I often feel the need to reiterate the distinction between art and beauty. I feel that we often get caught up in the moment and are too eager to ascribe the status of art to anything we find beautiful. Can not something be beautiful without being art? Or am I not right to make this distinction?
In considering the answer to this question is seems that one must take into account all pieces which can be considered beautiful and yet not art. The one that immediately comes to mind are people. One can think of countless songs in which the object of that song is described as beautiful. So then the question becomes are people works of art? If one can attribute the quality of beauty to a person and yet not place them under the category of art then one would have at least one instance in which the two words were not interchangeable.
Are people art?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
If the success of a performance is judged by the subjective perceptions of the audience, could I then asses that this means a piece could be classified as 'art' for one person, and not be classified as 'art' for another?
The idea of subjectivity and relativity has been often times taken to an extreme, where eventually two human beings could leave in two totally different worlds, composed of the same elements, one of them treasuring, appreciating and being susceptible to some things that seem insignificant to the other. However, while this viewpoint does make sense to a certain extent, taking such a position would render any discussion of our world and of the values within it useless, since everybody’s point of view would be a valid one, at least to himself. If we are to have a discussion and to be able to call something a “universal” or “objective” or at least a “common” value, we should be able to step aside from this extreme appreciation of the subjectivity. I don’t think that there is ever a reason to consider “art” a subjective term. The only notion to which subjectivity can be attributed is the value of a certain piece of art.
This appreciation given to subjectivity of art evaluation must not be confused with ignorance. Everybody has the right to an opinion, but if one’s opinion is to be taken into account and considered seriously and worth discussed, then it must be informed. In other words, I do not put on the same level the subjective opinion of somebody who has spent years studying the subtleties of a certain art, and a naive amateur. It does not mean that the “scholar” is always right, but the amateur’s opinion can be taken seriously only if after considering the arguments and explanations of the scholar and informing himself about this form of art, he stays at the same position.
When does the scholar stop being an amateur?
The idea of subjectivity and relativity has been often times taken to an extreme, where eventually two human beings could leave in two totally different worlds, composed of the same elements, one of them treasuring, appreciating and being susceptible to some things that seem insignificant to the other. However, while this viewpoint does make sense to a certain extent, taking such a position would render any discussion of our world and of the values within it useless, since everybody’s point of view would be a valid one, at least to himself. If we are to have a discussion and to be able to call something a “universal” or “objective” or at least a “common” value, we should be able to step aside from this extreme appreciation of the subjectivity. I don’t think that there is ever a reason to consider “art” a subjective term. The only notion to which subjectivity can be attributed is the value of a certain piece of art.
This appreciation given to subjectivity of art evaluation must not be confused with ignorance. Everybody has the right to an opinion, but if one’s opinion is to be taken into account and considered seriously and worth discussed, then it must be informed. In other words, I do not put on the same level the subjective opinion of somebody who has spent years studying the subtleties of a certain art, and a naive amateur. It does not mean that the “scholar” is always right, but the amateur’s opinion can be taken seriously only if after considering the arguments and explanations of the scholar and informing himself about this form of art, he stays at the same position.
When does the scholar stop being an amateur?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
