In Lisa Diamond's blog post, she talks about the intentionality thesis of art which is when an artist means to create his or her piece of work the way it turns out in order to label it as "art." She makes many valid points about how art can be created on an accident or if nature can be viewed as art if the observer sees it this way even though it is not intentional by Mother Nature. She also talks about how art has both benefited and been violated by media and technology. Now that art is so accessible, it gets more of an audience but then people skip out on the experience of going to museums and seeing a piece of art in person.
Lisa asked, "Art has become so metaphorical and abstract nowadays that almost anything can be considered art. Some artists take it to the extreme and put others and themselves as risk for their art. Where are the boundaries between what is art and what is just plain reckless?"
I think the simplest answer I can give is that this is based solely on opinion and the individual's perspective of art. Some would use nudity as an aspect of creating art but others may view this as pornography. In my mass media class, we talked about pornography in the media and where is the line between erotica and actual art. It all comes back to the artists intentions. If nudity and sexuality are used as an art form, then it isn't reckless or porn as long as the intentions of the artist wasn't simply to arouse the audience. Some instances like offensive graffiti are reckless and serve no purpose as art but other works of art may be reckless but still portray a message or the artists intended purpose. I think art has become so abstract because random colored lines on paper may not be art to me but someone may see it as just that. This all comes back to the universal question of what makes art art.
My question to you is: Does every piece of art have a purpose or a message behind it or can art be pointless? If so, does that still make it art?
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment