Even though I don't like this painting (it doesn't speak to me/I just don't get it), I still consider it art. I think that good/bad art does exist, but I believe good/bad art should be evaluated by the individual viewer, not by a small group or arrogant thinkers for the world to listen to.
Heres a picture that I like.
This image of trees planted upside down fits my criteria for art. A tree by itself is not art. It might be considered aesthetically pleasing, but a tree is something that grows out of nature, not of out human/animal thought. The artist who decided to plant these trees upside down had a comical vision and made it real. I can't say that I understand his intentions, but I like this image because it makes me smile. I could sit and stare at this image for an hour, and maybe I would find a message hidden within, but I think that it's creativity alone is enough for me to like it.
On that note, I have a question. I find that there is something undeniably mysterious about creativity. Why do humans smile when we see another person smile? Why do we smile when we something creative?
2 comments:
I also do not understand "White on White". I suppose it can be considered art because it is thought provoking, but since it doesn't seem to require much artistic talent it bothers me that it would be put in the same category as something much more aesthetically pleasing.
-Gina Walker
I think we smile when we see something creative because we engage with it. We are the receiving end. I thing of it as if we are hearing what the piece of art is whispering to us through the string between the paper cups we hold. Thinking about another's creation makes me believe I serve a purpose. Despite the fact that the entire world might be considering the same thing, or crowding around the same piece, the individual hears a unique story form the art, which I suppose is the greatest incitant of thought.
Post a Comment