By Kate Woods
Art is a medium
used by people world wide to express their ideas, their fears, and their
joys. The artist takes the experiences
of life and translates them into a visual object, rich in colors, shapes and
sizes, for all the world to observe. As
a casual observer of art, one is able to relive the feeling or experience the
artist was trying to display, if only for a brief moment in time. No matter what cultural background one comes
from, art appreciation and enjoyment erases the barriers and the limits, and
allows cross-cultural understanding and appraisal.
Art has always
relied heavily upon universal symbols.
One of the most well known universal symbols is the cross, meaning of
course, religion. Religion of a culture
is one of the most frequently misjudged and stereotyped aspects From the prehistoric times of the cave man to
present day, art has depicted religious scenes native to a specific
culture. This is where most of the
cultural boundaries lie.
To one person,
a smiling monkey can instill a primal feeling of fear, while to another the
first reaction is one of amusement. This
difference in reaction is based upon religious upbringing, and nothing
more. To certain culture, a smiling
monkey is the scariest thing they could ever imagine, and to another, it means
laughter. A close minded person viewing
an ancient religious mask would see nothing more than nonsense, while one who
wishes to understand art would see the beauty of that culture and it's beliefs,
and would try to place themselves in a way so that they may understand the
original meaning of the mask, and form an educated opinion on it.
Anyone can enjoy
a piece of art, but what is it that makes a piece of art "good"? Is it the realism of the piece? Or the absolute perfectness of a
sculpture? Maybe good art is abstract,
an array of shapes put together to make a point. Or maybe good art is a classical sculpture
that catches the light just so and brings a warm smile to the viewers
face. Is it a measure of
craftsmanship? A measure of mediums
used? A measure of technique? Or is it just a measure of how it affects the
viewer? Is good art visually irritating
or visually pleasing? The beauty of art
is impossible to define, for it's beauty inherently lies in the eye of the
beholder. As Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel said, "Beauty is the spiritual put into a form." So, in defining beauty, one is attempting to
define the spiritual beliefs behind the form.
This means that that which is seen as ugly is just something that is new
or is not fully understood by the viewer.
Knowledge of art
is just a measure of experience. It is
impossible for someone to know art, but it is possible for someone to be well
briefed in the field of art and have an understanding of it. No one can ever be an expert on art, because
art is indefinite. There is no right or
wrong, good or bad, and the rules change every day. When art is studied, the observer may note
things such as symmetry and balance, but they may never understand why they are
there. One may carefully measure the
dimensions of an object, catalogue its mediums, its shapes, its patterns. One may even catalogue their opinions on the
piece, but they will never fully capture the meaning of the piece, for seeing
is not understanding. Maybe this is why
art is studied. The absolute uncertainty
is guaranteed, and it is human nature to want to understand what is not
understood. This may be what draws
people to art exhibits and museums, the primal urge to understand, to solve the
great mystery of art, to be able to say "I get it, I fully understand
art". This will never be
possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment