Before I begin, I must apologize for being lax about my blog as of late. I've come down with the plague (or the common cold, whichever you prefer to call it), and it has made it quite difficult to breathe and continue to attend classes, let alone try to compose thoughts for my blog.
Excuses aside... why define Art? What is it about Art that compels us to compose a definition to encompass it? While I have no reasonable answer for the second, the first question deserves exploration.
On the most practical level, a definition of "Art" is necessary to legitimize the existence of art schools. If we lack a definition of Art, how can we possibly devote entire institutions of learning to it? Simply put, we cannot.
However, there is a much deeper need for a definition of art. Most people probably have some idea of what "Art" is. They can look at something and know if it is "Art" or not. Why, then, can we not agree on what "Art" truly is?
The answer is simple: there is no universal definition of Art, and on this point, Weitz is correct - we will NEVER compose a definition of Art that EVERYONE can agree with. However, that does not preclude the search for a definition. Rather than defining Art in a universal sense, we must endeavor to define Art in a personal sense. What is Art to ME? Why do I feel that this is Art?
We will never have a universal definition of Art. However, we SHOULD continue to define Art, not for Art's sake, not for humanity's sake, but for our own. Understand why we feel as we do about Art, understand ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You note on a practical level that art schools need a definition for art... but what about the everyday person? Do they need a definition to legitimize everything or is it really that significant?
I would distinguish between universal (applies to all) and universally agreed on (all consciously accept), just as an ethical universal -- never take the life of an innocent person without reason, for example -- will be ignored by many.
Post a Comment