I am a fan of the arts; films, drawings, paintings, play, you name it. What is so fascinating to me about art in general is that it is the result form of what the artist is expressing from his or her own mind. The art can be prepared or interpreted in various, unlimited ways. Art will not be a piece of art without the artist and the observer that opinion on it. I agree with any reasoning needs to within the intellectual standards as it is said in Critical and Creative Thinking, “It should also be recognized that any reasoning about art must be assessed in accordance with the intellectual standards that apply to all reasoning. The quality of reasoning about art—about its features, the processes that produce the art, its history, its role in society, its importance, its purpose, its message..” (Paul and Elder, 2008) Criticism against art should not be solely based on the observer’s general opinion, but also based on the other reasoning, as is typed above.
I wonder if art critics should sometimes put aside these standards and just look at the picture with his or her own eyes because some reasoning for art might spoil the whole picture. Some art might have a bland background but appear attractive to the observer merely because of its appearance. This happens to me often, I look at any forms of art and I judge them only based on its appearance, without learning its background first. If an interesting art has a bland background, it is interesting. If it is attractive with an interesting background, then it is even more appealing. If it is a bland, boring looking piece of art but with a dynamic, well-known background, then that’s a different story. The dynamics of the background could completely change the perspective of the art itself, it could even appear to be appealing in the physical form, depending on the vibe it gives out.
After reading this, I am thinking critical thinking is good because it seems bring out some different perspectives from the mind. I think the skill of thinking critically is a bit tough to develop. The mind needs time to broaden its views and develop the understanding on certain subjects, depending on the individual. It would make my life exciting, being able to stretch my horizons to any extent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you with art critics. They should aside the standards and observe its abstract of the art. It may be not in the regular standard of arts. It may be better or worse than the standard rules of art, but there is always one person will like the art because the person can understand the artist's purpose behind it
ReplyDeleteYou got a point there, but I have to add the information that art critics' duty is to criticize art in the context of aesthetics or the theory of beauty depending in different divisions of art. Every art division has its own criteria. Artists often have uneasy relationships with critics and artists usually need positive opinions from critics for their work to be viewed and purchased. Sadly, all artists need critics' positive comments to bring them to a noticeable level, in other words, famous.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you involved your opinion about the art critics needing to put aside their art thinking and just look at the picture. Like how every art display could be plain looking background and still tell a meaning. We discussed that in class, and i liked how you took that discussion and involved it in your blog. :]
ReplyDelete