The only art that is neutral is art that is uninterpreted.
The expression is in the mind of the beholder.
2007-10-14 04:15:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Pablobo 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Depends on the subject and what message, if any, the artist is trying to convey.
I disagree with the commenter who says that art should always be neutral. That's absurd. Art has been used for thousands of years as both a catalyst for change and as a response to change.
If art were always neutral, it would be dull, boring, not trying to achieve anything. It would be reduced to a bunch of pretty pictures or statues or whatever.
Art can be, and should be, much more than that.
2007-10-14 11:18:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by willow oak 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Art should be neutral ideally but sometimes the being of it is too strong to fade into the realm of neutrality. Art becomes literature when meaning is intended.
2007-10-14 11:45:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by isis 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Art is not neutral because it is conveys emotion from each person. Whether you like it or not is a perception. Perception is based upon each persons personal circumstances and experiences. If it does not invoke some sort of emotion positive or negative it would be non -existent.
2007-10-14 14:48:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by justme 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
if a certain art is neutral, it means it has no message at all.
2007-10-17 00:43:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think art is absolutely everything but neutral.. i mean it's the expression of the most deepest feeling you experience, or something that you have seen, heard, smelt or experienced and that has touched and inspired you.. art is influences and references, even if they're hidden or unconscious..
2007-10-14 11:40:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Onega 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
art should always be neutral
2007-10-14 11:14:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by untrusting 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. Art is useless
Oscar Wilde
2007-10-14 11:14:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sherlock 6
·
0⤊
1⤋