Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Art

This is a response to a post by The Wizardress, which was at first a comment, but then it got too long and I figured it should be a post. In order to understand my post, you're probably going to have to read hers.
_________________________________________________________
Art becomes shared and appreciated when people can relate to it - which I think is what you just said. I like art more than nature, and I guess we're talking about human made art because I dont understand why nature cant be art. even if it happened without any prompting, it still causes emotion for people and people see beauty and emotion in it, as they might a painting or sculpture, etc. Those two aspects FOR ME, define art.
And what's wrong with seeing multiple ways to get inside someone's mind? Tying into what i said at the beginning, relating to people makes people feel better, as does the creation itself. I think that art that does not convey emotion in a way that people can read it, is just one-ended art. Because if it has ANY emotional value, the artist can feel it and use it. That's much different than tissues.

1 comment:

Persephone said...

but then you're basically agreeing with me; if art is connectable, then it is valuable; if it is not, it is tissues.