poniedziałek, 30 kwietnia 2018

Does art have to be beautiful?

In my opinion art is supposed to either express emotions of an author, be nice to watch/hear or be thought-provoking. Having this in mind, art doesn't have to be beautiful, but should fulfill one of criteria I invented. I also think, that we mustn't tell the artist what to do, because it may kill his creativity. Secondly, everyone has a different taste and maybe there is someone who actually likes not-beautiful works. To sum up, art doesn't have to be beautiful and can be made for different purpose than amusing watchers' eyes/ears.
Autor: o

2 komentarze:

  1. englishdiary10 maja 2018 01:11

    I sort of agree with your conclusion but is it really so that anything thought-provoking can be called art? How do you distinguish art from, say, science, which is full of thought-provoking observations, questions, theories, etc.?

    OdpowiedzUsuń
    Odpowiedzi
    1. Wiktor Ciołek10 maja 2018 08:32

      To exclude science from my criteria I would add 'piece of work', since we don't have any influence on our observations nor measurements. Hopefully, there are no exceptions to my criteria now.

      Usuń

Subskrybuj: Komentarze do posta (Atom)