My personal definition of art is:
That which genuinely separates humans from all other organisms on Earth.
That is why it is imporant to me. I use its mystery, uniqueness, and its implication of potential as a warm blanket from the cold of everything else.
Is historical value important to art? In my opinion, yes. Because art is a creative personal process and a disregard for history puts all the weight on plagiarism. If I copy a Monet stroke for stroke, it does not make me a good artist; it only affirms the importance of Monet, and that is because there is something there beyond the strokes. Sean Scully articulated it well: "It is process and product in relation to the weight and continuum of history. That's a huge burden to take on, but it's a burden that is interesting and can make our culture so interesting. To try to make a culture where people are detached from history is not only unrewarding, but is potentially dangerous." To me, evolution and the potential of evolution, are cornerstones of beauty and they cannot exist without a timeline.
Why is abstract painting and sculpture important?
For one, abstract art is an announcement that a true artistic statement is not dependant on the subject matter. Secondly, and this is related to my first statement, abstract art is like a non-denominational temple that people can walk into and be immersed by, regardless of their religion or culture. See, in creating a figurative work, one must have a subject. The fact that a subject was chosen implies a bias or partiallity that can potentially alienate a viewer from being completely immersed in a work of art. I do not mean that they will not appreciate it as a work of art but there is a different level of identification that cannot be reached. A religious scene by Rembrandt can be appreciated by someone who is Hindu but not to the same degree as a Christian because there is a partiality that cannot be avoided. The abstract is different, if one has accepted abstract art, any work thereof can potentially immerse any viewer. Does that make it more important than figurative? Well, without an understanding of the figurative, there can be no abstract.
Art in an economy:
I like the artistic climate of Socialist countries more than capitalistic or communistic. This is based purely on observation but for some reason it seems that there is a better appreciation for what I consider quality art. I believe this has something to do with Socialism being the middle ground of the other two extremes. It seems that as one deviates from that middlepoint, quality becomes either hindered by money or hindered by the need for control. This is, of course, relative to the world's artistic climate, which I still feel is in a state of decadence.
Bad art:
I said art gives me comfort that I derive from its uniqueness as an aspect of life in general. Does that apply to bad art? In a sense. Bad art still provides me with the hope that there is something better or the comfort that it could not be unless it was bastardizing something better.
More to come if I feel like it.
That which genuinely separates humans from all other organisms on Earth.
That is why it is imporant to me. I use its mystery, uniqueness, and its implication of potential as a warm blanket from the cold of everything else.
Is historical value important to art? In my opinion, yes. Because art is a creative personal process and a disregard for history puts all the weight on plagiarism. If I copy a Monet stroke for stroke, it does not make me a good artist; it only affirms the importance of Monet, and that is because there is something there beyond the strokes. Sean Scully articulated it well: "It is process and product in relation to the weight and continuum of history. That's a huge burden to take on, but it's a burden that is interesting and can make our culture so interesting. To try to make a culture where people are detached from history is not only unrewarding, but is potentially dangerous." To me, evolution and the potential of evolution, are cornerstones of beauty and they cannot exist without a timeline.
Why is abstract painting and sculpture important?
For one, abstract art is an announcement that a true artistic statement is not dependant on the subject matter. Secondly, and this is related to my first statement, abstract art is like a non-denominational temple that people can walk into and be immersed by, regardless of their religion or culture. See, in creating a figurative work, one must have a subject. The fact that a subject was chosen implies a bias or partiallity that can potentially alienate a viewer from being completely immersed in a work of art. I do not mean that they will not appreciate it as a work of art but there is a different level of identification that cannot be reached. A religious scene by Rembrandt can be appreciated by someone who is Hindu but not to the same degree as a Christian because there is a partiality that cannot be avoided. The abstract is different, if one has accepted abstract art, any work thereof can potentially immerse any viewer. Does that make it more important than figurative? Well, without an understanding of the figurative, there can be no abstract.
Art in an economy:
I like the artistic climate of Socialist countries more than capitalistic or communistic. This is based purely on observation but for some reason it seems that there is a better appreciation for what I consider quality art. I believe this has something to do with Socialism being the middle ground of the other two extremes. It seems that as one deviates from that middlepoint, quality becomes either hindered by money or hindered by the need for control. This is, of course, relative to the world's artistic climate, which I still feel is in a state of decadence.
Bad art:
I said art gives me comfort that I derive from its uniqueness as an aspect of life in general. Does that apply to bad art? In a sense. Bad art still provides me with the hope that there is something better or the comfort that it could not be unless it was bastardizing something better.
More to come if I feel like it.
Comment