Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
Here are some definitions of art from www.dictionary.com:
art
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study or product of these activities.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
I prefer this definition, from Wikipedia:
4. The process or result of making material works (or artwork) which, from concept to creation, adhere to the "creative impulse".
What do you consider as 'art'? Many of the (older) people I know think that a work of art has to look like whatever it represents - so they like the old masters, and not Picasso. Some (usually older) people think that a work of art has to be produced by someone obviously talented - they want to feel that they could never produce something like that - so Picasso is fine, but they don't appreciate Jackson Pollock. Children often tend to feel the opposite - they appreciate art that they can have a go at themselves, so they often like abstract art.
For me, the emotional impact of a work of art is crucial. I have been moved to tears in art museums, and that is a measure of the art's worth to me. Secondary to that, I like to find out what an artist is trying to say, which can make me appreciate a work of art that doesn't make that initial impression. I think a real artist is one who tries something new - I find Jackson Pollock's work beautiful, but I appreciate it all the more since I learnt that he was (probably) the first painter to move around a horizontal canvas, rather than stand in front of an easel.
I believe very strongly that a work of art need not be beautiful - the emotional impact can be negative. A few years ago there was uproar in my city over an ugly concrete sculpture that was exhibited in the city centre. There were articles and letters in the local paper and discussions on the radio about how it wasn't art. All that reaction proved to me that it was art - it had provoked an emotional response.
Here are some of my favourite artworks, to give you an idea of what I like and why:
I did my art history project for my GCSE on this painting, The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymous Bosch, and I still feel a lot of affection for it. The only one of his paintings I have seen in person is The Temptation of St Anthony, which I saw on my honeymoon in Bruges.
I saw The Weeping Woman by Picasso in London, I think it was in the Tate. It was tucked away in a corner and we came across it unexpectedly. The white area in the painting conveys the emotion perfectly.
This is my favourite of Jackson Pollock's paintings, Lavender Mist. You have to see it in person to see how beautiful the colours are. I sat and looked at this painting for ages, it is so relaxing. My mind tried to make sense of it, but when it couldn't I felt this amazing sense of calm.
Sleep by Salvador Dali. This is exactly how fragile sleep is for me.
This is the first of Andy Goldsworthy's works that I learnt of, entitled "Iris blades pinned together with thorns filled in five sections with rowan berries
fish attacking from below difficult to keep all the berries in nibbled at by ducks". Goldsworthy produces these strikingly beautiful, ephemeral sculptures and photographs them, then leaves them to the ravages of Nature. That has to be one of the most original ideas I have heard of - most art tends to be enduring, even for thousands of years.
I saw (one of) this sculpture, Field by Anthony Gormley, in a church in Shrewsbury. He won the Turner prize for it. I later found out that there are various versions of the sculpture all over the world. Gormley went to various communities, and asked individuals to make a hand-sized clay figure of a person, which he then displayed together. The version I saw consists of 40,000 figures.
art
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study or product of these activities.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
I prefer this definition, from Wikipedia:
4. The process or result of making material works (or artwork) which, from concept to creation, adhere to the "creative impulse".
What do you consider as 'art'? Many of the (older) people I know think that a work of art has to look like whatever it represents - so they like the old masters, and not Picasso. Some (usually older) people think that a work of art has to be produced by someone obviously talented - they want to feel that they could never produce something like that - so Picasso is fine, but they don't appreciate Jackson Pollock. Children often tend to feel the opposite - they appreciate art that they can have a go at themselves, so they often like abstract art.
For me, the emotional impact of a work of art is crucial. I have been moved to tears in art museums, and that is a measure of the art's worth to me. Secondary to that, I like to find out what an artist is trying to say, which can make me appreciate a work of art that doesn't make that initial impression. I think a real artist is one who tries something new - I find Jackson Pollock's work beautiful, but I appreciate it all the more since I learnt that he was (probably) the first painter to move around a horizontal canvas, rather than stand in front of an easel.
I believe very strongly that a work of art need not be beautiful - the emotional impact can be negative. A few years ago there was uproar in my city over an ugly concrete sculpture that was exhibited in the city centre. There were articles and letters in the local paper and discussions on the radio about how it wasn't art. All that reaction proved to me that it was art - it had provoked an emotional response.
Here are some of my favourite artworks, to give you an idea of what I like and why:
I did my art history project for my GCSE on this painting, The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymous Bosch, and I still feel a lot of affection for it. The only one of his paintings I have seen in person is The Temptation of St Anthony, which I saw on my honeymoon in Bruges.
I saw The Weeping Woman by Picasso in London, I think it was in the Tate. It was tucked away in a corner and we came across it unexpectedly. The white area in the painting conveys the emotion perfectly.
This is my favourite of Jackson Pollock's paintings, Lavender Mist. You have to see it in person to see how beautiful the colours are. I sat and looked at this painting for ages, it is so relaxing. My mind tried to make sense of it, but when it couldn't I felt this amazing sense of calm.
Sleep by Salvador Dali. This is exactly how fragile sleep is for me.
This is the first of Andy Goldsworthy's works that I learnt of, entitled "Iris blades pinned together with thorns filled in five sections with rowan berries
fish attacking from below difficult to keep all the berries in nibbled at by ducks". Goldsworthy produces these strikingly beautiful, ephemeral sculptures and photographs them, then leaves them to the ravages of Nature. That has to be one of the most original ideas I have heard of - most art tends to be enduring, even for thousands of years.
I saw (one of) this sculpture, Field by Anthony Gormley, in a church in Shrewsbury. He won the Turner prize for it. I later found out that there are various versions of the sculpture all over the world. Gormley went to various communities, and asked individuals to make a hand-sized clay figure of a person, which he then displayed together. The version I saw consists of 40,000 figures.
