One of the good commentaries made by Weitz in his "The role of the theory in aesthetics" is about the two ways we use to call objects as "art": evaluative and definition.
The first concept can be understood as when we consider some object so special that it can only be a work of art - no matter if it is far from a traditional work that what people from [what is known as] the artworld use to call art.
We can name a very beautiful and old chair of your grandmother as a work of art, even assuming it could not ever be exposed in a museum. Or we can name a wonderful sunset a work of art, or other some natural phenomenon, with no participation of human beings. Or, even, a painting made from a very recognized artist, like Leonardo Da Vinci.
If it is special in some way [normally it has a high degree of beauty for its viewers], it will find someone who will name it as art. In this way, something can be, or can't be, a work of art. There is no possibility of indecision, or graduation.
In the second interpretation, we repute some object as a work of art, as we use to categorize other objects, like, again, the beautiful and old chair of your grandmother, or the wonderful sunset. In the category "chairs", that specific is "beautiful", "old" and "of your grandmother". The sunset would be "wonderful". The work of art "from Da Vinci".
This second interpretation confirms for me a possibility that pleases me. Because besides of being a work or art from Da Vinci, it could be a "bad" or a "good" work of art. Plus: the artist can be a "good" or a "bad" one. The epithet "artist", hence, loses its godlike's aura, its atmosphere of superiority, as everyone name with this designation could only produce divine things.
We just need to see the most acknowledge artists of all times to prove this theory. First: they are not unanimities. Ones will put this name, others will put that person. It is impossible to create a perfect canon, that nobody in the world will add or decrease any of its items. Second: they didn't produce works at the same level all their lifetime. Some are better than others, as we can see when we use the world "masterpiece". It is the best work this artist could make. Third, to have produced a work of art once doesn't mean everything the artist produces will be "art". Every object must be judged separately.
Being an artist is - or at least should be - a common profession as any other. In some way, it should be less valuable than others occupations, as it doesn't need any special education - to be a writer, you must only need to know how to... write. To build a building, you must know how to do some very difficult calculations. The work of the artist - therefore, the art, and only the art - is what must be judge, not who create it. Artist is not important, art just is [in a unexplainable way, which I will speak better another day, but it is].
Rubinho Jacobina, a Brazilian singer, summarized the idea in one chorus: "Artista é o caralho", what means in a open translation: "Artist's my ass" [it is a little bit more rude than this, but the point is clear].
The first concept can be understood as when we consider some object so special that it can only be a work of art - no matter if it is far from a traditional work that what people from [what is known as] the artworld use to call art.
We can name a very beautiful and old chair of your grandmother as a work of art, even assuming it could not ever be exposed in a museum. Or we can name a wonderful sunset a work of art, or other some natural phenomenon, with no participation of human beings. Or, even, a painting made from a very recognized artist, like Leonardo Da Vinci.
If it is special in some way [normally it has a high degree of beauty for its viewers], it will find someone who will name it as art. In this way, something can be, or can't be, a work of art. There is no possibility of indecision, or graduation.
In the second interpretation, we repute some object as a work of art, as we use to categorize other objects, like, again, the beautiful and old chair of your grandmother, or the wonderful sunset. In the category "chairs", that specific is "beautiful", "old" and "of your grandmother". The sunset would be "wonderful". The work of art "from Da Vinci".
This second interpretation confirms for me a possibility that pleases me. Because besides of being a work or art from Da Vinci, it could be a "bad" or a "good" work of art. Plus: the artist can be a "good" or a "bad" one. The epithet "artist", hence, loses its godlike's aura, its atmosphere of superiority, as everyone name with this designation could only produce divine things.
We just need to see the most acknowledge artists of all times to prove this theory. First: they are not unanimities. Ones will put this name, others will put that person. It is impossible to create a perfect canon, that nobody in the world will add or decrease any of its items. Second: they didn't produce works at the same level all their lifetime. Some are better than others, as we can see when we use the world "masterpiece". It is the best work this artist could make. Third, to have produced a work of art once doesn't mean everything the artist produces will be "art". Every object must be judged separately.
Being an artist is - or at least should be - a common profession as any other. In some way, it should be less valuable than others occupations, as it doesn't need any special education - to be a writer, you must only need to know how to... write. To build a building, you must know how to do some very difficult calculations. The work of the artist - therefore, the art, and only the art - is what must be judge, not who create it. Artist is not important, art just is [in a unexplainable way, which I will speak better another day, but it is].
Rubinho Jacobina, a Brazilian singer, summarized the idea in one chorus: "Artista é o caralho", what means in a open translation: "Artist's my ass" [it is a little bit more rude than this, but the point is clear].
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário