It is a brave person who tries to define art! I accept anything as art that was designed to be so.
The more bothering question is whether or not it is "good art".
At rock bottom I think my question should be "do I personally like it a lot, a little or not at all?" But the world is more complex than that!
If 20 people see two art works, A and B, and 15 like A better than B, there is then a basis to try and work out why the work A appeals.
And so we develop criteria - "it is like the real thing": or it has "design, colour, harmony and rhythm" or "emotion": or "thought": or "originality". Each of these criteria has a school of art based on it and art can be judged using these and other parameters. Artists, art critics and a sophisticated art-viewing public can praise or damn art on an accepted, agreed on basis.
And so some art acquires a value over other art.... both in prestige and money.
I hope viewers in this mini gallery will enjoy making a personal response to the art displayed here.
{I was going to up-load a copy 2 paintings for this blog entry - one of Malevich's "The Black Square" and one of the Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", but I looked up the business of copyright. "The Mona Lisa" would not be a problem ( it is apparently the most copied painting in the world) but "The Black Square" just might be. Wikipedia has a whole page defending its right to have published an image of it, quoting articles in Russian law etc, so I thought better of it. Instead you have a painting of my great grandfather, Robert Propsting. Artist unknown and dead, and I own the painting. Copyright is definitely not an issue! }
Comments