Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
art is never objective, because it does not exist in a vacuum, but depends on the current situation in society
a realistic image of a person can be considered objective, but humanity has never come up with this idea just like that
sculptors of classical Greece considered a perfect person, beautiful outwardly and calm inwardly
Renaissance artists considered the ancient Greeks perfect
classicists believed that it should be clear from the face of the person depicted whether he is good or bad
none of them were objective, although they did not write “the trees are blue and the ground is purple”
Art is objective when the artist directly addresses real-world things. For example, it draws objects. The more accurately the object is depicted, the more objective the work is. Or in a performance/action, he expresses his attitude to real events in the world. In short, when the viewer is able to directly perceive the subject of art, then such art can be considered objective.�
In classical painting, artists depicted reality or myths, that is, what was clear to a large number of people. When the place of the most objective witness of this world passed to photography, a vacuum was created in the visual arts, which forced artists to look for a new approach to creativity and they began to bring their own personal, subjective view of reality to what they did. With the Expressionists, art became subjective. It is one thing for the artist himself, another for you, and a third for me, etc. This is especially true for all types of abstraction, surrealism, conceptualism and in general, all that is called modernism, avant-garde and modern art.
Of course, we should not forget about the ancient ornamental drawings. They carried, it would seem, a purely decorative function, but in fact, strictly followed the aesthetic norms laid down, anyway, in mythology.�
And the second question, what is (pure) art – in short, it is the result of the highest human ability for self-reflection and the eternal search for an answer to the question “who am I?”
Art is not objective at all (this is its essence! art is the knowledge of the world through the knowledge of oneself, although there were different directions with their own philosophy, positioning themselves as tending to impartiality as well).
In my opinion, art is a perpetual motion machine =)�
Everything dies, art is eternal!
A slightly more adequate point of view, which I express to your face: art is humanity's awareness of itself, the interpretation of its being.