4 Answers

  1. Let's take it in order.

    Theoretical aesthetics, as a discipline, is several thousand years old, and even within a purely European tradition, dozens of conflicting theories about the nature of art coexist, not to mention non-European traditions. They come from different cultural practices, different social structures, and different ideas about the world and people.

    Moreover, the entire volume of our knowledge on the subject has grown from zero to entire libraries of literature literally over the past two hundred years. Archaeology is a young science, anthropology is even younger, and art is as old as behavioral modernity, and it is different everywhere. The idea of a unified theory of art now looks as overwhelming as the idea of a unified theory of everything (although attempts are always interesting, as for example in Summers '”Real Spaces”).

    That is why art has no definition. It can be described as a category of objects and phenomena in a social context (like knitting or cooking) — but in the case of art, the problem of definition turns out to be cyclical. “Art is art is art.” The best statement that has been made on this topic in the last century is Derrida's suggestion that art is undeconstructible: it gives components of other phenomena, but does not have its own. Just like beauty, justice, Aquinas ' God, and the like — their existence is based on the question of the reality of universals and goes far beyond what I personally am willing to discuss on Yandex.

    This, in turn, does not prevent people from fishing something out of the collective unconscious and passing it off as terminal dogma. So, writing that art is made, let's say, “with the heart”, repeats the ideas of the 1820s, which grew up on the pressures of the 1820s-in this case, on the opposition to classicism and the desire to create a retail market for paintings outside the aristocratic patronage. This is fine, but the paintings were painted before that. The surviving contracts indicate that customers did not care in any way whether their patron saints were written with the “heart” — they were only interested in whether they were written by the master. And even in the Renaissance, which came up with the image of genius as a person rather than a guide, it was normal that most of the paintings were painted by assistants or students — this is how Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, Titian, Bosch, and everyone else worked, except perhaps Caravaggio on the run.

    Does this mean that art is true with a” heart “in Romanticism, but without a “heart” in classicism?

    No, it means that everything is complicated.

    And it's a good thing that everything is complicated. Because the only way to fully perceive art in any form is through at least a partial acceptance of uncertainty. The tendency to simplify the definition of art is surprisingly correlated with the tendency to simplify in principle. History knows thousands of burned paintings, and not one of them was burned out of love for contradictions and nuances.

    So if you, personally, dear reader, want a simple and clear division of art into true and false-you will find it in the Nazis. No, I won't bring him in.

  2. Each person has their own views on art and their own taste and their own price of art. For me personally, true art is the sunrise or the three-day moonrise, it is the trill of a nightingale or a spring thunderstorm, it is any flower of nature. Everything that man tries to produce by copying Nature is a false art. This is my assessment of true art and I don't pretend to be the truth. With respect.

  3. The purpose of art is to help a person to know himself and the world around him, to educate a person, to inspire him to fight and to work for a better and more perfect way of life. And music, along with other forms of art, serves this purpose. (According To D. D. Shostakovich)

    I recall the words of the twentieth-century Russian composer Dmitry Shostakovich that the goal of art is “to educate people, inspire them to fight and work for a better and more perfect way of life.”

    The problem of the truth of art is often addressed by well-known publicists. So, I. Dolgopolov, admiring the works of Andrey Rublev, notes that the creations of real masters live for more than one century, because they are written with the heart. They can be outwardly simple, but wise “with that bottomless spiritual depth that marks Pushkin's poetry, Glinka's music, Dostoevsky's prose.” * I. Dolgopolov also shows the power of witchcraft of great painters in his essay on the Sistine Madonna by Raphael. According to the author, our soul,” despite all the dictates of reason, which suggests that this is just a mirage, the inventions of the artist, ” freezes, contemplating this miracle of painting.”

    True art , what is made with the heart, everything else is false.

  4. I want to add to the concept of art the concept of theoretical regularities. The classification of art should be handled by competent people, ideally by practitioners of the same field who are not averse to innovative changes. I will write on the example of fine art, but I think the principles are the same in other areas. Throughout time, humanity has accumulated experience in transmitting visual information on a plane. Theorists tried to make canons, look for general laws of beauty, principles of composition, color studies, and so on. In the Renaissance, the “Divine Proportion” was most often mentioned as an example of the search for a universal scheme. Imaginative art of the 20th century is the peak of the reinterpretation of visual images and symbols that obey laws, but do not convey reality as such.

    From two “daubs” incomprehensible to the thirsty layman, a professional will see where the hand of an experienced artist is, and where it was a child or an experiment of a novice artist. In my opinion, it is necessary to base laws, theory, as the basis of aesthetics.

Leave a Reply