The "hottest" art theorists at the moment are clearly fundamentalist Muslim clerics who abhor what we might consider art and prefer calligraphy and repetitive "tile" designs. They're the ultimate critics, of course, since they believe in destruction of what they abhor ( and the killing of the artists behind it, if possible ).
This raises the issue of why you should care about who is "hot" since that betokens a time-dependent fashionableness. Those critics who both recognized the original genius of Jackson Pollock and also when his talent declined had both judgements borne out by fractal analysis. The real test of an art theorist or critic, however, is how well her judgements hold up over time and through several cultural cycles.
Art galleries used to be full of things by Bernard Buffet ( whose signature covered most of his canvases ) but he has, mercifully, disappeared from view. Rembrandt, however, remains great and the only question is which of his canvases and prints might have had contributions from students rather than being the sole work of the master. Why Andy Warhol has gotten more than his 15 minutes of fame is beyond me.
Art should have meaning to the spectator. Parochial art has meaning to a narrow group ( e.g. some kinds of folk art ); great art has meaning to a larger group. Whether aliens from Star Trek or Star Wars would appreciate Rembrandt or Picasso is an interesting question.
2007-10-21 11:03:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by LucaPacioli1492 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
My husband is a fine artist, and I was trained to be one (but I took to writing in rebellion). While neither of us is an 'art theorist' (I've never heard of an 'art theorist' by the way ... they are called art CRITICS even though they do 'give theories' on the directions art is taking), we both think that art is the artist who 'communicates feelings' through what s/he does ... and while some art speaks to many people, other art speaks to only a few. There are 'rules' to good art, and they are usually followed closely, even in 'abstract' art ... but there is some 'really great art' out there for EVERY PERSON on this planet ... but what I like may be NOTHING LIKE what you like ... and THAT is what makes being an ARTIST the most difficult job in the world ... whether you paint, draw, write, or compose music. ALL artists are 'speaking to the world' ... but only a few 'get heard' by the 'masses.'
2007-10-21 17:47:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kris L 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, you know, I've just finished studying and my views are pretty radical - can't stand anything too pretentious! Also, I think good art needs to give you a WOW factor - hard to explain but when you come up against a formidable work of art, then you know about it. Also, if I think it's too obvious, too cryptic or I could make it myself then I tend to discount it a lot more. When you can see someone's put blood, sweat and tears into their work, then that's how you know it's good.
Also, I think a good work of art is one that makes you think. Anything that creates a discussion, be it positive or negative, well it's stimulating the brain and making people react and that's no bad thing.
2007-10-21 18:02:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
i think theyre all cool
2007-10-21 17:45:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jameson 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
SHAKESPEARE
2007-10-21 17:42:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
hey's but please you need's send at me now okey in my yahoo_messgaer it's
2007-10-21 17:48:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jovelyn B 1
·
0⤊
4⤋