing.
I think while an artist can use both in their work the artists primary function is to make you feel. Artists want you to react. It doesn't matter what you feel; indifference, anger, peacefulness, love, whatever, it doesn't matter what the emotion is as long as you feel something. If you can look at a piece of art, or listen to a piece of music and it grabs something inside you it's doing it's job. Even dance can make you feel something by the grace of movements. Art has an emotional hook inside us and when we (the artist) create we have no idea what the reaction will be to what we do. All we can hope for is that the people that see it walk away with something from it,
2007-01-30 15:32:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Artist popular function is neither of those issues, an artist popular function is to work out issues as they contemporary themselves to the artist. then a real artist will take the placement and attempt an reflect not in basic terms the placement by way of their artwork artwork yet additionally the sentiments and techniques it invoked interior the artist. Painters are given a job paint this and that they only attempt and draw it. a real Artist, on the otherhand paints it its project, yet does so attempting to duplicate the sentiments and techniques the placement had on the artist. with the help of doing so effectively, it consequently shows the actual super element concerning the placement and provokes techniques. working example in case you have been to color a portrait of a say a woman, some human beings will basically draw the lady and attempt an make it look like the lady, might besides basically take a photograph. that isn't artwork. on the different hand an artist ought to look on the comparable woman, and notice that the lady is a mom, that loves her toddlers, and being a mom thats been a situation reason perhaps she is a unmarried mom. if he can seize and positioned across this sort of imagary of not in basic terms a woman yet a suffering unmarried mom who might do something for her toddlers, this is artwork. the main suitable artist can positioned across this styles of thoughts by way of their artwork.
2016-12-17 05:44:34 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The primary function of the artist is to create artist that he or she wants to create. If the art is beautiful or thought provoking that is up to viewers to decide, but the artist must first create art for him or herself....everything else is up to the viewers, critics and history.
2007-01-30 08:20:04 · answer #4 · answered by D R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The artist's primary function, lele, is to educate. He points out things in life that would be otherwise missed. He teaches us to see. Some of it depicts beauty and some provokes thought but primarily we are enriched with having better vision because the artist has shown us something we didn't know was there.
2007-01-30 04:38:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The artist's primary function is up to the artist. Some may do art in fits of anger and depression, and he/she is not interested in the outcome.
Inspired art is another matter, when the artist seems to be 'carried away' and in 'the zone' as they say. Maybe that will do both-provide a thing of beauty AND make the onlooker think.
2007-01-30 02:40:33 · answer #6 · answered by thisbrit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An artists primary function is to create...whether it is beautiful or provokes thought is irrelevant.
2007-01-30 05:20:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i guess everyone would have a different opinion but i beleve the artists primary function is to express thoughts and feeling in whatever form of art. the interpretation of a work of art as beautiful is up to people who view it... and whether it provokes thought or not is up to the capacity of the person viewing it to relate to it. often creating art for the sake of beauty or for the sake of provoking a thought does not quite help.
2007-01-30 01:01:18 · answer #8 · answered by notinthebooks 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think beauty is a function of art and provoking thought is a function of art. But I find the art world fascinating as there may be as many functions of art as there are people who do art. And isn't that the beauty of it? There are room for many functions and for all us artists. I love that there is such a diversity of art and diversity of function. People may disagree on function and do. But that creating and communicating and seeking beauty is a primal drive in mankind, makes it glorious that there is such a diversity of expression. Viva la diference! Diane
2007-01-30 05:36:22 · answer #9 · answered by starlite2joy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither.
Art is a form of expression.
No matter through what medium or what subject, people will have different opinions about it.
2007-01-30 01:01:09 · answer #10 · answered by G.reaper 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋