|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
What Is Art?
| Article
# : |
13853 |
|
|
Section : |
EDITORIAL
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1988 |
1,140 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
The special section on art in this issue of THE WORLD & I raises anew the question of whether gigantic Campbell's soup cans, scattered objects thrown into a container, or the covering of a mountain with cellophane are truly works of art. Perhaps the endless and restless quest for novelty contributes to the often desperate experimentation in the field of art.
It is not clear that a definition can capture the concept of art, but I shall attempt to convey what art means to me. Art is a form of communication. But it is not the essential function of art to communicate literal information. Even if a work of art happens to incorporate literal information, the function of art is to stimulate attitudes and perceptions. Because the capacity of art to evoke these responses is dependent upon, but may differ with, the preconceptions of each individual, even the greatest works of art cannot be universal.
Despite the fact that the factors making for variability cannot be denied, the concept of universality still points to a truth concerning great art. Although culture and individual experience, which can change radically with time and space, are too diverse for universality, the greatest art resonates across many frames of reference, varied cultures, and diverse peoples.
The artist's skill also is a basic requisite. A sunset may be beautiful and it may invoke significant perceptions and responses. But it is not a work of art. It is the skill of the artist that makes something a "work" of art. If some would consider the objects I throw into container indistinguishable from those displays shown in a museum, the museum may not be showing a work of art.
... (1999 of 6508 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
