And that 'own personal perspective' is paramount in this discussion.
It strikes me that the essence, the fundamental question, in this enquiry, when you strip it right back to the very heart, is: what is the purpose of Art? What's it for?
The video below is Alain de Botton's perspective; in my opinion somewhat traditional in its outlook and content but a good way in to this enquiry. It addresses that very question of what Art is for, and, very importantly, it implies/suggests, that the answer is different for everyone.
Once you begin to go through the process of forming an answer to that question of what, to you, Art is for, then the consideration of other answers becomes a possibility, provided of course that the initial formation of one's own answer doesn't become a rigid list against which all Art is to be considered/judged, and if all the boxes aren't ticked the pronouncement 'This is NOT Art' immediately and inevitably follows.
After all, Art needs to move forward. Art exists in a contemporary context because artists live in the contemporary context, i.e. the artists of the past lived in their time, as present-day artists live and work in the present day, in the society of today, in their society. We can enjoy the Art of the past now and we can enjoy and, very importantly, admire the Art of the past within the context in which it was created.
Alain de Botton explains how we can enjoy the Art of the past today. A lot of the artworks of the past that we admire now were controversial in their day, because they were questioning the conventional, they were moving Art forward. We enjoy them now without being (negatively) affected by what was then controversial because human consciousness has moved on, has evolved to the point where those artworks no longer push us out of our comfort zone.
BUT ART NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD ...
No comments:
Post a Comment