Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- 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?
As we know from Two Hours in the Tank, art is art is art. The search for one final definition of art has long been an independent meme, and seriously getting to work with it in a crowded Socrates-style square is a rather dead-end task. In addition, Socrates himself answered his own question: “Everything is complicated”, for two and a half thousand years one could already get used to it.
Anthropologically, and this is the only area in which we can say anything for certain about it, art is an open, self-defining area whose boundaries are very different in different cultures.
Once upon a time, all beautiful and important objects, from monumental sculpture to pot ornaments, were called crafts (see Greek τέχνη), and no one really bothered. By about the tenth century in China and the fifteenth century in Europe, some things were considered arts and others crafts. Closer to historical modernity, some crafts were considered art, and some arts were considered crafts. Also, what is shared in one culture is not shared in another, and so on.
In purely theoretical fields, there are entire libraries devoted to the philosophy of art, but all philosophies, like all statements in them, are local. Even the most cross-cultural formal studies like Summers '”Real Spaces” focus on an analytical framework rather than a search for definitions.
If someone thinks that all these are insignificant nuances, but there is some important crap that can bring more final clarity to the issue — then I am afraid that the search for greater final clarity is just a person's fear of uncertainty, and a person needs to deal with this fear independently, and not ask art to do all the work for him. Truth seekers don't do that, and so do tourists who come to the museum to take pictures.
So if you really want to, you can take a book and start making up a matrix of world cultural studies in your head, in which everything is fluid and relative, and instead of one answer there will be fifty, and all of them are basically good. And then-go to exhibitions, look at the works, get used to the topic. This will take several years, which is never an obstacle for an interested person.
And no, it doesn't mean that everything is the same everywhere, and your nephew could literally paint something like Picasso and it would have the same value-it means literally the opposite.
Hello. There is no clear line between art today, because over the past 100 years it has moved out of the traditional framework into performance, documentary, outsider art, paintings with one's own body.
Art is very sensitive to changes in society, adapts to the agenda, becomes plastic.
Only your value system plays a role here. You can expand your understanding of art by asking: what emotions the author appeals to, what means the author uses to convey the idea to the viewer, what feelings you have as a viewer when looking at the work, etc.