During my research on Goodman, I found Goodman's theory of symbols to be very interesting. Through his theory of symbols, Goodman attempts to analyze various art forms according to their symbolic features. He views the nature of art as cognitive. In order to truly understand, Goodman emphasizes that art must be partnered with science. Could it be that we are looking for answer for the definition of art, but only looking within the field of art?
Goodman believes all art does not share some special quality. He instead advocates when art is because how we use art is how its properties are exemplified. He says art must function as a symbol. To find art without representation, Goodman says is impossible. I do not believe that all art is meant to represent something. Artists can intend for art to be representative and symbolic. So, why can't they intend for art to represent nothing? Many works of art are not intended to represent anything. The artist simply makes them for showcase and to be displayed are their only function.
To go back to what I said earlier; "Are we looking for a definiton of art by only looking within the field of art? Where else can we look?"
No comments:
Post a Comment