Give reasons for and against the proposal that things, which are not human-made, could be called art. At which point do we call something human-made? (We make sculptures out of marble, but we don't make the marble, so could putting driftwood in a museum be sufficient to be called "human-made"?)
There are many things out in nature that can be arguably called art, like the songs of birds, mountain sides, forests, precious gems and sunsets. These things are all used and replicated in art to the point where it is almost a truth that the things themselves are art. However, even with the prominent use of things of nature in art, is it really art? If there was no emotional meaning behind it put by an artist can it really be labeled art? Art has had a large emotional expression about it in the recent times, however, it is not always been so and yet there was art. So it becomes something that should be observed by someone, art is really what people see it to be, no matter what theory of aesthetics presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment