the point of avant-garde art is almost always to challenge the idea of what it is (eg. is this a sculpture? is this a play? is this a song?). in other words, the point of it is to get people to ask, "is this art?"
so, people always doubt that avant-garde art is, in fact, art. but i think that the question is more, "is mainstream art art?" because, like, those paintings from the 18th century of lords and ladies who have paid the artist to make them look good, they're not really art. they're more a service. isn't the point of art to expand the viewer's consciousness?
therefore, if art follows all of the popular conventions of its medium of the day, but its only purpose is to entertain or to gain popularity for the artist, is it really art?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
hmm that's a very good point. It's frustrating to think that something like portraits is considered great art, and it really was something quite simple and boring.
well, what I find interesting is that you say that the point of art is to expand viewer's consciousness. I think that what makes art is if it can portray an emotion, feeling, or message. If it is just blank, it is more of an illustration, albeit a beautiful one. Even extremely abstract art pieces may have emotion.
what a good thought...
if you like new ideas check out my blog too...Thanks
http://chantetenoso.blogspot.com/
photos and thoughts of a woman living in New York City...and on earth...
i'll follow yours if you'll follow mine...
Post a Comment