Is art truly subjective?
Recently (i.e. particularly this term), I've come into contact more and more with the pervasive view of the modern artist and art viewer that art is entirely subjective. That there is no definition to art and that we cannot define it because it is different for everyone. I would argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that art is not. Since originally art meant skill (from Latin) I think it is interesting to see often times in today's art world skill is not necessary to create art (anyone remember someone signing a urinal?). Beauty can be in all corners of creation and simply requires a mindset to appreciate it, but in order for something to transcend to the realm of art it should require the careful and laborious process of utilizing carefully cultivated skill. The best example I can think of would be Picasso, in that early in his career he clearly had the technical skill to mimic life as it appears and that later he implements that in order to distort and create a different message. Often times it seems to me contemporary artists cheapen art by using the excuse of breaking with the past to excuse their lack of skill in execution. If I am to consider myself an artist and gain credit for working hard to become so, I really would rather not share the title with someone who has spent no time culitivating their skill. I am very curious to see if anyone feels the same or to hear a rebuttal from all those who fervently disagree with me (I know theres a lot of you!). Perhaps by instigating the debate I can further delve into the depths of this issue with all of you. Thanks for listening to me rant.
3 comments:
This could be a good conversation.
I believe, as an earlier post stated, that the word "art" comes from the Latin ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement" or "to arrange".
Thats interesting. Everything I've found in dictionaries and even in textbooks says it was latin for skill. Where'd you see it as ars?
That is somewhat literal. It might be clearer to think of it as the skill in applying or arranging, in the case of the visual arts, forms, colors, lines, etc. As in the following use of the term:
"ars": art.� In Fourteenth Century Latin the term� "ars"� referred to� skill in applying knowledge� (scientia) for performing a profession or for making something.� Art referred to the practice of making things properly - shoes, buildings, clothes, paintings for the church or whatever. Thus one learned, via apprenticeship,� the art of making shoes, the art of painting,� the art of acting or the art of medicine. Guilds helped maintain standards of knowledge and skill for various professions.�So, in order to achieve excellence as a musician, a goldsmith, or a painter one had to be well versed in the appropriate "scientia".�
Or, this example from Wikipedia's online dictionary:
The word "art" comes from the Latin ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement" or "to arrange", though in many dictionaries you will simply find it tautologically translated as "art". This is the only universal definition of art�that whatever it is was at some point arranged in some way. A few examples where this meaning proves very broad include artifact, artificial, artifice, artillery, medical arts, and military arts. However, there are many other colloquial uses of the word, all with some relation to its etymological roots.
Hope this helps.
Post a Comment