What is Art?
Art is commentary. Be it political, like Kathe Kollwitz, social, like “Guernica”, or commentary on one’s own mind or reality, like Dali, art makes a statement. Even it is purely for aesthetics, like Mondrian’s “Composition in Red, Yellow and Blue”, it is still proclaiming that this is what the artist defines as beautiful. Art is a deeply personal experience that artists decide to share with the world. Even if their true intent is lost on the public at large, it still serves a purpose: expression. Art is a mode of communication.
Being well-versed in history helps decode this communication. A solid understanding of what was happening politically, economically, socially and religiously can open up a whole world of understanding. Rather than looking at a piece and wondering “how the heck is this called art?”, the viewer can now see and understand why it is considered art. Even though they might not agree that it is art, this understanding is essential. My newfound understanding and ability to analyze art has shaped not just perception but my appreciation. I can theorize, based on what historical context and what the current artistic movement is, and gain a deep insight not only to what the work means, but why the artist created it, how it was intended to be viewed, and how the artist might want it viewed. At the beginning of the year, I said that art was open to interpretation. I still fully agree, but my reasoning is more educated now. Previously, I claimed it was because “some people will not see what the artist intended, but they will see something that is far more moving and relatable to their own life.” This is especially true now that we have more access to art than ever, be it from professionals like Wangechi Mutu, who create to bring awareness and start a discussion about sexuality and the female identity, or a pre-teen on Deviantart who’s doodles are simply aesthetically pleasing. It is incredibly difficult to gauge how “worthy” art is. Some works have more personal meaning than others; some established a canon of proportions and others define their artistic movement. In the end, it doesn’t change that art is still a mode of communication and expression that only the viewer can attach meaning to.
That said, it is not only the viewer who determines the value of art. It is how any veiwer relates to and experiences it. Art is worthy as a means of expression, without any outside justification. Oftentimes, that determination of worth is based on how beautiful or aesthetically pleasing a piece is. Beauty takes different forms for different people; there is no one universal idea of beauty. That is the tricky thing about aesthetic- it varies from person to person. It depends on what mood they are in, what stage of life, and whether or not they want to see what the artist created from the artist’s point of view. But if we do not try to find the artist’s intent, we could lose the entire meaning and depth of the piece. How beautiful one person finds the art does not detract from the intent that the artist created it with. Aesthetic is how one relates to and perceives beauty; art is what we actually see. Art is something created intentionally, with attention to either aesthetics or form.
In conclusion, my perception of art has not changed all that much, but I have gained more insight into why and how art is considered art. However, my appreciation and understanding of art has grown immensely, and it couldn't have without the background of history.
Art is commentary. Be it political, like Kathe Kollwitz, social, like “Guernica”, or commentary on one’s own mind or reality, like Dali, art makes a statement. Even it is purely for aesthetics, like Mondrian’s “Composition in Red, Yellow and Blue”, it is still proclaiming that this is what the artist defines as beautiful. Art is a deeply personal experience that artists decide to share with the world. Even if their true intent is lost on the public at large, it still serves a purpose: expression. Art is a mode of communication.
Being well-versed in history helps decode this communication. A solid understanding of what was happening politically, economically, socially and religiously can open up a whole world of understanding. Rather than looking at a piece and wondering “how the heck is this called art?”, the viewer can now see and understand why it is considered art. Even though they might not agree that it is art, this understanding is essential. My newfound understanding and ability to analyze art has shaped not just perception but my appreciation. I can theorize, based on what historical context and what the current artistic movement is, and gain a deep insight not only to what the work means, but why the artist created it, how it was intended to be viewed, and how the artist might want it viewed. At the beginning of the year, I said that art was open to interpretation. I still fully agree, but my reasoning is more educated now. Previously, I claimed it was because “some people will not see what the artist intended, but they will see something that is far more moving and relatable to their own life.” This is especially true now that we have more access to art than ever, be it from professionals like Wangechi Mutu, who create to bring awareness and start a discussion about sexuality and the female identity, or a pre-teen on Deviantart who’s doodles are simply aesthetically pleasing. It is incredibly difficult to gauge how “worthy” art is. Some works have more personal meaning than others; some established a canon of proportions and others define their artistic movement. In the end, it doesn’t change that art is still a mode of communication and expression that only the viewer can attach meaning to.
That said, it is not only the viewer who determines the value of art. It is how any veiwer relates to and experiences it. Art is worthy as a means of expression, without any outside justification. Oftentimes, that determination of worth is based on how beautiful or aesthetically pleasing a piece is. Beauty takes different forms for different people; there is no one universal idea of beauty. That is the tricky thing about aesthetic- it varies from person to person. It depends on what mood they are in, what stage of life, and whether or not they want to see what the artist created from the artist’s point of view. But if we do not try to find the artist’s intent, we could lose the entire meaning and depth of the piece. How beautiful one person finds the art does not detract from the intent that the artist created it with. Aesthetic is how one relates to and perceives beauty; art is what we actually see. Art is something created intentionally, with attention to either aesthetics or form.
In conclusion, my perception of art has not changed all that much, but I have gained more insight into why and how art is considered art. However, my appreciation and understanding of art has grown immensely, and it couldn't have without the background of history.
