In class, several things came up that got me thinking. One thing that I found very interesting was the issue of natural art vs natural beauty. Before the discussion, I would have argued that there is such a thing as natural art, which spawns from natural beauty. But a good point was made. If we consider that intentionality plays a role in defineing art, then there can't be such a thing as natural art, because a person didn't intend for nature to look a certain way, it simply does so naturally. It only becomes art if it's image is intentionally captured through a medium, like photography or painting.
We also discussed how large a role intentionality plays in defineing art. I will be the first to honestly admit, this confused me. I mean, I couldn't understand how anyone could even try to define art. It's just art, a wonderful, broad subject that just is. Everyone has there own mindset about art, but it's near impossible to put to words.
With all this talk about art and deeper meanings making my head spin, I start to wonder, if intentionality is only one factor that makes up what art is, what else is there that makes something art?
While you make a very good point, here is some food for thought: Does intentionality have to be there, or can something (like the african masks from the intro in the book) be art, without the intention of the creator? This would make your natural art possible again, and I'd honestly say that what makes art, art is as much the viewer's job as it is the creator's job. One last question: Can art, which so often is created just to push boundaries and break its own rules, truly be defined? Can you really define something which seeks to re-invent its self with each new creation?
ReplyDeleteHi Val,
ReplyDeleteI answered your question on my blog. See the post: Beyond Intentionality.