subject = philosophy

title = can we debate art?

papers = Can we debate

art? When I first began thinking about this topic, it seemed as if

it was

a fairly simple subject. Of course we could debate art, critics and the average

citizen have done it

for years debating over which pieces are their favorites.

As I began to think

about the subject and received feedback from the class,

this topic became infinitely more complicated with questions like:

what is

art, could we saw that one person's art is better than another's,

and why

is it (and is it justified) that people such as Van Gogh

and Picasso have

become famous? Looking back at what my initial feelings were and how

they

have developed over the weeks, I noticed that my ideas and principles

were

not changed drastically by the in-class discussions, but were refined and given

more

"ammunition" that took my thinking from a highly generalized level to

one

where I could express my feelings better and possibly inspire other's

thinking as well.

Can we debate art? Although it is perhaps an unanswerable

question, there are a few

points I feel should be discussed.

One

of the issues that I thought about was a problem in the basic definition of

art.

What could be defined as art? Does it have to be "pleasing to the eye"

or "something that does not

offend or ridicule"? One example was a piece

done where a person had placed a crucifix

upside-down...was this art? I decided

that it was, based on my belief that anything, although it may seem offensive

or

even repulsive, should be considered as art as long as one person, maybe only

the artist himself, was somehow affected by it.

Reading that sentence over

I suddenly realize how difficult it is to discuss this issue.

It seems as

if we are to debate art we needa list of requirements that need to be fulfilled,

a

"master checklist" on what can and cannot be considered art. It seems the

more we think about what art is, the more the true

meaning and feeling that

is the nature of art is somehow stifled and suppressed.

Let's leave this

definition alone and move to the debate over why the master artists, studied

and enjoyed

for years, are indeed that--masters.

The main issue I tried

to debate on this topic was how people

could deem some artist great and awe

at his work hung in the Louvre,

while the work done by "Lil' Johnnies" (metaphor

for a work done by a child

or any other "technically imperfect artist), produced

with similar if not exact materials, make it only as far as the household

refridgerator?

To this question I felt that the master artist,

regardless of the material

or style, was somehow able to inspire people to such an extent that word eventually

spread about his work.

His fame and good name is ensured over time by the

universal message a master's work presents. It may have been produced because

of a past

event, but the emotions and thoughts it provokes are innate in human

nature.

Writing this paper, I had prepared to

attack this computer's keys and crank out several main points I felt were essential

on the

argument or whether art can be debated. The problem with this subject

is that the further I began to write about it, the further I got away from

the truth.

Can we debate art? In hopes of getting a definite answer, no,

we cannot debate art. It is my conclusion that people

should discuss art

by showing others what artwork you love and were influenced by, not by trying

to figure out how many

people have to like a painting to be considered a

master artist. Talk about art, make art, and love art, but avoid trying to

define

somehting that by nature defies definition, abhors definition, and

loses its meaning through definition. I love art,

but I can and never want

to tell it who it has to be.