Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
interpretation of art
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: interpretation of art
In “The Artworld” written by philosopher Arthur Danto a character by the name of Testadura is introduced. Testadura is Italian for “hard head” and throughout the literary piece it becomes clear that Testadura lives up to his name. Danto has Testadura look at two paintings by the artists Robert Rauschenberg and Claes Oldenberg which both depict beds. Testadura, being hard-headed just as his name, is strongly set in his opinions of what the paintings are. However, Danto feels that when Testadura views the artwork he is making mistakes, but he is also correct about some of what he has to say according to his theory of art. The author of “The Artworld”, Danto, uses his character Testadura along with Testadura’s views both right and wrong to explain the complex theory of art. While Rauschenberg and Oldenberg both depict beds they do so in a different way. It is important to note that Oldenberg’s bed is very realistically depicted. The bed is viewed with the surrounding room visible which appears to be a bedroom. The only thing that seems out of the ordinary for a bed is the diagonal end placed upon the end. It is quite easy to see why Testadura argues that this bed is only a bed when viewing this work of art. However, Rauschenberg’s painting differs more from the mental image of a bed most of us picture. The bed depicted by Rauschenberg, “…hangs on a wall, and is streaked by some desultory house paint” (Danto 205). The upright bed is not functional in the sense a physical bed is expected to be. It is common for the viewer separate from the Artworld to question things about this bed like how the bedding and pillows stay in their correct places while the bed is upright. It is also common for those to wonder why the bed has been splashed... ... middle of paper ... ...ies which proves the need for the existence and the truth of the reality theory of art. There are no artistic realities without the RT, therefore as Danto feels, it is necessary. Danto uses Testadura as well as his correct and incorrect ideas in “The Artworld” to explain the complex theory of art while subtly, but significantly, showing his point of view. It is only through the art works of Rauschenberg and Oldenburg that the concepts of the imitation theory and the modern reality are introduced as well as the views of Danto being conveyed to those reading. These views are important to understanding and appreciating modern art. They inform the reader that rejection of theories of art happen and will continue to happen as long as there are theories or art. Testadura may be “hard headed”, but it is this quality that helps to better educate people in “The Artworld”.
ABSTRACT: British Avant-Garde art, poses a challenge to traditional aesthetic analysis. This paper will argue that such art is best understood in terms of Wittgenstein¡¦s concept of "seeing-as," and will point out that the artists often use this concept in describing their work. This is significant in that if we are to understand art in terms of cultural practice, then we must actually look at the practice. We will discuss initiatives such as the work of Damien Hirst, most famous for his animals in formaldehyde series, and that of Simon Patterson, who warps diagrams, e.g., replacing the names of stops on London Underground maps with those of philosophers. Cornelia Parker¡¦s idea that visual appeal is not the most important thing, but rather that the questions that are set up in an attempt to create an "almost invisible" art are what are central, will also be discussed. Also, if we concur with Danto¡¦s claims that "contemporary art no longer allows itself to be represented by master narratives," that Nothing is ruled out.", then it is indeed fruitful to understand art in terms of seeing-as. For application of this concept to art explains what occurs conceptually when the viewer shifts from identifying a work, as an art object, and then as not an art object, and explains why nothing is ruled out.
different works of art influence one another. The article helps us see how all art is connected,
Though criticism has taken on a negative connotation in the English language, and artists can fear or reject it, criticism is not inherently bad. In fact, both Wharton and Carrol claim that positive and negative (constructive) criticisms are beneficial to the artist and their audience. According to Wharton, artists use professional criticism to see how others may perceive their work. By obtaining that secondary viewpoint, the artist can use the critic’s educated analysis to improve a specific work or their art in general (Wharton, 42). In addition, a critic’s interpretation of a work of art is perfect for determining how off-centered their intended outcome for the work is, and what to refine in order to convey their message clearer in the next iteration or masterpiece. Regarding the audience, Carrol supports by asserting that, “The common reader expects guidance from the critic concerning what is worthy in an artwork” (Carrol 14). As oftentimes the audien...
...critics eyes as it looks at a piece of work and where the eyes follow. Also that the space and time for the LC system, the function is only a basic framework and the division of visual arts are a medium in fundamental antiquarian. Robert’s defense is Arnaldo Momigliano perspective upon early-modern antiquarian to modern historian which is most historian would write in chorological order while antiquaries write in a systematic way. The other perspective is Historian find facts to discover and explanation in multiple ways and an antiquarian examines a research relations connected to the exact subject (The Map of Art History, 32). Overall Robert’s essay was really persuasive to me and it provide enough strong evidence where it convince me to agree with the idea of having art history and disciplines also societies to represents itself through order and classification.
Art is a language of its own and with out he proper understanding, people are like expression goes “left on the outside looking in”. In other words, people without the proper understanding of art, technique and form as well as other elements can’t appreciate a work of art as much as when you understand why an artist painted in the way they did and what they are trying to get across to his audience. Despite artists attempts to try and make their works as viewer friendly as possible, without the understanding and knowledge gained from an art class as this one people will never fully understand the a work of art as it is meant to be.
In Confronting Images, Didi-Huberman considers disadvantages he sees in the academic approach of art history, and offers an alternative method for engaging art. His approach concentrates on that which is ‘visual’ long before coming to conclusive knowledge. Drawing support from the field of psycho analytics (Lacan, Freud, and Kant and Panofsky), Didi-Huberman argues that viewers connect with art through what he might describe as an instance of receptivity, as opposed to a linear, step-by-step analytical process. He underscores the perceptive mode of engaging the imagery of a painting or other work of art, which he argues comes before any rational ‘knowing’, thinking, or discerning. In other words, Didi-Huberman believes one’s mind ‘sees’ well before realizing and processing the object being looked at, let alone before understanding it. Well before the observer can gain any useful insights by scrutinizing and decoding what she sees, she is absorbed by the work of art in an irrational and unpredictable way. What Didi-Huberman is s...
During the ancient times in Greece, Plato was the first human to document and criticize the existence of art and artists. He mentioned that human art was always in a form of a representation of something else. In one of Plato’s famous works, he demonstrates the idea of art is like an “imitation of nature” (Blocker 3). In other words, the purpose of art was to represent nature and nothing else. Art was not created for the sake of its own self nor was it created to appreciate its own beauty by any means. Instead, art, usually in forms of writings, paintings, or sculptures, was created to only to represent nature, Gods, emperors, families, or other important individuals. Furthermore, Plato had a very critical view towards the existence art in our society because art makes us more emotional, and our emotions lead to many errors about life. He believed it is our rational thinking, not our emotions or senses, which helps us und...
From the creation of art to its modern understanding, artists have strived to perform and perfect a photo realistic painting with the use of complex lines, blend of colors, and captivating subjects. This is not the case anymore due to the invention of the camera in 1827, since it will always be the ultimate form of realism. Due to this, artists had the opportunities to branch away from the classical formation of realism, and venture into new forms such as what is known today as modern art. In the examination of two well known artists, Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock, we can see that the artist doesn’t only intend for the painting to be just a painting, but more of a form of telling a scene through challenging thoughts, and expressing of the artists emotion in their creation.
Looking at the piece at first you will see a bedroom and you might think ‘oh what a simple and modest accommodation’ it’s not much of a room but it is nice. You get the sense that the person who sleeps in this room doesn’t have a lot of money to spare, and might even be on the brink of going bankrupt. The walls might be decorated with paintings but if you assume that the artist is painting his own room, which he was, then you would think that he hung up his own paintings. With the exception of two Japanese prints he did just put up his own paintings (Brooks, The Paintings).
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.
Contemporary art is produced at the present period in time, which it mainly refers to the meaning of the spirit, and have a modern art Modern language. When people are faced with a work of art, there is a complex judgment or intuition feeling which to consider about it has artistic value or not. Exposure of today's artists and cultural environment and in the face of today's reality, their work will inevitably reflect the characteristics of today. “A work of art is a tautology in that it is a presentation of the artist’s intention, that is, he is saying that a particular work of art is art, which means, is a definition of art” (Diarmuid Costello, Jonathan Vickery, pg.22, 2007). Artistic inheritance is a historical necessity of any art is constantly successor of the previous generation of art. Development of contemporary art can be said to follow the human development and growth. Of course, no matter what kind of art form, and they reflect the performance of all modern social changes which to bring the social and psychological characteristics to show the artist's exploration of artistic expression.
“In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. Moreover, unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it.” This quote by Ernst Fischer, a German composer, means that truth in art exposes the parts of society, and of life, that no one wants to see. In order for art to change society, it must first reflect the fears and failures of its people. The artist can change how people think of themselves and the world by using less conventional methods of creating art. The artist, in doing this, introduces new ideas of human placement in time and space, new frontiers of thought, that are furthered by the disciplines of science and philosophy. The artist works to introduces unique- and sometimes offensive- ideas so that society will be exposed to new ways of thinking and understanding the world. The artist does this through experimentation with color, style, and form. Therefore, the purpose of the artist should be to challenge how individuals perceive themselves and the offensive aspects of society reflected in art to bring about innovations in the greater society.
As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. 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.
Imitation is a foundational concept in the creation and study of literature. The fundamental assumptions embedded in imitation create a distinct and divisive method of perception. Imitation requires a basic belief in separation: appearance apart from reality, form apart from content. Literary works possess a dual existence, where the surface becomes most useful in its ability to reveal the substance contained within. Because the truth remains concealed, it can only be discerned or discovered through imitation. Thus imitation exists as an intermediary in a variety of artistic representations, each aspiring for an accurate depiction of meaning, perhaps even the basic truths of human existence. For Plato, however, art imitates a world that is already far removed from authentic reality, Truth, an inherently flawed copy of an already imperfect world. Art as an imitation is irrelevant to what is real. Many critics since Plato have attempted to reestablish the essential value of art by redefining or renegotiating the boundaries between imitation and authentic reality, between the text itself and meaning.
...ety. In fact, both art and society are closely late in Arnold’s world view, thus the first and the last purpose of the critic is to attain truth so as to enlarge ideas which will provide an intellectual atmosphere in the future.