Art & Audience
did the art industry, not only was the world expanding so did our thoughts of what we
thought art could be. Now that so many people have set out to be a known artist,
whether it be in painting, drawing, photography, ex., almost anything can be defined
as art. With these new advancements changing the audiences perspective, is there still
opportunity for shocking artworks.
In the 15th century artists did not get to paint what they wanted. Paintings were used, in a way like a photograph, to preserve someone or something in that moment in time. The reason for this was based upon the audience, whom did not look at the painting as art but rather a way to remember a face. The audience decides what the artist produces, if the audience boo’s a band at a concert its because they don’t like the music. It is the same for a piece of art work, unless people like what they see, they wont buy it or applaud it. The same goes for the artist himself, if he isn't getting good feed back on a piece, he changes it.
Art today, in my opinion, isn't decided by the audience anymore. The artist himself is left to decide what he wants to get out of the piece, sadness, loneliness, happiness, anger. That is why I believe the relationship between artist and audience is ever-changing depending on who the artist wants to impress, himself or the person looking on. The definition of art is “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." But in my opinion art is what decides what kind of person you are going to be, whether you are observing a piece or creating one, it is all up to interpretation. So there is no set explanation of art because as we grow and change so does the way we interpret it.
In the 15th century artists did not get to paint what they wanted. Paintings were used, in a way like a photograph, to preserve someone or something in that moment in time. The reason for this was based upon the audience, whom did not look at the painting as art but rather a way to remember a face. The audience decides what the artist produces, if the audience boo’s a band at a concert its because they don’t like the music. It is the same for a piece of art work, unless people like what they see, they wont buy it or applaud it. The same goes for the artist himself, if he isn't getting good feed back on a piece, he changes it.
Art today, in my opinion, isn't decided by the audience anymore. The artist himself is left to decide what he wants to get out of the piece, sadness, loneliness, happiness, anger. That is why I believe the relationship between artist and audience is ever-changing depending on who the artist wants to impress, himself or the person looking on. The definition of art is “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." But in my opinion art is what decides what kind of person you are going to be, whether you are observing a piece or creating one, it is all up to interpretation. So there is no set explanation of art because as we grow and change so does the way we interpret it.
Ron Mueck's 'Mask II' - a widely-exhibited self-portrait of the artist sleeping (2001-2)
Leonardo da Vinci (Italian, 1452-1519). Last Supper, 1495-98. Tempera and mixed media on plaster.
Da Vinci was commissioned to paint The Last Supper for the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan.Citations:
1. Getlein, Mark. Living With Art . ninth edition. new york, NY : McGraw-hill companies, 2010.
20-23. Print.
2. Schuessler, Jennifer. "Who's the Shockingest of Them All?." Newyork Times [new york, NY ] 5 10 2012, n. pag. Web. 15 Sep. 2013. <www.nytimes.com/interactive/arts/art- shock.html?_0
No comments:
Post a Comment