Art: Standing on Its Own
This post is about the appreciation of any experience, mainly art (painting, music, poetry, film, photography, song, etc.), that comes with conditional circumstances.
Okay first let me pose the question. Would the Mona Lisa be as revered if its origins and history were unknown? I've always felt that a piece of art should stand on its own. If it's good, it's good regardless of who did it, or the circumstances under which it was produced. But so much art is simply about the artist and the circumstances. Case in point, why does a piece of art appreciate so significantly after the artist dies? Okay, here's another question. Is it the appreciation that gives art its value, or is there something "divine" inherent in great art that is there whether appreciated or not. Another case in point. Van Gogh never sold a single painting in his lifetime.
Why is it that you can see or hear something and immediately know that it's great without having the slightest idea as to why? There was a quote ...I don't know from whom... that goes, "Art should appeal to the soul of everyone, not just an elite few. Art transcends all cultural, social, and economic boundaries. If it only appeals to a select few, then it's merely a fad ...a fad that might catch on and become popular, but it's not true art." I've always believed this and yet I've seen so much to contrary.
The elite do have their purpose ...to recognize art and to acquaint the masses with that which would go unappreciated. Sometimes the appreciation of something is greatly enhanced when you know what you're supposed to see or listen for, or you're supposed to experience the "piece" in the context of what the artist intended, or the experience is multi-layered and changes with repeated exposure. So much of my appreciation of so many things has come out of my "learning" to appreciate them.
There is no doubt of art's relevance and influence on society. However when trying to define it, you get as many different responses as people you ask. Everyone has his own idea of what art is. Everyone has something he [might] express, and every creative expression is art. Everyone, therefore, is an artist. Although I believe every artistic expression is valid, not all art is relevant to everyone. Some expressions may be of significance only to a very few ..or only the one, the artist.
Back in '78 when I had my gallery, I used it to display my photography and screen prints, quilts and other textile art, and any other artistic expressions. The gallery was not about commerce, nor about proclaiming myself as a great artist, but a place where my stuff could be displayed, viewed, and appreciated by those who might. When someone bought something, they always wanted me to sign the work, which I would, but only on the back or some other insignificant place that didn't impact the piece. Even when I made clothing ...I once considered fashion design as a possible career choice... I would never put a label in the garment.
I hate labels, so much so that I make a conscious effort to, wherever possible, remove any label that's attached to something I've acquired. I get so riled when I hear people talk in terms of labels without ever once referring to the item itself ...it's texture, color, sound, aroma, taste, or visual aesthetic. Sometimes that label might speak to the level of quality, general style, period of time, etc., but as a culture, we've been brainwashed to buy the allusion.
Why is it that you can see or hear something and immediately know that it's great without having the slightest idea as to why? There was a quote ...I don't know from whom... that goes, "Art should appeal to the soul of everyone, not just an elite few. Art transcends all cultural, social, and economic boundaries. If it only appeals to a select few, then it's merely a fad ...a fad that might catch on and become popular, but it's not true art." I've always believed this and yet I've seen so much to contrary.
The elite do have their purpose ...to recognize art and to acquaint the masses with that which would go unappreciated. Sometimes the appreciation of something is greatly enhanced when you know what you're supposed to see or listen for, or you're supposed to experience the "piece" in the context of what the artist intended, or the experience is multi-layered and changes with repeated exposure. So much of my appreciation of so many things has come out of my "learning" to appreciate them.
There is no doubt of art's relevance and influence on society. However when trying to define it, you get as many different responses as people you ask. Everyone has his own idea of what art is. Everyone has something he [might] express, and every creative expression is art. Everyone, therefore, is an artist. Although I believe every artistic expression is valid, not all art is relevant to everyone. Some expressions may be of significance only to a very few ..or only the one, the artist.
Back in '78 when I had my gallery, I used it to display my photography and screen prints, quilts and other textile art, and any other artistic expressions. The gallery was not about commerce, nor about proclaiming myself as a great artist, but a place where my stuff could be displayed, viewed, and appreciated by those who might. When someone bought something, they always wanted me to sign the work, which I would, but only on the back or some other insignificant place that didn't impact the piece. Even when I made clothing ...I once considered fashion design as a possible career choice... I would never put a label in the garment.
I hate labels, so much so that I make a conscious effort to, wherever possible, remove any label that's attached to something I've acquired. I get so riled when I hear people talk in terms of labels without ever once referring to the item itself ...it's texture, color, sound, aroma, taste, or visual aesthetic. Sometimes that label might speak to the level of quality, general style, period of time, etc., but as a culture, we've been brainwashed to buy the allusion.
posted 07 August 2006
0 Comment(s):
Post a Comment
<< Home