Art for Pete’s Sake — Part Two

Let me begin by saying that I often don’t “get” art that others find admirable. I realize that this is a lack on my part. To a large degree, I have a gentle envy for people who can create and appreciate art in the same way I gently envy people who are musical. I know I’m missing out on something but I don’t know if there’s anything I can do about it. Which leads me to:

Questions About Art

  1. Is there such a thing as “art for art’s sake”?
  2. Is art appreciation an inherited ability? If I don’t appreciate art is it because I’m visually tone-deaf?
  3. Can art appreciation be learned?
  4. What is the measurement of art? Is it value to the artist or viewer? Is it worth to society? Is it the satisfaction of the creative impulse?
  5. Is “art” in the eye of the artist? What if an artist creates a work and nobody appreciates it? Is it still art?
  6. Is “art” in the eye of the viewer. If you paint a picture and I appreciate it, does that make it art? Or is it only art if a viewer “in the know” appreciates it?
  7. Is it a matter of consensus? Does a work become art when a certain number of people say it is art?
  8. Who gets to decide?
  9. Is art always intentional. Can a work of art happen by accident?
  10. Where does morality come into play? Can a work be art if it violates God’s law? For example, if the Venus statue I wrote about yesterday was a goddess, the artist violated the second commandment. Can it still be art?
  11. Where does truth come into play? Can a legitimate work of art deceive the viewer about reality? Can a legitimate work of art deceive the viewer about spiritual truth?
  12. As a Christian, are there particular styles of art that I should prefer or avoid?
  13. Can a particular work be art for one generation but not art for another?

I have my opinions on some of these questions, but on others, I really have no idea what the answer is. I’d like to know what you think.

This entry was posted in Art. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Art for Pete’s Sake — Part Two

  1. siri says:

    After having had enough of seeing ‘brilliant’ exhibits (e.g. clothings made out of raw beef, plain felt boards, and a sculpture fashioned after a balloon poodle at a modern art museum in a European city, I asked myself some of these questions.

    Qs 10 and 11 – I don’t know. Is morality part of what defines art? Could art be considered something that is neither moral nor immoral, i.e. amoral? If the Venus statue is made to reflect the artist’s imagination of what Venus would look like, if she existed, is that immoral? Or is it okay unless it’s made to be an object of worship.

    Is the level of perceived quality of a piece of art in direct proportion to how closely it resembles reality? I don’t know.

    What about “Christian” artistic symbols which may or may not truthfully reflect reality? What about all the paintings, drawings, statues, etc., of Christ? The Sistine Chapel fresco portraying God and Adam?

    No answers here; just more questions.

  2. n8 says:

    Those are all very good questions. I can firmly answer “yes” to question #3, as someone who has grown (learned) to appreciate art, in a general sense. I don’t think you necessarily have to be “in the know” to appreciate many works of art, but it does help to understand principles of composition, how to use the right colors together (i.e. warm colors vs cold colors) and movement of colors to communicate whatever it is you want to communicate.

    But there’s also an intuitive appreciation for many works of art. You’ve produced some very beautiful photographs by putting the subject in the right part of the frame and with the light hitting it the right way. When the viewer is drawn in and can almost imagine themselves being there, that’s an intuitive appreciation.

Comments are closed.