Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is your definition of art
What is your definition of art
What is your definition of art
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is your definition of art
The definition of art has always been a wondering question throughout the centuries. Even our discussions in class lead back to the meaning of art and the individual viewer. The author Cynthia Freeland in But Is It Art? reviews and examines the diversity of both art theory and art. Most of the theories she examined from the different eras and cultures fell short. None of the theories were successful in defining the definition of art. Cynthia states, “Art enhances our awareness of both ourselves and our world. Unlike scientific theories, a theory of art does not predict what artists are going to do next. Art theory as I have described in this book is still an explanatory enterprise. Art is something special (Freeland 208). Cynthia Freeland realizes she cannot categorize art, but believes that art will always be diverse! Cynthia starts the introduction by explaining a theory is not only a definition. She writes, “A theory should help things make sense rather than create obscurity through weighty words. It should systematically unify and organize a set of observations, building from basic principles” (Freeland xvii). The problem though is that art is so varied that it seems overwhelming to try to combine and explain art, especially modern art. Modern art challenges us to figure out why and how it could count as art through the different theories. Cynthia brings to attention the diversity of art. She also explains why it is too difficult to categorize art through each theory. A theory is expected to decide whether or not something is art. If one theory states that art cannot have certain qualities or must have certain qualities and we still consider it to be art, than the theory is rejected. Each of these theori... ... middle of paper ... ...els and appreciates something different. This is why there is no correct way to interpret art. The only true fact from both these theories is that art communicates different things to diverse people. This in detail is wonderful. I believe Cynthia Freeland wrote this book creatively and accurately. People from around the world with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds appreciate, value, and passionately pursue the creation and assortments of art (Freeland 208). There will never be a ‘correct’ way in defining art. Art will continue to branch further through new media. Artists will continue to expand awareness and explore or find new ways to either shock us or entrance us with beauty in both sight and sound (Freeland 209). REFERENCE • Freeland, Cynthia A. But is it art?: an introduction to art theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Though people can look into color and composition, others can still even look into the source of the art itself. Cole goes deeper, delving into the source of the art, looking in particular into the idea of cultural appropriation and the view a person can give others. Though it is good for people to be exposed to different opinions of a group or an object, sometimes people can find it difficult to tell the difference between the reality and the art itself. Sometimes art can be so powerful that its message stays and impacts its audience to the point where the viewer’s image of the subject of the art changes entirely. Cole brings up an important question about art, however. Art has become some kind of media for spreading awareness and even wisdom at times, but in reality, “there is also the question of what the photograph is for, what role it plays within the economic circulation of images” (973). Cole might even be implying that Nussbaum’s advertisement can sometimes be the point of some media, and that sometimes the different genres of art can just be to make someone with a particular interest happy. One more point that Cole makes is that “[a]rt is always difficult, but it is especially difficult when it comes to telling other people’s stories.” (974) Truthfully, awareness and other like-concepts are difficult to keep going when a person or a group is not directly involved.
Danto’s theory of artistic identification requires only that the sentence “x is P,” where x is a given work and P a predicate functioning as an interpretation of that work, apply to a member of what he calls the ‘Artworld.’ He calls the word ‘is’ between x and the P in the sentence the ‘“is” of artistic interpretation,’ and any work indicated by this ‘is’ is art. For instance, we may say “the Eroica Symphony is profound.” By Danto’s definition, the fact that this artistic interpretation of the work is possible is sufficient to show that it is a work of art. Danto also posits a style matrix consisting of all the variant combinations of art-relevant predicates in today’s Artworld. This matrix serves as a context in which all artworks can be discussed, and is open to the addition of predicates as artists make innovative breakthroughs.
Unlike science, art is subjective. The artist leaves behind a part of himself in his work. Therefore, each piece has its own distinct perspective. Frida Kahlo’s self-portraits show her view on her life, on how she has faced so many struggles, yet managed to be a strong person. When we see or hear or read an artistic creation, it produces a mood such as calm or loud, fear or safety. For example, the Eiffel Tower gives Paris a majestic awe; everyone who passes by feels the strength of the 113-year-old grand structure. Art also has a texture. Photographs reveal much through their textures; grainy surfaces often make the picture more realistic while smooth ones seem softer. When we hear a piece of music or see a film, a rhythm carries us from one part to another. Not just true for these two genres, rhythm is present in any artistic work. These few properties are characteristic of everything we encounter in the world of art, the world of human expression. Most have other special features also. Most of the time, though, we do not think about these characteristics because we do not have enough time to pay attention to anything for more than a few seconds.
My goal for this paper is to give a practical critique and defense of what I have learned in my time as a Studio Art Major. During my time here I have learned that Pensacola Christian college’s definition of art “art is the organized visual expression of ideas or feelings” and the four parts of Biblosophy: cannon, communication, client, and creativity. Along with Biblosophy I have studied Dr. Frances Schaeffer 's criteria for art, seeing how the technical, and the major and minor messages in artwork. All of these principles are great but they do need to be refined.
To explain it in a less broad and lofty manner, aesthetics asks questions along the lines of “what is art?”, “...
Art encompasses everything. It is such a broad subject that it can be found in the most bizarre places - like a house's structural wall built out of beer cans. Artists are always trying to push boundaries and think outside the canvas, as it were. After all, why create art that has already been done? The inherent problem with this is that now, because so much has already been done, everyone wants the excuse to call anything art. Worse – society's etiquette teaches us that we should be accepting of it because of its status as “art”. It tells us that we should at least appreciate the attempts of one piece of art over the other. This can be good, and it can be very, very bad. If someone scoops up dirt into a cup and places it on a stool at an art gallery, why should this be called art? Just because it happens to be at an art gallery? Or perhaps because the cup of dirt was put there by a self-proclaimed artist. In reality, the cup of dirt is not art, but a sad attempt at using our cultural mercy as a gateway to acceptance.
Harrison, Charles., Wood, Paul., and Gaiger, Jason. Art in Theory 18-15-1900: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. 1998.
AA theory by Clive Bell suggests the pinpoints the exact characteristic which makes a work true art. According to Bell, an artwork must produce “aesthetic emotion” (365). This aesthetic emotion is drawn from the form and formality of an artwork rather than whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing or how well it imitates what it is trying to depict. The relation of objects to each other, the colors used, and the qualities of the lines are seemingly more important than what emotion or idea the artwork is trying to provoke. Regardless of whether or not the artwork is a true imitation of certain emotions, ideals, or images, it cannot be true art unless it conjures this aesthetic emotion related to formality (367).
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle.
Aesthetics is the theoretical study of the arts and related types of behavior and experience. It is traditionally regarded as a branch of philosophy, concerned with the understanding of beauty and its manifestations in art and nature. However, in the latter 20th century there developed a tendency to treat it as an independent science, concerned with investigating the phenomena of art and its place in human life. Yet, what in a field with a hazy line in between being classified as a science or study of beliefs is considered data for determining what can be studied? It can simply be drawn to the only three things involved in the process of art : The creator, the person experiencing, and the art itself.
The. Theories of Contemporary Art. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1985. Kotz, Mary Lynn. Rauschenberg/Art and Life. New York:
Stone, W. F. (1897). Questions on the philosophy of art;. London: Printed by William Clowes and Sons.
Neither Formalism nor Neo-Formalism is the defining answer to the questions raised in the nature of art. As before, we are left to wonder, what theories will be created and indeed shot down by the philosophy community in relation to the nature of art next?
Among the many theories of art that have emerged over time, the theory I will defend in this paper is the Neo-Wittgensteinian theory of Art. I will defend this view against the following (two) objections: a) The “open concept” idea of art is too expansive, and b) the “family resemblance” theory of artworks is also too expansive.
Art can be defined in many ways by an individual. One can say that any creative output by a person is considered art. Others contend that art must conform to a societal standard and the basis of the creation should be understood by most intellectual people. For example, some contend that computer-generated images, such as fractals, are not art due to the large role played by a computer. E.O. Wilson states “the exclusive role of the arts is to intensify aesthetic and emotional response. Works of art communicate feeling directly from mind to mind, with no intent to explain why the impact occurs” (218). A simple definition may be that art is the physical expression of the ideals formed by the mind.