Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,009)
Recent Questions
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
- Do people with Down syndrome understand that they have abnormalities? How do they see the world? Are they self-conscious about their illness?
Art should reflect the context and historical stage of society. Of course, it is still necessary to clearly define what exactly is meant by the word “art”: a purely beautiful image with a fairly direct and clear meaning – or a complex system of images-context-author's story-other things. If the first can exist without the second (read-a beautiful picture without context), this is cool. If the latter exists without the former, it is also OK, there is nothing wrong with provocative art that pushes the boundaries and teases the viewer. It's not OK when people trigger the “if you don't understand the meaning, then you're a fool” toggle switch, because a person doesn't have to know everything about supremacists, for example. In the opposite direction, it also works, I don't understand aggression against any work just because it is incomprehensible.
In short: art does not always have to be clear and beautiful, it can be incomprehensible, it can be “ugly”, it can be incomprehensible and ugly, as a result, in general, the expression is correct
I hope I won't get blocked for such a picture, but this can serve as an excellent answer to the question posed.
and here you still need to add some description so that the answer is missed