Wartenberg's introduction discusses many issues that thwart art from having a clear and precise definition. Is art a product of accident? Does art have to be treated as such by the art world to be considered art? The infinite possibilities of criteria for something to be art or not be art make it impossible to truly define art. As we discussed in class, the intentionality thesis intends to identify a work of art as something that an artist or an observer intends to be a work of art. This theory however is way too inclusive. A five-year old according to the intentionality theory could point to spilled juice on the floor and call it art and therefore it would be art. That is ridiculous. Although the intentionality thesis is way too inclusive, I believe it shows us the significance of an artist's intentions. Intentions shine through and are a vital part of what aesthetic properties such as contrast, brightness, and texture that an artwork exhibits. So, the questions, what is art? , and how to define art? are unanswerable. Art represents something entirely different to each individual. To try and confine art to one definition is impossible. That leaves us only to seek to define what art is to a certain individual.
Also, in the introduction Wartenberg brings up the question of whether or not to consider a picture of the Mona Lisa viewed via the internet art. Did Da Vinci intend for the Mona Lisa to be a work of art viewed by any means or just by seeing the original in person? So, this left me with a question. Should art viewed by technological means still be considered art?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment