In order to shed light on what art is or is not, the Collin’s English dictionary defines it as “the creation of works of beauty or other special significance”. Another possible definition provided by this dictionary is the “imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination”. So, just comparing both terms, it is clear that this concept is ambiguous as everyone does not understand beauty in the same way.
By addressing the picture displayed, it is hard to determine the limits of art. If we focus on the beauty of the image, the way I see it, it is definitely disgusting. Anything, a sofa, animal, or whatever disembowelled does not convey any feeling or meaning of beauty. On the contrary, if imagination is pondered over, the concept of art gains strength. It is an obvious remark that almost nobody has never thought or seen an armchair as a living thing and having its own organs. This view tips the scales in favour of the second definition.
Summing up, art is an imprecise concept that can be interpreted differently. In this particular case, it can be affirmed that this picture or artwork will be considered somehow or other depending on the emotions it evokes.
Having stared at this disgusting photo for a few minutes, a film has come to my mind: its title is “Mona Lisa smile”. Shooted in 2003, its plot takes place in 1953, when a young professor (performed by Julia Roberts) teachs History of Art in a women´s private conservative college and she asks the very same questions to her pupils, showing them a series of pictures: what is art? Besides triggers a huge and controversial debate, the matter sheds light on some of the main concerns and aspirations of the students, that crash with the cornerstones of the 50´s society and the roles who women play in it.
According to this movie, art is far beyond beauty and craft, because not only is something that worth to look at, but also an expression of human beings creative skills or imagination, in which the author trys to get away from the usual and familiar life in order to open his or her mind and soul, becoming a window of the artist´s inner feelings. In fact, these works are considered by many of the modern art admirers, as icons of freedom and tolerance in a country.
On the other hand, modern art is not my cup of tea. I usually enjoy comtemplating the impressionist paintings by Monet or Renoir, or even a surrealist master-piece by DalÃ, but I have to admit that most works of current painters do not live up with my expectations, mainly because I can not understand them, although this does not mean that they are not art; it is also my belief that nobody can say what art is or not, and what more, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Summing up, I am always sitting on the fence when people discuss this topic. I can see loud and clear, what classical art shows us (a person, a landscape, an object…) nevertheless, I revere the way that modern art trys to represent nothing but a feeling, a thought or a bitter experience.
Although, this topics encompass a wide range of ideas, I will try to stress what I consider more important, obviously, in layman´s term. It is my belief that art is an expression of feelings, thoughts or needs applying creative skills and imagination. We should not forget, we live surrounded with art because everything has been designed by someone, for example, I find out art in my shoes, my curtains or even in my wash basin. For this reason, not only do we find art in a picture or sculpture, but also in daily life objects. However, I would like to shed light on some art expressions. I won´t sit on the fence talking about some artworks. For example, it drives me nuts when I visit a museum, a gallery or exhibition and I see a painting of two meter per two meter where an only black point appears. I would go so far as to say that, this is not art. Also, it makes my blood boil to see people pay a vast amount of money for these artworks. Considering the picture above, I would say that it is art; I wouldn´t be able to do it, also, imagination and originality have been developed by the artist and, this painting could evoke some feeling or thought in the viewer. I should highlight that a painting can be colorful or has a sombre mood; can be lifelike or abstract, but you can see imagination, creativity and you appreciate its beauty or emotional power, where different materials, techniques or skills have been applied. Finally, I would underline that art is something that stimulates an individual´s thoughts, emotions, beliefs or ideas through the senses, and I strongly believe that an only black point in a picture doesn´t stimulate anyone.
Art is a subjective and abstract concept, and, as such, I do not think we can categorically put the "art" label on a picture or a painting. As previously stated in other comments, the definition of art is controversial and confusing. Defining art is as difficult as defining love or hate. However, it is my belief that the only objective difference between good and bad art could be its ability to reach many different people and to transcend generations. Certainly, this is difficult to measure, because nobody can know how an artist will be rated in the future. Rather than categorising this picture as art or craziness, we should try to understand its purpose and evaluate our emotions after looking at it. Speculating about its meaning, the sofa could be representing an alienated person, so comfortable watching TV that they end being another piece of furniture of their living room. If I am sure about something is that art has not to be necessarily nice. Last year I visited Guggenheim Museum and, at the beginning, many of the artworks made my blood boil because I could not see any beauty in them. But I tried to broaden my mind and put myself in the author's shoes. A good piece of art can be grotesque and disgusting (for example, the one shown above), but these emotions can be precisely the ones the author wants to evoke. If the person who took this picture had known that a whole English class would be debating about the meaning of art because of her or his artwork, I am sure he or she would have been over the moon.
My first impression when I have seen this picture it has not been if it is art or not. My first feeling has been an artist´s protest.
According to the definition of art, maybe I could not see beauty but a special significance in this work. In my opinion, the artist´s purpose is far away from represents something nice. On the contrary,I think her/his aim showing the guts of an animal, probably a pig, is to create a reject feeling, a revulsion in the eyes of the general public.
Beside that, I can see imagination, creativity, emotional power and technique. Concepts that are include in the definition of art. It is not easy to express the repulse of the author trhough the use of leather in daily products like armchairs,lamps, frames, carpets and so on, which are by no means a necessity. And, with this picture, the artist has got it.
This picture had given to me a nasty shock and I am sure that I will always associate this image with leather objects. So, aim gained!
What is art? This is a very philosophical question. According to Plato, art is the imitation of nature, but, in the 20th, abstract art changed this notion of art. It is so difficult to define that some critics of art give us this definition:” Art refers to anything that is made by someone who is considered to be an artist”. However the meaning of art continues to be debated, and, to be continued. To be honest, I don´t know how define art. So I have search in the Oxford dictionary:”The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” After reading this definition I can say that this painting is not art because can be appreciated by its emotional power but I think it isn´t beauty. Here we have another philosophical problem: what is beauty? The entry “beauty” in the same dictionary say:”A combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight” From my point of view, this armchair doesn´t please my senses, so I must say that it isn´t art. However I think that it is art because when I first watched It stirred my emotions and made me feel that a new size of reality was being displayed.
I think art must be beauty and inspire positive feelings. From that point view I would not say this is art. It is rather ugly and unpleasant. However art is also something that surprises you, something that changes concepts and understanding of life, something that causes you a great impression and makes you reflect. In this sense I would classify the work as art. Obviously it does not leave you indifferent but causes a tremendous impact in your mind. Besides all these last considerations I would not definitely give the name of art to this work because art is beauty and the work is not a all.
It is hard to me to speak about art as I do not have any idea respecting that, so I feel like a fish out of water in the matter of artwork. If you ask me if this picture is art, I will say no, because for me art not only should be something beautiful but it also should be able to transmit good and wonderful feelings. However, from my point of view, this image, neither is attractive nor communicate positive and awesome sensations.
On the other side of the coin, I can understand there are people who love this type of art. Under no circumstances should be art the same for everybody. This is the power of art, it can involve any king of interests.
But, personally speaking I prefer other sort of art like pictures of pop art.
I always have the same feeling when it comes to art. Unfortunately for me, I have never studied art in depth, due to that dramatic gap between sciences and art, typical in our education system. But in addition, I have the bad luck that most of my circles of friends are related to arts, what makes me feel even worse about this. I remeber that at the begining, I used to argue (to my defence) that art should be something understandable for everybody, and otherwise it was something really snobbish and not worthy to worry about. But as years have progressed, I have to admit that I was wrong, and that one needs to be ready and prepared to appreciate arts. Althought for me it is not the case, I accept the challenge of talking about this picture, and I have to say that I like this sofa with scars, with a brain coming from them. I find it´s a brilliant way to represent how sitting on a sofa, probably watching TV can dry your brain. For me this is one of the main problemas nowadays (specially with computers, we spend so many hours sitting and watching, instead of standing up and acting, that it begans to be really dangerous). Maybe arts could be if not the solution, one emergency exit at least.
Should people come to an agreement about what is art? Who knows! The answer is not easy because everyone might have a different point of view on this issue. I strongly believe that this can be considered a piece of art in the sense that it tries provoke different feelings on people such as astonishment, indifference or even hate. As far as I'm concerned, this piece of "art" reminds me of those real human bodies which where exposed by an artist some years ago. Perhaps the artist wants to rub our face as a reminder of the consequences of spending too much time just sitting on the sofá. By choosing an inanimate thing he is but humanising it and, therefore, he is taking it to a whole new world. Whether if you can't stand it or if you are mesmerized by it, the truth is that this piece of "art" leaves no one indifferent. Think about it... The artist isn't doing anything but catching our attention literally and metaphorically by using a real thing embedded in criticisim and controversy.
Contemporary art is becoming ever more popular, however it can be difficult to understand. Many people assume that because it doesn't look like anything, then it doesn´t make sense. Being able to go about abstract art seems to be a difficult task. Everyone wants to understand art but how to interpret and engage with contemporary art; how to appreciate this type of art and how to find your own way in the art world. It is said that understanding abstract art is easy since all you need is an open mind, a big imagination, as well as and inquiring attitude. Moreover, abstract art gives you the freedom to explore the artwork and assign your own meaning to the piece. It could be understood as an intensive personal process which enriches your viewer's experience. At this point, let´s take a look at that extravagant armchair , its colors, forms, materials, surface, and how it interact with yourself. Take your time. See what emotions, sensations or memories emerge. Let your eyes relax and travel around the piece without expectation. Definitely, it is not easy to grasp , at least that armchair. From my point of view and as conclusion,contemporary art is something difficult to appraise.
According to my literature’s teacher, any form of art should only be judged by aesthetic criteria and not by the effects it produces on people. However, my teacher also has explained us that some authors, such as the famous writer Jean Paul Sartre, have heavily stated that literature and, by extension, any other arts should seek for the commitment of the readers, the viewers or the listeners and, in this sense, a piece of art should be favourably evaluated only if it is able to occasion the public a reaction (either positive or negative) that make them to compromise with a certain cause supported by the author.
If we take into account the first idea previously brought out, what we all should question is which are these artistic values that can make a given work of art not to hold a candle to the established tasteful standards, to be up to the mark or to constitute a magnum opus or a crowning glory. Are these criteria assessed by the chosen combination of colours in the painter’s palette or the set of words in the writer’s composition? If so, which is the suitable, proper and valid preparation of these simpler elements (colours, words, notes, etc.)? Is there any objective formula that allows us to impartially inspect the arts? Disappointedly, the answer to this last matter is a conclusive NO. Therefore, we can only guide our impression of a work of art by the totally subjective opinion of those so-called “experts” in the field (or at least we should do that in order to match the artistic standard values). Finally, it is crucial to point out that no matter what our inner response to the arts is, as far as they only can be classified according to these ambiguous aesthetic criteria.
On the other hand, if we consider the second conviction introduced in the first paragraph (the one supported by Sartre and others), we should definitely agree that the image in the picture is a work of art since it certainly has compelled shocking emotions in us (you all can see it in the comments above). The only question remaining to highlight here is if the author has won the day and we are now yielded to his purpose which, in my personal opinion, is to make us reflect on the cruel way we sometimes deal with animals.
First of all, I have to say that I’m a bit of a skeptical when it comes to talking about modern art. Additionally, what surprised me more is the fact that a growing number of quirky and outlandish sculptures, paintings and so on are being overrated. Thus, whether we like it or not, we have to put up with this new art.
If you asked me, I’d say I’m not really fond of this movement. However, what do you believe art is? I don’t want to beat around the bush and I won’t get a picture like this one to hang up on my house’s walls. Not only do I find it absolutely distasteful, but everyone who comes to my house will also feel that I would have a weird taste for art.
On the other hand, I’d like to outline that these pictures aren’t made for being hung up on familiar houses. As far as contemporary art is concerned, I reckon this kind of art is becoming more and more popular because It’s a way of criticism. Take this picture, for instance: What comes in my mind in a sudden is the fact of being glue to the TV and becoming a couch potato. Had I spent an excruciating number of hours sitting on that armchair watching Tv or simply doing nothing, I’d feel gutted, without life!
The artist might say that I’m wrong, but how do you feel when you are in front of a “product” of art and anyone explain you what the meaning is? I strongly believe that what artists really want is to stir up! In this way, don’t you think it’s completely hilarious?
At first appearance, that is an unpleasant picture. It shows entrails that are gushing from an armchair. Is this art?
On the one hand, the art concept has been changing along History. At the beginning, artistic representations in their different forms faithfully imitate reality and they tried to generate pleasant sensations. Nevertheless, that has changed and nowadays we can find samples such as this one which causes just the opposite: a feeling of disgust.
On the other hand, Art is supposed to have a function. And this function has changed over time. Paintings and carvings strove to immortalise people, scenes or events with a merely descriptive function. Whereas nowadays, Art might be used as a tool supporting social causes, in the complaint of a reprehensible act or to provoke a smile.
From my point of view, Art must commit to communicating to people. It must transmit emotions or sensations even in the case they are disagreeable. And this feelings will be different depending on the beholder. A dissected armchair showing scattered guts could be a way to complain about the use of animal skins as upholstery. Or it might as well be a way to show how harmful may be a sedentary lifestyle. I think that the most important thing would be not to remain unmoved in front of that disgusting image and to interpret what it makes us feel.
When I see this kind of art I have the feeling that I don't understand anything about this topic. Since we are childs we are used to thinking that the more realistic a picture or image is the more quality it has.
On the other hand, I do believe that we need to learn about art before criticising some creation. I remember a very famous sentence by Picasso which said that he needed a long life to learn how childs draw.
However, I think that we have to enjoy when we are comtemplating a piece of art, and this is not the case. From my point of view, the artist has chosen a weird way to express art, and maybe it has a meaning that I can't understand, but definitely I don't like it.
Seeing for a while the picture I must admit that it could be art. What is true is that not only does this image catch your attention but also provokes a strong feeling. In my case, it was a curious feeling. In the begining I was shocked after seeing a disgusting cut in the skin and all visceras coming out. After a while I realised that the author of this masterpiece could be pointing out the widespread amount of leather consumers from animals as decorative piece of art that exist in our society. Therefore, in a attractive way he could be showing disagreement with the actual situation of killing animals to use their leather, furtive hunting and so on. Protesting in that way could evoke a feeling in the audience that might have a resounded success in the long term when most of the watchers decide not to buy decorative leather items.
In order to shed light on what art is or is not, the Collin’s English dictionary defines it as “the creation of works of beauty or other special significance”. Another possible definition provided by this dictionary is the “imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination”. So, just comparing both terms, it is clear that this concept is ambiguous as everyone does not understand beauty in the same way.
ResponderEliminarBy addressing the picture displayed, it is hard to determine the limits of art. If we focus on the beauty of the image, the way I see it, it is definitely disgusting. Anything, a sofa, animal, or whatever disembowelled does not convey any feeling or meaning of beauty. On the contrary, if imagination is pondered over, the concept of art gains strength. It is an obvious remark that almost nobody has never thought or seen an armchair as a living thing and having its own organs. This view tips the scales in favour of the second definition.
Summing up, art is an imprecise concept that can be interpreted differently. In this particular case, it can be affirmed that this picture or artwork will be considered somehow or other depending on the emotions it evokes.
Having stared at this disgusting photo for a few minutes, a film has come to my mind: its title is “Mona Lisa smile”. Shooted in 2003, its plot takes place in 1953, when a young professor (performed by Julia Roberts) teachs History of Art in a women´s private conservative college and she asks the very same questions to her pupils, showing them a series of pictures: what is art? Besides triggers a huge and controversial debate, the matter sheds light on some of the main concerns and aspirations of the students, that crash with the cornerstones of the 50´s society and the roles who women play in it.
ResponderEliminarAccording to this movie, art is far beyond beauty and craft, because not only is something that worth to look at, but also an expression of human beings creative skills or imagination, in which the author trys to get away from the usual and familiar life in order to open his or her mind and soul, becoming a window of the artist´s inner feelings. In fact, these works are considered by many of the modern art admirers, as icons of freedom and tolerance in a country.
On the other hand, modern art is not my cup of tea. I usually enjoy comtemplating the impressionist paintings by Monet or Renoir, or even a surrealist master-piece by DalÃ, but I have to admit that most works of current painters do not live up with my expectations, mainly because I can not understand them, although this does not mean that they are not art; it is also my belief that nobody can say what art is or not, and what more, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Summing up, I am always sitting on the fence when people discuss this topic. I can see loud and clear, what classical art shows us (a person, a landscape, an object…) nevertheless, I revere the way that modern art trys to represent nothing but a feeling, a thought or a bitter experience.
Although, this topics encompass a wide range of ideas, I will try to stress what I consider more important, obviously, in layman´s term.
ResponderEliminarIt is my belief that art is an expression of feelings, thoughts or needs applying creative skills and imagination. We should not forget, we live surrounded with art because everything has been designed by someone, for example, I find out art in my shoes, my curtains or even in my wash basin. For this reason, not only do we find art in a picture or sculpture, but also in daily life objects.
However, I would like to shed light on some art expressions. I won´t sit on the fence talking about some artworks. For example, it drives me nuts when I visit a museum, a gallery or exhibition and I see a painting of two meter per two meter where an only black point appears. I would go so far as to say that, this is not art. Also, it makes my blood boil to see people pay a vast amount of money for these artworks. Considering the picture above, I would say that it is art; I wouldn´t be able to do it, also, imagination and originality have been developed by the artist and, this painting could evoke some feeling or thought in the viewer.
I should highlight that a painting can be colorful or has a sombre mood; can be lifelike or abstract, but you can see imagination, creativity and you appreciate its beauty or emotional power, where different materials, techniques or skills have been applied.
Finally, I would underline that art is something that stimulates an individual´s thoughts, emotions, beliefs or ideas through the senses, and I strongly believe that an only black point in a picture doesn´t stimulate anyone.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarArt is a subjective and abstract concept, and, as such, I do not think we can categorically put the "art" label on a picture or a painting. As previously stated in other comments, the definition of art is controversial and confusing. Defining art is as difficult as defining love or hate.
EliminarHowever, it is my belief that the only objective difference between good and bad art could be its ability to reach many different people and to transcend generations. Certainly, this is difficult to measure, because nobody can know how an artist will be rated in the future.
Rather than categorising this picture as art or craziness, we should try to understand its purpose and evaluate our emotions after looking at it. Speculating about its meaning, the sofa could be representing an alienated person, so comfortable watching TV that they end being another piece of furniture of their living room.
If I am sure about something is that art has not to be necessarily nice. Last year I visited Guggenheim Museum and, at the beginning, many of the artworks made my blood boil because I could not see any beauty in them. But I tried to broaden my mind and put myself in the author's shoes. A good piece of art can be grotesque and disgusting (for example, the one shown above), but these emotions can be precisely the ones the author wants to evoke. If the person who took this picture had known that a whole English class would be debating about the meaning of art because of her or his artwork, I am sure he or she would have been over the moon.
My first impression when I have seen this picture it has not been if it is art or not. My first feeling has been an artist´s protest.
ResponderEliminarAccording to the definition of art, maybe I could not see beauty but a special significance in this work.
In my opinion, the artist´s purpose is far away from represents something nice. On the contrary,I think her/his aim showing the guts of an animal, probably a pig, is to create a reject feeling, a revulsion in the eyes of the general public.
Beside that, I can see imagination, creativity, emotional power and technique. Concepts that are include in the definition of art. It is not easy to express the repulse of the author trhough the use of leather in daily products like armchairs,lamps, frames, carpets and so on, which are by no means a necessity. And, with this picture, the artist has got it.
This picture had given to me a nasty shock and I am sure that I will always associate this image with leather objects. So, aim gained!
What is art? This is a very philosophical question. According to Plato, art is the imitation of nature, but, in the 20th, abstract art changed this notion of art. It is so difficult to define that some critics of art give us this definition:” Art refers to anything that is made by someone who is considered to be an artist”. However the meaning of art continues to be debated, and, to be continued. To be honest, I don´t know how define art. So I have search in the Oxford dictionary:”The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”
ResponderEliminarAfter reading this definition I can say that this painting is not art because can be appreciated by its emotional power but I think it isn´t beauty. Here we have another philosophical problem: what is beauty?
The entry “beauty” in the same dictionary say:”A combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight”
From my point of view, this armchair doesn´t please my senses, so I must say that it isn´t art. However I think that it is art because when I first watched It stirred my emotions and made me feel that a new size of reality was being displayed.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarI think art must be beauty and inspire positive feelings.
ResponderEliminarFrom that point view I would not say this is art. It is rather ugly and unpleasant.
However art is also something that surprises you, something that changes concepts and understanding of life, something that causes you a great impression and makes you reflect. In this sense I would classify the work as art. Obviously it does not leave you indifferent but causes a tremendous impact in your mind.
Besides all these last considerations I would not definitely give the name of art to this work because art is beauty and the work is not a all.
It is hard to me to speak about art as I do not have any idea respecting that, so I feel like a fish out of water in the matter of artwork.
ResponderEliminarIf you ask me if this picture is art, I will say no, because for me art not only should be something beautiful but it also should be able to transmit good and wonderful feelings. However, from my point of view, this image, neither is attractive nor communicate positive and awesome sensations.
On the other side of the coin, I can understand there are people who love this type of art. Under no circumstances should be art the same for everybody. This is the power of art, it can involve any king of interests.
But, personally speaking I prefer other sort of art like pictures of pop art.
I always have the same feeling when it comes to art. Unfortunately for me, I have never studied art in depth, due to that dramatic gap between sciences and art, typical in our education system. But in addition, I have the bad luck that most of my circles of friends are related to arts, what makes me feel even worse about this. I remeber that at the begining, I used to argue (to my defence) that art should be something understandable for everybody, and otherwise it was something really snobbish and not worthy to worry about. But as years have progressed, I have to admit that I was wrong, and that one needs to be ready and prepared to appreciate arts.
ResponderEliminarAlthought for me it is not the case, I accept the challenge of talking about this picture, and I have to say that I like this sofa with scars, with a brain coming from them. I find it´s a brilliant way to represent how sitting on a sofa, probably watching TV can dry your brain. For me this is one of the main problemas nowadays (specially with computers, we spend so many hours sitting and watching, instead of standing up and acting, that it begans to be really dangerous).
Maybe arts could be if not the solution, one emergency exit at least.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarShould people come to an agreement about what is art? Who knows! The answer is not easy because everyone might have a different point of view on this issue. I strongly believe that this can be considered a piece of art in the sense that it tries provoke different feelings on people such as astonishment, indifference or even hate.
ResponderEliminarAs far as I'm concerned, this piece of "art" reminds me of those real human bodies which where exposed by an artist some years ago. Perhaps the artist wants to rub our face as a reminder of the consequences of spending too much time just sitting on the sofá. By choosing an inanimate thing he is but humanising it and, therefore, he is taking it to a whole new world. Whether if you can't stand it or if you are mesmerized by it, the truth is that this piece of "art" leaves no one indifferent. Think about it... The artist isn't doing anything but catching our attention literally and metaphorically by using a real thing embedded in criticisim and controversy.
Contemporary art is becoming ever more popular, however it can be difficult to understand. Many people assume that because it doesn't look like anything, then it doesn´t make sense.
ResponderEliminarBeing able to go about abstract art seems to be a difficult task. Everyone wants to understand art but how to interpret and engage with contemporary art; how to appreciate this type of art and how to find your own way in the art world.
It is said that understanding abstract art is easy since all you need is an open mind, a big imagination, as well as and inquiring attitude. Moreover, abstract art gives you the freedom to explore the artwork and assign your own meaning to the piece. It could be understood as an intensive personal process which enriches your viewer's experience.
At this point, let´s take a look at that extravagant armchair , its colors, forms, materials, surface, and how it interact with yourself. Take your time. See what emotions, sensations or memories emerge. Let your eyes relax and travel around the piece without expectation. Definitely, it is not easy to grasp , at least that armchair.
From my point of view and as conclusion,contemporary art is something difficult to appraise.
According to my literature’s teacher, any form of art should only be judged by aesthetic criteria and not by the effects it produces on people. However, my teacher also has explained us that some authors, such as the famous writer Jean Paul Sartre, have heavily stated that literature and, by extension, any other arts should seek for the commitment of the readers, the viewers or the listeners and, in this sense, a piece of art should be favourably evaluated only if it is able to occasion the public a reaction (either positive or negative) that make them to compromise with a certain cause supported by the author.
ResponderEliminarIf we take into account the first idea previously brought out, what we all should question is which are these artistic values that can make a given work of art not to hold a candle to the established tasteful standards, to be up to the mark or to constitute a magnum opus or a crowning glory. Are these criteria assessed by the chosen combination of colours in the painter’s palette or the set of words in the writer’s composition? If so, which is the suitable, proper and valid preparation of these simpler elements (colours, words, notes, etc.)? Is there any objective formula that allows us to impartially inspect the arts? Disappointedly, the answer to this last matter is a conclusive NO. Therefore, we can only guide our impression of a work of art by the totally subjective opinion of those so-called “experts” in the field (or at least we should do that in order to match the artistic standard values). Finally, it is crucial to point out that no matter what our inner response to the arts is, as far as they only can be classified according to these ambiguous aesthetic criteria.
On the other hand, if we consider the second conviction introduced in the first paragraph (the one supported by Sartre and others), we should definitely agree that the image in the picture is a work of art since it certainly has compelled shocking emotions in us (you all can see it in the comments above). The only question remaining to highlight here is if the author has won the day and we are now yielded to his purpose which, in my personal opinion, is to make us reflect on the cruel way we sometimes deal with animals.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarFirst of all, I have to say that I’m a bit of a skeptical when it comes to talking about modern art. Additionally, what surprised me more is the fact that a growing number of quirky and outlandish sculptures, paintings and so on are being overrated. Thus, whether we like it or not, we have to put up with this new art.
ResponderEliminarIf you asked me, I’d say I’m not really fond of this movement. However, what do you believe art is? I don’t want to beat around the bush and I won’t get a picture like this one to hang up on my house’s walls. Not only do I find it absolutely distasteful, but everyone who comes to my house will also feel that I would have a weird taste for art.
On the other hand, I’d like to outline that these pictures aren’t made for being hung up on familiar houses. As far as contemporary art is concerned, I reckon this kind of art is becoming more and more popular because It’s a way of criticism. Take this picture, for instance: What comes in my mind in a sudden is the fact of being glue to the TV and becoming a couch potato. Had I spent an excruciating number of hours sitting on that armchair watching Tv or simply doing nothing, I’d feel gutted, without life!
The artist might say that I’m wrong, but how do you feel when you are in front of a “product” of art and anyone explain you what the meaning is? I strongly believe that what artists really want is to stir up! In this way, don’t you think it’s completely hilarious?
At first appearance, that is an unpleasant picture. It shows entrails that are gushing from an armchair. Is this art?
ResponderEliminarOn the one hand, the art concept has been changing along History. At the beginning, artistic representations in their different forms faithfully imitate reality and they tried to generate pleasant sensations. Nevertheless, that has changed and nowadays we can find samples such as this one which causes just the opposite: a feeling of disgust.
On the other hand, Art is supposed to have a function. And this function has changed over time. Paintings and carvings strove to immortalise people, scenes or events with a merely descriptive function. Whereas nowadays, Art might be used as a tool supporting social causes, in the complaint of a reprehensible act or to provoke a smile.
From my point of view, Art must commit to communicating to people. It must transmit emotions or sensations even in the case they are disagreeable. And this feelings will be different depending on the beholder. A dissected armchair showing scattered guts could be a way to complain about the use of animal skins as upholstery. Or it might as well be a way to show how harmful may be a sedentary lifestyle. I think that the most important thing would be not to remain unmoved in front of that disgusting image and to interpret what it makes us feel.
When I see this kind of art I have the feeling that I don't understand anything about this topic. Since we are childs we are used to thinking that the more realistic a picture or image is the more quality it has.
ResponderEliminarOn the other hand, I do believe that we need to learn about art before criticising some creation. I remember a very famous sentence by Picasso which said that he needed a long life to learn how childs draw.
However, I think that we have to enjoy when we are comtemplating a piece of art, and this is not the case. From my point of view, the artist has chosen a weird way to express art, and maybe it has a meaning that I can't understand, but definitely I don't like it.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarSeeing for a while the picture I must admit that it could be art. What is true is that not only does this image catch your attention but also provokes a strong feeling.
ResponderEliminarIn my case, it was a curious feeling. In the begining I was shocked after seeing a disgusting cut in the skin and all visceras coming out. After a while I realised that the author of this masterpiece could be pointing out the widespread amount of leather consumers from animals as decorative piece of art that exist in our society. Therefore, in a attractive way he could be showing disagreement with the actual situation of killing animals to use their leather, furtive hunting and so on. Protesting in that way could evoke a feeling in the audience that might have a resounded success in the long term when most of the watchers decide not to buy decorative leather items.