Art is like pornography. We can't define it, but we know it when we see it. Or do we?
There is a variety of viewpoints about whether something is art and whether a specific artistic endeavor can be called "art" or not. Are there any guidelines to help determine art? Must it be original? Provocative? Beautiful? Must it invoke emotion? Be intellectually challenging? Could different kinds of art do different things to a person?
Is art completely subjective? Is art entirely in the eye of the beholder? Or can art be held to any objective standards? Can a movie be objectively "bad"? What about a poem or painting? Or can a four year old's drawing be "good" art to his mother, but to everyone else it is awful?
Can a four year old actually create art or only random scribblings? What is the difference between Jackson Pollock and Marla Olmstead?
Is art better if it has a compelling story behind it, or is is only more popular? Is there a difference between popular art and good at, except in the opinion of the individual? Since everyone has an opinion about art, why should critics be paid for their opinion and others are not? What makes a critic's opinion better than anyone else?
No comments:
Post a Comment