My opinion of art

Alright, I do not intend to actually claim to know what art is, or who get's to define that anyway. I merely want to say what I believe art is, and a couple of other things.

First, what is art? The way I see it art is the product of human creativity. Now, there are several things about this statement that I'll point out. One: it means that art is in the motivation of the creator. Two: Art can be nearly anything. This is hold to completely. What art is all depends on what the creator of the "art" wants it to be. People often confuse "art" with "good art". The point of art is to reveal something about human nature, or reality, or better yet to make us feel something. That does not mean that if does not do this it is not art, but it simply means that it is poor art. Under this definition of art, a broomstick on a pedestal can be art. I believe it can, I personally wouldn't call it good art, but that doesn't mean that it isn't good to someone else, or meaningful to someone else, it also doesn't mean it isn't art. My point is simply this: Art is not inherently a good thing, it is simply a way of humans expressing themselves. It can be well done, or poorly done.

Alright, now that you've listened to that, I think there's one other thing I'd like to mention. People take art too seriously. People seem to assume that unless something makes us feel deep emotion, or asks questions about the nature of XYZ, or is intensely beautiful it is not good. Why can't the point of some art be to make people feel happy? why can't the point of some art be to make people hate it? There is no satisfying conclusion to this post, because it doesn't have much of a point, except for me to get a few things out.



Hayley said…
I'm being inundated with thoughts of the day today. But this is thought of the day worthy. "People take art too seriously." I think I am a 'people.' I think this ought to change. Your new hook can be "changing minds, one snob at a time!"
Grace Joan said…
These are good things to think about.


I think i would argue that art IS inherently good...unless it has been twisted.
You say it's not necessarily good because all it is is "human expression" while that itself is debatable, if that is what art is then I might go a step further and say that human expression is inherently good.

Let me explain what I mean by inherently:
I don't mean what people now do "naturally"...but rather what they were created to do naturally. We don't live "naturally" we are living, breathing, moving in an abnormal, off-kilter universe that is not as it should be.

So...yes, "bad" (or perhaps "twisted" or "broken" would be a better word) art does exist...but the essential nature of art (it's essence, you might say) is good.

....I think

Popular Posts