Art, or tyranny?
Sorry folks, no new chapter just yet. I just got the urge to rant about something that's been bugging me for a while now (i.e. about 15 minutes): what is, and what is not art?
Though I cannot give an exact definition as to what art is (and who can?), I can say for certain something that it is not. Art, whether visual, aural, or linguistic, is not, as some think, something that can be 'trained' or 'developed'.
Some would argue that this assertion is untrue, and that one cannot be truly artistic without developing to some extent that which is already present within: talent. How is one to draw realistically, they might ask, if one cannot express effectively the true forms that permeate our world? How indeed. But is not drawing realistically drawing to a form, and following a template, of sorts? Does not one work within a set of constraints and rules? Thus, drawing 'realistically' is drawing to a form, and while it may be aesthetically pleasing, it is not worthy of the title 'art'.
To any one 'style' apply a number of constraints, as a style is by definition something that ties together disparate things in a sort of continuity. If these constraints develop innately, such as a certain form of linework pecuiliar to an individual, then so be it; this is still unique, and not a reflection of an already existant reality. But the style in and of itself cannot make a piece art. While the style may be unique, the subject matter may still be bland, unoriginal, and cliche. True art does not follow any form, and one cannot hold it to any standards; to do so would be to betray its true purpose.
This is an extreme view of the matter, but it is my own. Though, honestly, I can say that I truely am a hypocrite when it comes to this point. At least I can be open and honest about it. For those less inclined to take the extreme route I have chosen, suffice it to say that it is art that should make the culture, and not the culture that should make the art.
Though I cannot give an exact definition as to what art is (and who can?), I can say for certain something that it is not. Art, whether visual, aural, or linguistic, is not, as some think, something that can be 'trained' or 'developed'.
Some would argue that this assertion is untrue, and that one cannot be truly artistic without developing to some extent that which is already present within: talent. How is one to draw realistically, they might ask, if one cannot express effectively the true forms that permeate our world? How indeed. But is not drawing realistically drawing to a form, and following a template, of sorts? Does not one work within a set of constraints and rules? Thus, drawing 'realistically' is drawing to a form, and while it may be aesthetically pleasing, it is not worthy of the title 'art'.
To any one 'style' apply a number of constraints, as a style is by definition something that ties together disparate things in a sort of continuity. If these constraints develop innately, such as a certain form of linework pecuiliar to an individual, then so be it; this is still unique, and not a reflection of an already existant reality. But the style in and of itself cannot make a piece art. While the style may be unique, the subject matter may still be bland, unoriginal, and cliche. True art does not follow any form, and one cannot hold it to any standards; to do so would be to betray its true purpose.
This is an extreme view of the matter, but it is my own. Though, honestly, I can say that I truely am a hypocrite when it comes to this point. At least I can be open and honest about it. For those less inclined to take the extreme route I have chosen, suffice it to say that it is art that should make the culture, and not the culture that should make the art.
posted by Zihm at 3.2.05
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home