For the most part, I agreed with Tolstoy's view that art should communicate an expression of emotion. I think that the way in which art connects human souls across historical and cultural boundaries is one of its most basic functions. However, I disagree that if art does not communicate a specific feeling it has "failed." Just because other people dont understand the artists expression doesnt mean its wrong or a failure. In my opinion, I dont think that all art has to communicate something anyway. If I were happy or angry or upset and decided to paint to express how I feel, that in itself should be enough to constitute as "art". I've expressed my emotions through visual signs and pictures and, regardless of who sees or does not see it, its still art. If Van Gogh never revealed any of his paintings to anyone else, would they have ceased to be paintings? If I were to look at a cryptic Jackson Pollock and recieve no emotion from it, does it cease to be art? In my opinion, no.
Q: Following Tolsoy's general belief that art=communication, how many people must recieve the artist's intended emotion for it to be successful art? one? a considerable amount? the majority? Furthermore, if slightly less than this "required amount" recieve the emotion, has the artwork failed completely?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment