Categories
- Art (319)
- Other (3,273)
- Philosophy (2,351)
- Psychology (3,484)
- Society (847)
Recent Questions
- How do you feel about death?
- What did Amiran Sardarov's books and his philosophy give you? Are there really recognized and successful people from his early movements?
- How does the motivation of practicing Buddhists differ from the motivation of believers of other religious concepts ?
- how do you know if a person isn't right for you? and it's time to choose a different path?
- If you sneeze every day, can there be an addiction in sneezing?
If I drew a picture, I created it, the objective fact of creativity is obvious. It was present before the Impressionists and remained after.
If the conditional Kolya said that he (does not) like the picture, the subjectivity of his assessment is obvious. It was present before the Impressionists and will remain after.
Art critics don't evaluate whether they like a painting. I'm sure it was the same before the Impressionists. Art historians study art as such and its individual instances. How it is written, when, by whom, under what circumstances, why, what is depicted on it, to whom the author inherits, who inherits it. If art criticism was limited to the personal opinion of art critics, it would not exist.
I advise you to read the book “Why you can't teach art. Handbook for Art Students” by James Elkins, in which he shares his experience as a teacher.
Spoiler alert: no and you can't.