Impressionist artists were determined to paint only what they saw and strived to portray the "immediate impressions" of their senses, leaving it up to the viewer to supply additional details (Burns, 1969, p. 811). Figures in these paintings were often vague, with only a few symbolic details signifying the object as a whole. Also small touches of primary color were placed next to each other, without blending them, but with a view towards recreating the effect of light, as the impressionists were convinced that "light is the principal factor in determining the appearance of objects" (Burns, 1969, p. 811). In their pursuit of light, the impressionists abstained from working with a studio, in favor of woods, fields, and other places where they could capture the effects of natural sunlight and shadow. Fleming (1974) speculates that these artists were vastly influenced by the technological development of photography, as well as the by the scientific discoveries of the nineteenth century as to the nature of light, as well as visual physiology.
So, the landscape which he watches has the impression upon his mind. So that impression is only the imitation of the original landscape. Finally, he paints a picture according to the impression of the mind. So, the painting which he draws is only the imitation of an imitation. In the same way the poet, by his imaginative power, imitates whatever he experiences.
Other abstract artists work from nature and then interpret their subjects in a nonrepresentational manner. In other words, as found on this quote from the internet, when abstract art represents the natural world, it "does so by capturing something of its immutable intrinsic qualities rather than by imitating its external appearance." Working in abstract portraiture is different but at the same not; a portrait painting or drawing depicts the image of a particular person or animal, or group thereof. As you are taking something from nature and abstracting it not making it up is different, but it is still an abstract work. It might be that you are abstracting the features of the face, altering the skin color or just creating a portrait out of colors showing emotion and showing just one or a few features creating a composition making the statement that is a portrait not just an abstract
Millet highly inspired Van Gogh and Dali. Salvador Dali was a key figure in the Avant Garde Movement. Dali was a master of surrealism, taking the French movement to a new level. Dali desired to paint on a level that all people would be able to understand. The effect people unwillingly played right into his hand and began to question and reevaluate their moral standards.
If abstractness, projection of people’s emotions, and uselessness of art create morality in art, then the art itself cannot be moral or immoral, thus proving Wilde’s theory true. There are different examples in the book The Picture of Dorian Gray that shows Dorian’s projection of his own feelings onto art rather than just letting the art be a form of pleasure. Dorian constantly projects meaning and pulls out morals from art, which leaves Dorian feeling poisoned. At one point he even tells Lord Henry that he was never going to forgive him for being poisoned with a book (Wilde 180). Lord Henry responds to this by noting that Dorian was beginning to moralize, and this was a negative thing because he believed that the books and art themselves did not make morals, therefore art could not be poison.
Modernists believe that life is purposeful; postmodernists believe that life is meaningless or that meaning is purely subjective and relative. Modernists believe one can define morality whereas postmodernists believe morality is relative. Modernists are analytical whereas postmodernists are rhetorical. Modern art is characterized by simplicity, elegance and streamlined design but postmodern art is decorative and elaborate. Modernist philosophy is determined by cause and effect but postmodernists believe in chance.
Theres a quote that says “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. I feel like this quote is on point directly with art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. What someone could think is good art, another could think is bad art. For me, i don't have any criteria on what a piece has to have to be good art, i just have to like it.
Plato initially tried to fit the Arts into his philosophical framework by using his uncompromising commitment to reason. Sometimes his views about art seem inconsistent; however, it is also likely that he realized his theory’s shortcomings and softened his views over time. In this account of Plato’s theory of art, I will argue that he overstates the importance of reason, misjudges the artist and ultimately diminishes the artist’s role in society. Theory of Forms Plato’s views on art can best be understood against the backdrop of his theory of Forms. According to Plato, for everything in our world, there is a perfect Form in the abstract realm.
The concept of reducing the amount of excess and loud expression and whittling something down to a basic shape is something that influenced my choice to make sculptures that all looked fairly uniform in shape and colour. Allowing these ideas from art movements of the past to inform some of the more theoretical aspects behind my work. Anti-art/ auto destructive art derives from dada movement. Theories behind value of art questioning the pre-set notions of art as untouchable valuable etc. My work, having the audience destroy the work to express an example of fragility as well as evoking a response and involving the audience in the
Algernon instead pronounces that his music refers to “Life”, which shows how he lives life for the purpose of living life, like Wilde believed that art should be made for the sake of art. Later in the play, Algernon institutes himself as an exemplary aesthetician. “It is awfully hard work doing nothing. However, I don’t mind hard work if there is no definite object of any kind” (Wilde 314). Here, he commends work containing no objective, such as aestheticism acclaims fine art containing no aspiration.