To define art is to limit its reach, but I believe in some
cases that the definition of art should be limited. In the way that there are
highly respected fields of science, there are also pseudo-sciences which are
not given the same high regard as art.
I think that the term artist is an all encompassing to apply
to art which is made for personal, public, professional or therapeutic
use. An artist who makes their
living practicing art, (i.e. creating paintings, music, ) and relies heavily on
income generated from selling artwork or presenting exhibitions should be
considered professional artists.
I have trouble accepting some abstract work as art. For
example, in the UNM MFA Booklet, I saw a final project consisting of a dirty
shoe hanging from a hook on the wall.
To me, stuff like this is not art, and not up to the academic standards
of an MFA. Art requires hard work as well as analytic and .
Also, in Scholes Hall there are a number of 6 ft x 6ft
abstract paintings. They look like wasted canvas, with colors haphazardly
thrown onto the canvas with no compositional or aesthetic appeal. I get sort of
annoyed that these are the paintings used in the ‘most important’ building on
campus.
I have trouble calling many things art, but I don’t think
that my subjectivity is a definitive answer or any more correct than anyone else’s
assessment of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment