It is very difficult to stake out clearly the boundaries which separate art from non-art. As suggested above, this requires a judgment of value, i. e. the separation of the good from the ordinary, average, or bad. We shall try to come to grips with this problem in a later lesson. In addition to the problem of quality, there is that of the objectives, the aims of art. These have often been formulated, usually without any very conclusive results. Here are some of the most common attempts at defining the objectives of art:
1. Art should be the Imitation (or Interpretation) of Nature.
2. Art is the Self-Expression of a Great Personality.
3. Art is the Creation of Beauty,
4. Art is a Language for the Conveying of Great Ideas.
And there are others. Each contains an element of truth, is partly true -- but if applied singly, narrowly, each hopelessly distorts the meaning of art. There are, in fact, many baffling mysteries about art which will probably never be resolved. What, for example, is the exact psychological nature of what we call "talent"?
Why is it a fact that the contribution of women to the visual arts has been negligible? Why is art so largely independent of high levels of civilization (great art has been produced by savages) or of material prosperity (great art has been produced in times of deep misery)? We shall not resolve these questions, but we shall raise them and discuss them, and they will increase our understanding of art.
For the time being, let us frame this tentative and modest definition: Art is the form (visual and tactile) into which men may translate their experience of life -– regardless of whether this experience be drawn from the observation of nature or from the imagination. Whether or not this imaginative record of experience carries a specific message, it has the power of illuminating thought and feeling and can arouse intense pleasure in those who receive it with sympathy.
No comments:
Post a Comment