Glad to see you writing again, I was begining to worry. I really like the last post, just thought you should know. As for your view on art, I agree... to a point. Art is subjective, but it is society itself that determines what art is. Art must be within the bounds, or just slightly outside the bounds of what society finds reasonable in order to be considered art. We happen to be lucky, because we live in a larger society that's basis and boundry for art is volumonous, damn near anything goes. There are still bounderies however, and though a small sub-section of society may consider one thing art, society as a greater whole does not. Now consider that with in each subsection of what is art, there are certain rules that apply, music for instance still has a stauch set of rules that are to be followed in every genre and medium. The beautiful thing is; we have so many! That's where the difference lay, two hundred years ago that thought of art being completely and solely subjective wouldn't have had a positive or as influential an impact, because society itself would have limited the artistic endeavors. So while art is subjective, it is only as subjective as the society it occurs in allows, and there are set rules for different sub-cultures of art within a society. Some of these rules are freer than others, but they do exsist.
As for critics, well, the ideal critic isn't just someone who informs society of what is 'good' or 'bad' artistically, but one who informs society about art in general. An information giver, someone who understands the medium and can let the public know as a whole not only what is good and bad about something, but why it's good or bad, and how it compares with others in the same medium. Also how it fits into society as a whole. The criteria for judging such pieces, and the comparison that inevitably is made for such pieces need to be taken from amoungst the same sub-set of artistic medium. You can compare a rock music to classical, but the comparison isn't a fair one for either style of music, it has to be rock to rock, classical to classical. If one understands the sub-set and can make a fair comparison with in the sub-set, then the individuals who partake of that particular sub-set are that much better off for the criticism.
As for intellectuallizing art; to create art intellect helps, but it should not be relied upon for primary motivation, only as a tool to guide. To enjoy art, no intellectualizing is needed, but doesn't always hurt. To understand how art fits into society, intellectuallizing is a must.
So... sorry that this post was so long and dry. I always seem to make an exception to my rule to not posting my beliefs when it comes to art. Don't get me wrong, you had valid points Teej, I'm really glad you replied. As for the real intent of my post the other day... I'll right it tomorrow. I've exhausted all the intellect (or pseudo-intellect if you will) I have for the evening.
posted by F.G. Shaw @ 1:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home