Berger and Sontag are constantly defining their version of art. “Art is dubious.” “Art is always figurative.” “Works of art are reproducible, they can, theoretically, be used by anybody.”
Why do they need to be defining art?
Art is always going to be debatable, and I don’t see the constant need to be trying to define on paper, “What is art?” There is no need. Art is just plain and simply art to whoever thinks it is.
I have actually heard only one definition of art in my life that I do agree with. “Anything that people discuss or argue over if something is art, then that something is art.” The definition is saying that anything that a person wants to be art is art.
A bridge can be art to an engineer. The David can be art to a sculptor. Sisterhood can be art to a family. A play in a basketball game can be art to a basketball fan. Art is everything and everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment