In Greenberg article the topic of weather nonobjective art is a means of imitating God, and I do see the point to that argument. If you think about the side of creation in terms of being a god, their whole angle is just to create thing in terms of beauty. Look at the animals for examples if it if believed that the animals were created by god, or the season, or nature in general then how can you argue that those are objective subjects? The creations by god are simply of beauty and function. Everything natural, and everything connected and in a perfect working system. So I would agree that creating objective art is very human of us to create. I would say that if an artist is trying to create works of art that are nonobjective then yes they are attempting to imitate the creations of a god. But I don't think that is what a lot of artist are trying to do by creating art. I think artist are always trying to provoke an emotion in humans and I think for the most part that is done by being objective. I think art that is objective does get more talk and attention, vs art that is striving to be nonobjective. But that being said I do think that art that is nonobjective is timeless.
I would agree with Greenberg that art did belong to the "ruling class" prior to the invention of the internet. Back when new had to travel via press and the only way to really see art wast to attend a galleries than yes, the ruling class, they people that had money that were in power that had the means and access to these galleries were the targeted audience and they defiantly controlled the art market. But in todays art world an artist can create their work and share in among various platforms to reach all kinds of people with ranging economical levels. I think this changed the control of art dramatically. Everyone now has access to art and various styles and now the audience of artist has been widened completely.
Painting sourse: https://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/starry-night.html
I choose this art piece because it is an example of an art piece that is a representation of nature and it is fairly nonobjective an it is an example of a timeless piece of art.
Seeing art online is an interesting aspect of how its become more accessible to the average person. Would you argue that art has become even more kitsch with the internet? Granted the internet has allowed art to spread beyond the museums they are kept in, as virtual tours become commonplace during the pandemic, though viewing something through a screen has a different effect versus in person. Now, we don't even have to pay money to have the copy, we can just set it to our backgrounds to view everyday.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that during times like these we no longer really have the choice of seeing art in person like we once did but I still think that most arts were created to be seen in person with the eye still. Yes you can see the painting or sculpture and understand the concept that the artist was or is trying to convey but actually seeing the art has a whole lot to do with viewing the art. Art is to be interacted with the art of an image of another work of art is a different kind of art in its own.
ReplyDelete