Essay, Research Paper: Can We Debate Art?

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.