Philosophers who try to formulate the work of artists in precise formulations are in a fear of losing the perspective in their effort to contain within an abstract system ,experiences which are unique and particular. All the activity of artist can be experienced through feelings but not with reason that beauty can be recognized, the major point to understand it by structuring it within definite boundaries .The artist protest and ask the philosophers to limit their rational analysis to fields other than that of art. Beauty provokes wisdom, and reason drive out beauty , so it seems to be maintained .Beauty is relative value and its definition becomes meaningless and useless. The clash between beauty and reason would perhaps be set in favour of this position , the aesthetic experience yet implies a universal criterion. The term beautiful to any other object suggests a value which is universal, communicable and factually knowable, while it is certain that beauty is an individual thing and not a general concept however we cannot overlook the fact that there are many people around the world for whom certain kinds of objects seems beautiful .This seems to lead to the notion that
In the art community there is a lot of controversy in distinguishing what the difference between an artist and a designer. Designers are told they are not artist and they need to stop thinking they are artist. When dealing with art and design specific demographics and viewers interpret the messages of each subject in different ways. Art is said to be elucidated and design is said to be understood. Artists usually develop a work of art with the intention of bringing an emotion viewpoint, instinctive feeling, and or state of mind.
Putting Value into Art The attempt to base a standard for assessing the value of works of art upon sentiment (the feeling of pleasure or displeasure) was famously made by David Hume in his essay "Of the Standard of Taste." Hume's attempt is generally regarded as fundamentally important in the project of explaining the nature of value judgements in the arts by means of an empirical, rather than a priori, relation. Recently, Hume's argument has been strongly criticized by Malcolm Budd in his book Values of Art. Budd contends that Hume utterly fails to show how any given value judgement in the arts can be more warranted or appropriate than any other if aesthetic judgements are determined by sentiment. This is a remarkable charge, since Hume explicitly sets out to introduce an aesthetic standard for "confirming one sentiment and condemning another."
In Roger Scruton's Photography and Representation the author establishes the idea that ideal photography is not art. In the same breath he says that ideal photography is not necessarily an idea which photographers should strive, nor does it necessarily exist. Yet, he bases his argument upon the ideal. In reviewing his paper, I’ll take a look at why he painstakingly tries to make this distinction between ideal painting and ideal photography. His argument is based upon the proposition that photographs can only represent in a causal fashion, whereas painters create representational artwork via intentional relations.
In other words, the passageway provided by art is very wide because there is no single interpretation that is presumed to be right. Artists can provide the intent of their work, but everyone 's meaning and significance will be totally different based on their own personal experience with the art. In sum, people encounter art differently, and what they receive from it and the effect it has on them is what 's important about experiencing art. For instance, there are many artists who have illustrated the significance of experiencing art rather than simply looking at it, by enduring and starting movements, or specifically emphasizing it in their work. I will demonstrate and explain two examples of works of art from two different contemporary art movements in order to enlighten the importance of experiencing art.
It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art professes to imitate, the process of imitation, and the inherent strengths and weaknesses of imitation as a form of artistic expression may lead to understanding how these conflicting views of art could develop from a seemingly similar premise. Both philosophers hold radically different notions of reality. The assumptions each man makes about truth, knowledge, and goodness directly affect their specific ideas about art. For Plato, art imitates a world that is already far removed from authentic reality, Truth.
An artist puts their desires into their work, a message, a purpose, whatever their intent is, they do art for a reason, usually reaching out to a specific audience. Although I do not believe people have the right to decide whether artwork is good or bad, everyone has their opinion of liking or disliking a piece. Art has an infinite amount of styles, techniques, and methods that make every piece different; they are generalized into the elements of art, and principles of design. Analyzing art through the elements and principles
Ultimately, our own ‘cultural imprint’ further affects the way we interpret different types of art and how the language used by a historian alters our awareness of a historical event, as it is not possible to ask or investigate knowledge without having a preconceived notion of what you want to find. Conversely, upon investigating the artwork’s factual information such as the painting’s context, the artist’s background, the genre and the school or movement associated with the painting, it is possible to obtain knowledge that combines objective information and subjective opinion, confirming that some degree of objectivity, albeit with our ‘cultural imprint’, is possible as an art observer.
As state... ... middle of paper ... ...s reflective of my personal beliefs and desires. Since I lack the aptitude to create works of art of my own, the ability for art to be translated into feelings of happiness, pain, sorrow, and a plethora of other adjectives is important for me. Many would say that misogynistic images evoke emotions, which is a criterion for my definition of art. Yes, these images are emotional, but I do not consider them bold or translatable. I can not relate to the woman in these images, because I don’t view women in that negative light.
In both the arts and the natural sciences, ethical boundaries limit how knowledge can be gained through conflicting arguments on what is morally acceptable and this can lead to the subjection a stalemate and in some cases even regression. We can say that there are many different forms of art and at least one form can be found in any one culture (art of one form or another can be found in all cultures) but what makes “good art” good, and what qualifies art to be considered non art? First we must look at the general criteria for what makes “art”, art: the intentions of the artist (to create aesthetically pleasing work), the quality of the work, and the response of the viewers. However, not every person thinks/analyzes the same or has the same opinion and this is why we can never truly determine its definition. For example, some people may look at a painting of naked women lying on a bed or a statue of a naked man posing on a stone to be art while others may turn away in disgust.