There are many people that have different opinions on whether or not replicating art should actually be considered art or the forgers art for that matter. Does replicating the same piece of art take away from the importance and meaning of the original work of art?
For some, a portrait may simply be a study of physical likeness whereas for others it may be a study of the sitter’s character, their inner personality. This distinction makes it a challenging task to compare photographic and painterly ideas of what a portrait consists of. I must also draw attention to the fact that photography has been caught up in an everlasting struggle to be recognised as a fine art in its own right. When first discovered, photography threw painted portraits to the sidelines of the art scene because of its obvious technological and economical advantages. Many people at the time thought nothing could exceed these imitations as portrayals of people.
As far as I know, art can change everything Human knowledge is limit and as the eye only sees what the mind is prepared to comprehend, each individual will have different perspective toward an idea, a theory or knowledge. As I said before, even though a judgment can be made by each person’s opinion, nothing appears to be complete without the uses of different ways of knowing. In art, sense perception and emotion is the vital component to determine an artwork whereas in natural science, reason and sense perception is the key to opening the door to knowledge. In conclusion, knowledge can only be obtain using not once but many different ways of knowing, if using only one way of knowing; what we acquire will consider to be not absolute and the knowledge we gain could be false.
Each individual sees art differently, images become information that is incorporated with the individual’s own knowledge and personality. As art is reproduced over and over again in different contexts, the artist’s original purpose of the image is altered, a progression from old ideas to new ideas. Clearly one can see how the original intended purp... ... middle of paper ... ... of an image, even more ideas and thoughts are evoked. These reproductions now represented in new contexts bear new ideas that are to looked upon in a different manner for these images, “like all information, have to hold their own against all the other information being continually transmitted(Berger 123)”. The idea that surrounds an image having one clear message has been proved to be obsolete.
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.
Appropriation art, sometimes cause responses varying from astonishment and suspicion to praise and acceptance, depend on the viewers and the performance by the artist. This essay then critically discusses two particular artists, Masami Teraoka and Yasumasa Morimura, who illustrate the appropriation in their art with similar and dissimilar concepts. The focus is on the visual arts, yet the argument of appropriation has significant effects for analyses of particular conceptualisations such as finding identity and dominion of cultural and intellectual chracteristics A satirical cultural viewer, Masami Teraoka brings his creativity from a variety of techniques, times, and genres. His artworks sometimes hilariously, sometimes critically, deliver narratives that explore controversial social and political issues. The clash of Asian and Western culture as seen in 31 Flavors Invading Japan (Figure 1) and McDonald’s Hamburgers Invading Japan (Figure 2) are only part of the matters addressed.
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.
Art itself has a way of invoking thoughts through many different mediums of art. Often art opens our minds to many other possibilities and forces us to think beyond what we normally would. Consequently, this makes us reconsider our previous thoughts on any subject and our beliefs as well. Visual arts can transfer real emotions into something that is not true, making it a lie that brings us nearer to the truth. When a painter paints a picture, they can be drawing from their surroundings or real life experiences.
Sagazan’s performance explores extreme emotional states provoking more questions than answers. The contemporary “primitivism” movement in design and art examines objects that will become ritualized, layered with another spirit or energy - embedding them with a soul. Primitivism is, ins... ... middle of paper ... ...r pure philosophy. It is anecdote - it is a memento of someone. In that sense perhaps every Transfiguration performance here is a form of self-portrait, but Sagazan complicates this dynamic by also transforming himself into the subject.
Whilst the motivations and what the works depict are different, the way they do so are quintessentially Surrealist. Both Gleeson and Dali reflected aspects of Rene Magritte's definition of surrealism in their paintings in the techniques employed and use of symbolism. As all art is, surrealism is open to interpretation and with that comes differences in the definition of "surrealist".