|
|
Post by keghan on Apr 17, 2011 12:37:10 GMT -5
What is the difference between a work of art and a pretty picture?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacqueline on Apr 19, 2011 12:04:46 GMT -5
Define "work of art".
|
|
|
|
Post by keghan on Apr 22, 2011 22:08:51 GMT -5
Mmmm..no. Yes, I know I'm begging the question, but that's part of asking what the difference is.
What I mean is that fine art (which is what I'm thinking of in this context) is something visual created for asthetic purposes. It doesn't have to be pretty (pleasant, appealing) of course, although that is most often the goal.
A pretty picture is a visual representation of something and is appreciated for it's beauty.
But how is it different from art?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacqueline on Apr 23, 2011 23:39:20 GMT -5
The problem with your question is that different people find beauty in different things. For instance, there are people who find Pollack's abstracts stunningly beautiful. They don't speak to me personally overall. Although I do confess a bit of attraction to The Tea Cup and Easter and the Totem. The same holds true with a "pretty picture". Who defines pretty? Who decides what is beautiful? There is a reason for the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". That's true with art and people wouldn't you say?  |
|
|
|
Post by keghan on Apr 25, 2011 23:39:41 GMT -5
But your argument amounts to saying that art is whatever you choose to call it then. Or perhaps whatever you can persuade someone else it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacqueline on Apr 27, 2011 7:31:38 GMT -5
Isn't that the case? Suppose someone creates something out of old bottle caps or glues tons of toys to a car. Personally these don't appeal me, however there are plenty of people who are emotionally moved by these. Just because something doesn't speak to me personally does that mean that the work is any less valid? If the definition of art is something that stirs emotion and feeling, and these things accomplish that feat with people, then who am I to say it isn't art just because I don't care for it?
I think this applies to "fine art" as well. I can name several Masters whose work simply doesn't stir me. Does this make them any less talented? Absolutely not. Does the fact that their work fails to move me make their work any less valid or valuable? Absolutely not. It simply means that their artistic energy doesn't move my energy.
I'm not an art snob. I've never seen the point in that mentality. If you close your eyes to a particular type of art based solely on the type of art, you will very likely miss some amazing work. I have preferences, like everyone, but I keep an open mind and at least look and give everything a chance. If it doesn't resonate with me that's fine. When it does resonate with me it's amazing and I enjoy a great exchange with the artist who created the piece.
I find it particularly disturbing when artists have a snob mentality. Nine times out of ten, these are the very people who end up stuck in one style hanging out in the same venues year after year with no growth in their work or their happiness. These are the people I see "chasing the art rainbow" looking for their big break. They fail to realize that loving other people is the most artistic thing one can do. And when you learn this skill, the entire world opens up to you, including the art community.
|
|
|
|
Post by keghan on Apr 27, 2011 12:51:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacqueline on Apr 27, 2011 15:39:23 GMT -5
Definate art. Kitteh art of the highest order. ;D
|
|
CK
New Peach
Posts: 9
|
Post by CK on Apr 27, 2011 18:55:20 GMT -5
I was gonna say...looks like two cats to me! ;D
...yes, I'm being a smartass!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacqueline on Apr 28, 2011 18:23:03 GMT -5
You???!!! Being a smartass???!!!  *Snickers* |
|
