What is Art?
I believe that most people will live out their lives not knowing exactly how to define art. I am one of those sad people. Art, in my AP Art History experience, has been many things. It was a urinal, but at the same time, it was the Starry Night by Van Gogh. From this, I gathered that art can be anything as long as you contribute to the makings of it to some degree. I believe art is supposed to be something we can tie our emotions to, whether it’s frustration by our own lack of understanding or a feeling of awe.
When I was happy with this type of explanation of the definition of art, I started thinking about pine cones and other natural plants produced by nature. With no human interference, nature proved to be one of the greatest works of art in existence. With this I tried to formulate the idea that art can be both natural and artificial, yet someone somewhere still had to do something to the natural aspect to make it into art. For example, Mount Fuji by itself as it stands in nature would be a natural geological figure, which could stand as a symbol of Japan and everything that Japan stands for; however, it is only through capturing this natural monument through the means of a photograph or a painting that it truly becomes a piece of art. This, of course, applies to the vast space beyond Earth’s atmosphere and to the deepest crevices of the Marianas Trench.
Art does not have to be something you can touch. To me, art can be found in music, the way of life, and in stories. They all are associated with emotions and the path of life one chooses, In this, I can assume that art is something that is needed for human survival. This can be seen in the attempts by paleolithic people, who sought to create art on the walls of the caves, regardless of the fact that they probably went to great lengths to survive everyday.
One other factor of art is that art does not have to be appreciated by everyone. Sometimes, art is simply rejected because of the theme it illuminates or because of the technique used to create the art. For example, Van Gogh lived his life without people ever appreciating his art. Picasso’s own paintings were sold off by his children for a cheap price. However, there are artists whose art had been sought after. With this, we can only assume that some factor changes the desirability of art. So the question becomes, what makes one art more popular than another of seemingly equal use of technique and skill? The answer can be seen with the surrealist movement and how it went against everything that was considered art, art just simply cannot be defined. There could be a popular notion of what art should be during a specific period in time, but that too, is ultimately evolved until it defines something entirely different. So this shift in what is considered art changes the desirability.
This then brings into question of why art changes every couple of centuries and even decades. The only solution I see is that no one really knows what art is and this definition of art changes with each person. Therefore, the conclusion I can draw is that art is nothing, but everything, and is like an organism that develops and grows as time wears on.
I believe that most people will live out their lives not knowing exactly how to define art. I am one of those sad people. Art, in my AP Art History experience, has been many things. It was a urinal, but at the same time, it was the Starry Night by Van Gogh. From this, I gathered that art can be anything as long as you contribute to the makings of it to some degree. I believe art is supposed to be something we can tie our emotions to, whether it’s frustration by our own lack of understanding or a feeling of awe.
When I was happy with this type of explanation of the definition of art, I started thinking about pine cones and other natural plants produced by nature. With no human interference, nature proved to be one of the greatest works of art in existence. With this I tried to formulate the idea that art can be both natural and artificial, yet someone somewhere still had to do something to the natural aspect to make it into art. For example, Mount Fuji by itself as it stands in nature would be a natural geological figure, which could stand as a symbol of Japan and everything that Japan stands for; however, it is only through capturing this natural monument through the means of a photograph or a painting that it truly becomes a piece of art. This, of course, applies to the vast space beyond Earth’s atmosphere and to the deepest crevices of the Marianas Trench.
Art does not have to be something you can touch. To me, art can be found in music, the way of life, and in stories. They all are associated with emotions and the path of life one chooses, In this, I can assume that art is something that is needed for human survival. This can be seen in the attempts by paleolithic people, who sought to create art on the walls of the caves, regardless of the fact that they probably went to great lengths to survive everyday.
One other factor of art is that art does not have to be appreciated by everyone. Sometimes, art is simply rejected because of the theme it illuminates or because of the technique used to create the art. For example, Van Gogh lived his life without people ever appreciating his art. Picasso’s own paintings were sold off by his children for a cheap price. However, there are artists whose art had been sought after. With this, we can only assume that some factor changes the desirability of art. So the question becomes, what makes one art more popular than another of seemingly equal use of technique and skill? The answer can be seen with the surrealist movement and how it went against everything that was considered art, art just simply cannot be defined. There could be a popular notion of what art should be during a specific period in time, but that too, is ultimately evolved until it defines something entirely different. So this shift in what is considered art changes the desirability.
This then brings into question of why art changes every couple of centuries and even decades. The only solution I see is that no one really knows what art is and this definition of art changes with each person. Therefore, the conclusion I can draw is that art is nothing, but everything, and is like an organism that develops and grows as time wears on.
