"Don't limit a child to your own learning, for he was born in another time."
Talking about art is rather weird. Perhaps one might call it stupid. After all, art is such a subjective subject. What is art in one's eyes may not necessarily be art in another's.
Let's talk about some things about art in general. In my opinion, there are two main things to art - one is the intention of the artist, and the other is the interpretation of the audience. Most art have alot of intent injected into them, such as your typical sculptures, painting etectra. The few exceptions with little intent are mostly abstract art, ambiguous blobs and patches of which we are free to infer about. And sometimes the intent in a certain piece of art may be too cheem for normal people (or non-insane people) to understand. Most things can be viewed as a work of art. Also, there are certain items to which general consensus is that they are not a form of art, such as discarded drink cans, fallen leaves etc.
But today's GP lesson is rather stupid. Apart from that I disagree with alot of other's views, the questions by themselves are rather, for lack of a better word, stupid. For example: Does the mode affect whether something is considered art? It is equally possible to argue yes and no, and one can probably find equal evidence to support both. Scultping, painting, crafting are all forms of art. There are, in terms of artistic value, incomparable with each other. Something that requires skill is a form of art. The art of writing. The art of sports. The art of fighting. They all are arts in their own regards. So much so, even 'martial arts' is termed so. In this regard, one can argue that mode does not affect art. I won't bother to argue for the other stand because I'm personally more inclined to the stand that mode doesn't affect art, and I will probably be typing even more biased shit so lets ignore that for now.
Every piece of work embodies intention. I find it very disappointing that many people intertwine visual appeal with artistic value. Under most pieces of work lie intention and effort. To judge them by their visual appeal is unfair; to say that a photograph is not a piece of art simply because oh-its-so-easy-to-take-a-photograph and because oh-anyone-can-take-a-photo-too is a very superficial way of thinking in my opinion. There are so many ways to judge the same thing, however, so it is to be expected that people think differently of the same object.
To use Ryan Cher's example - A nude portrait, say, is a work of art, but a nude photo would be classified under porn. This is, of course, subjective, but if one were to look at them unbiasedly, both are equal work of arts; one of the human body and one of painting skill. Of course, there are many other underlying factors, but the main reason that one would be inclined to criticize the photo rather than the painting is, in my opinion, more due to that of how society reacts in general. When it comes to "evident" art, such as scupltures and paintings and the like, nudity is less criticized, especially when you take into account the amount of nude sculptures and paintings around the world. Perhaps society is more accepting when it comes to art because such forms of art are less realisitc than photos, lie on a separate plane of existence from us humans, and that humans in general are desensitized to it. Photos and the like, on the other hand, hint of a real person, someone alive, with thoughts and feelings, unlike that of the person in the painting whom however much we give thought too it still a painting. Perhaps it is this difference which causes society to accept nude portraits and yet reject nude photos at the same time.
Argh started crapping again. If I'm not careful this blog will become a GP essay ranting place -.-
PLAY MAPLE STORY! Its dam fun again lah =D Suddenly exploring all the new places and guailaning around dam fun for some reaosn -_-
