Question: "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"
Saying that someone who has studied art's history has an "eye" for art causes art to become a subject for only the elite. However, that's not to say that studying art history is not beneficial. Learning about an artwork's history provides a new, different and seperate perspective--the keyword here being seperate, as in seperate from having an "eye" for art. But I'll get to that in a second.
Someone who know's the artwork's history, can better undesrtand the mind frame of the artist--perhaps what time period it is depicting, how it related to world events at the time, the culture that influenced the paitning, and the style of painting. This does not mean they can accurately judge whether a painting is worthy of being called art. It just means that one can deduce where and how the artwork came to be.
Having an eye for art, refers to art critiscm, which is distinguised from art history. Art critiscm is more concered with the aesthetic value of an artwork.
Having knowledge in art history may be beneficial to you while judging art, but having that extra knowledge, I believe, does not ensure an "eye" for the subject. Personally, I would say that in order to have an "eye" art one must have the mindset of an artist, or be one themselves.
Question: What are the guidelines for critiquing art? What makes a good critic? And do you believe that only an artist can truly judge a work of art, and sufficiently critique it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment