Therefore, the artist can be considered irrelevant to the meaning of the art, and the artwork itself. Beardsley in 1946 subscribed to this view, stating that the intentions of the artist within an artwork are not available. • Since we frequently can and do interpret a work of art with little or no knowledge about the artist, let alone what is intended, an artist’s intention doesn’t fix the meaning of the work. Example: Consider a painting of two rings joined. Suppose the artist sincerely asserts that it represents the male/female relationship.
For Matheson, Husserl provides a better conceptual ground for rejecting the representationalist theory. For instance, if we try to characterize the relationship between a portrait and the person portrayed, we would not find difficulty in doing this because we can experience both objects, but we cannot do this when it pertain objects of experience because it can never be established as a relation. That which is purportedly represented cannot be pointed out as such. And if I can point out the represented object then the represented object must also be a
It would then be easy to assume that anything different wouldn’t be considered art. So then is it safe to say that because Banksy’s street work isn’t in a museum, it isn’t art? - Or that the designers on Project Runway aren’t artists because they are not performing to an eloquent ballad? As it turns out, the debate between ‘high art’ versus ‘low art’ has an underlying argument regarding ‘art’ versus ‘non-art’. Art is simply one’s emotions, ideas, or beliefs expressed through a particular talent or skill.
This idea rids humans of what empathy they are capable of and jeopardizes their reign on a stable emotional mind. Huxley uses foil, symbolism, and irony to delve into this problem of escapism and its contributions to a dystopia in disguise. (your thesis needs to be more specific. Authors don’t delve into problems. They take clear stands on issues.
It is clear that Dix was not accurately depicting Dr. Heinrich Stadelmann as he would appear in life. This raises the question whether Stadelmann would have approved of the finished artwork, and what it was Dix was trying to say. As with any artwork, it is impossible to know where Dix’s interpretation ends and the viewer’s subjective inventiveness begins. Therein lies the effectiveness of art as a combined experience that transcends the intent of the artist. Dix may lay the groundwork through his strategic use of artistic elements, but it is ultimately the observer that builds the
Imperfection in Perfection in the Brave New World In the dystopic novel Brave New World sacrifices are made to obtain a perfect society based on ignorance and conformity rather than acceptance and freedom. From the passage in chapter 16: “Because our world is not the same” to “Happiness is never grand” (193-195), Aldous Huxley exploits the different views on happiness regarding one of the world controllers: Mustapha Mond, and John the savage. This is done in order to show that a perfect world cannot exist without using imperfect methods, art becomes imperfect in a perfect world, and no matter how perfect a society appears to be, in reality it is different. In this passage Huxley explains how perfection must co-exist with imperfection, through the theme development of perfection. Mustapha Mond tries to make John realize that society in the World State is better off without changes.
Good Requires Evil In a world of confusion, he who lives, lives by his own rules and morals. As in the comparison of pretty to ugly, it can be seen that good and evil only exist in their difference from one another. For example, if there was no definition of beauty, there would be no concept of ugly either. The dull response of “without evil, there is no good” holds much authority in this argument. Can we make the assumption that evil is just a division of a clear good?
O’Brien writes “If you don’t care for obscenity, you don’t care for the truth” (347). The gore, the vulgarity, and the obscenity are all relevant in order to convey the emotions and state of mind of the people who were involved. The author cannot
In his essay, Clement Greenberg divides art into two category: avant-garde and kitsch. Avant garde is the "genuine" art that moves society forward. It manages to be genuine by avoiding such tasteless things as subject matter in favor of art that focuses on the very processes of art, the medium of art itself. However as a result of this genuine style, avant-garde artists are marginalized in the modern world.According to him the modern world is more interested in kitsch, which is characterized by its inauthenticity. He sees kitsch as an unreal experiance and a faked sensation.
In other words, expression supersedes representation, and nature is not to be used for confessional purposes, instead its quintessence is to be distilled through the power of the artist’s imagination. In this sense, painting has become more dependent on the artist’s memory rather than his immediate observation of nature, for it is not the physical object before the artist’s eyes that matters but the mental image that strikes the artist’s eye of mind, leaving a genuine impression on his living experience. As Émile Bernard put it, anything superfluous in a scene veils that scene with a reality which claims our visual attention, rather than our soul. Paul Gauguin infuses his emotion into his painting and endows each line and form, as materialistic forms, with a