Many a times we come across a piece of work and we ask ourselves what is this about? Audiences stand around with hands on their chin in an attempt to look sophisticated...
I define art as a piece of work that either inspires the mind or pleases the eye. On the former, something inspires when we experience a relevation from engaging with the art form or gets invigorated by it. On the latter, I follow St Thomas Aquinas formulation that "the beautiful is that which pleases merely on being perceived." A visual form that does not fulfil either of the criteria is simply not art. If cannot be a case whereby anything that asserts itself as art should be accrued the status of so. Usually visual forms with no substance rely on a poetic explanatory notes and conniving marketing efforts to lay claim to an artistic endeavour. This is dressed-up incapacity or, to quote the art critique John Russell, "rationalised impotence".
No comments:
Post a Comment