I. An interesting argument that nature is not art:
- Art is artifice (made my a human.)
- No nature is artifice (it is natural)
- No nature is art
- What is (can be) beautiful?
- What is art?
- Are there criteria for art?
- What should art be?
- What is the relationship between art and beauty?
If you choose to comment on this blog post, please provide a paragraph or two with your response one of these three topics.
5 comments:
So in class Mr. Willie and Mr. Wriggle insist that nature is not art but i disagree. Nature is not just art but the first art to be born. Lokk at all the things that nature has. Trees, animals and such. We all reconize them and why is that. Because of there design. They have a form we are all used to and one that was crafted since the beginning of time. Look at even the bark on trees. They have patterns and designs and as we agreed on in class design is a form of art. Then i also notice that most of the things we talked about like pottery and sculpting and painting are either based on nature (they are taking the design of nature nd just reinventing it)or are made from nature (acully taking part of nature and using it). And now i will look at this from a different perspective. In liturature such as romanticism they are constantly talking about the beauty and serenity of nature and how it affects the soul which art is supposed to do. It sends a message to your soul. Nature is to art like a mother is to a child. The mother is human therefore the child is human as Nature is art and any other art would be considered such. Nature is the origin of art. Therefore my definition of art is Art is an appeal to the mind and soul of a human through any means of representation not just man made. Oh yea 5+ to me.
It makes alot of sense that if the definition of art is that it is man- made and man- made only, then nature is clearly not art. Nature was here long before man. However, nature could be considered art, if the definition of art is not restricted or limited to being created by man. Whether nature is art is up for interpretation, much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People often have varying ideas about what should be considered beautiful and what they find not to be beautiful. When characterizing something as art, the same applies.
There is actually no real criteria for art except for the fact that the work has to be artificial or man made. This is because even if we create a criteria or definition for art, there are still some art works that don't belong in our criteria or definition. An example of this are some art works in the MoMA. In the museum, we found exceptions to our definitions but those art works still must be art since they are recognized as art by the general public or at least by the museum or in other words, since the work is in the MoMA, it is an art work. Despite the fact that there is no real definition or criteria for art, we do know one thing - art is something that is artificial and it expresses or conveys a message for its creator or artist. So, in my opinion art should be something that is artificial and something that acts as a medium for the message(s) that has been expressed by the creator or artist.
There is actually a relationship between art and beauty. In class, we have concluded that art is a "subcategory" of beauty. By this, I mean that we concluded in class that all art is beauty but not all beauty is art. For example, something like nature may be beautiful but it's certainly or at least it's probably not art.
I believe there should be a criteria for art; seeing as how people can classify art among many other "art-like" things, there has to be a reason why things are art and not art. Forms of art include poetry, music, paintings, sculptures, theater, and etc. However, there has to be a reason why all of those forms are art, and once the definition of art is made, classification of objects would consequently be understood. We have all agreed that art is beautiful, perhaps considering that art is made to be beautiful is a reason why art is art. However not all art may be beautiful. Therefore not all art has to be beautiful.
Beautiful things are not art because "beautiful things" range from a broad spectrum. Beauty is also subjective; its something that people can disagree to. Saying art is beautiful is thus subjective and saying beautiful things are art is illegitimate.
The criteria of art, disregarding the entire subjective assets, should be based on its purpose, its function, and the meaning (plus more).
this whole unit of art has been really convincing. however, i am still doubtful about one thing. this topic has arose a couple of times in class, but with no convincing conclusion. Why is nature not art? How do we know that nature is natural? what is natural? natural is anything that basicilly has to do with nature. ok but why is nature not art? something must have caused nature, whether it was just a composition of crazy molecules or some supernatural figure. Whatever created nature is the artist, and nature is the masterpiece. Nature is art, similar to a painting. Therefore, not all art has to be an artifact. There are many other creatures that create art other than humans. i've seen elephants paint and create very beautiful works of art. another very important point is that we don't know whether nature was made by humans or not. It might sound ridiculous, but it is possible.
Post a Comment