Problem In The Basic Definition Of Art example essay topic

subject = philosophy title = can we debate art papers = Can we debate art When I first began thinking about this topic, it seemed as if it was a fairly simple subject. Of course we could debate art, critics and the average citizen have done it for years debating over which pieces are their favorites. As I began to think about the subject and received feedback from the class, this topic became infinitely more complicated with questions like: what is art, could we saw that one person's art is better than another's, and why is it (and is it justified) that people such as Van Gogh and Picasso have become famous Looking back at what my initial feelings were and how they have developed over the weeks, I noticed that my ideas and principles were not changed drastically by the in-class discussions, but were refined and given more "ammunition" that took my thinking from a highly generalized level to one where I could express my feelings better and possibly inspire other's thinking as well. Can we debate art Although it is perhaps an unanswerable question, there are a few points I feel should be discussed. One of the issues that I thought about was a problem in the basic definition of art. What could be defined as art Does it have to be "pleasing to the eye" or "something that does not offend or ridicule" One example was a piece done where a person had placed a crucifix upside-down... was this art I decided that it was, based on my belief that anything, although it may seem offensive or even repulsive, should be considered as art as long as one person, maybe only the artist himself, was somehow affected by it.

Reading that sentence over I suddenly realize how difficult it is to discuss this issue. It seems as if we are to debate art we need list of requirements that need to be fulfilled, a "master checklist" on what can and cannot be considered art. It seems the more we think about what art is, the more the true meaning and feeling that is the nature of art is somehow stifled and suppressed. Let's leave this definition alone and move to the debate over why the master artists, studied and enjoyed for years, are indeed that-masters. The main issue I tried to debate on this topic was how people could deem some artist great and awe at his work hung in the Louvre, while the work done by "Lil' Johnnies" (metaphor for a work done by a child or any other "technically imperfect artist), produced with similar if not exact materials, make it only as far as the household refrigerator To this question I felt that the master artist, regardless of the material or style, was somehow able to inspire people to such an extent that word eventually spread about his work. His fame and good name is ensured over time by the universal message a master's work presents.

It may have been produced because of a past event, but the emotions and thoughts it provokes are innate in human nature. Writing this paper, I had prepared to attack this computer's keys and crank out several main points I felt were essential on the argument or whether art can be debated. The problem with this subject is that the further I began to write about it, the further I got away from the truth. Can we debate art In hopes of getting a definite answer, no, we cannot debate art. It is my conclusion that people should discuss art by showing others what artwork you love and were influenced by, not by trying to figure out how many people have to like a painting to be considered a master artist. Talk about art, make art, and love art, but avoid trying to define somehting that by nature defies definition, abhors definition, and loses its meaning through definition.

I love art, but I can and never want to tell it who it has to be. 32 c.