Something that we briefly touched on in class is whether or not all art is beautiful. As a Studio Art minor, I've encountered this question before, and even gone a bit deeper to question what actually constitutes art. It's difficult to look at a canvas painted dark blue and assign it great artistic value. However, during our conversation on Wednesday, I began to think about the process that goes into making a piece of art. The first two steps can go in any order: you have to have some idea of what you want to create or you have to make the decision that you want to create something. This could be based on aesthetics, an abstract idea, a current event, etc. Inspiration is everywhere. Then you have to work out the details--materials, equipment, space, time--with careful measurements and consideration of how you're going to follow out your plan. After that, it's time to create. And that process has hundreds of preparations and steps and trial and error that finally comes to produce a piece.
What all this comes down to is that the beauty of art may not always be in the piece itself--the piece might be grotesque or uncomfortable or just too simple to be seen as "beautiful"--but in the process.
What all this comes down to is that the beauty of art may not always be in the piece itself--the piece might be grotesque or uncomfortable or just too simple to be seen as "beautiful"--but in the process.
I also think it has to do with the emotions the piece of art elicits in the viewer. The art work may seem strange or not classically beautiful but if it provokes some sort of inspirational or positive emotion it can be considered beautiful by that viewer. This allows for art to move past just its physical characteristics and move towards a much deeper evaluation of beauty.
ReplyDelete