I think that if we are only considering whether or not something is art then you're correct. If the artist intends for art to convey an emotion then he has successfully created art. However if the emotion is not received then there is noise in the communication process. Noise is anything that interferes with the communication of an idea, emotion etc. Now, this noise can appear in one of two places, either on the receiver(observer)'s end or the transmitter(artist)'s end. If we determine that it is the artist's fault (or that the noise is on the transmitter's end) then it is a comment on the quality of the piece of art. For instance if the artist wanted people to be made happy by his video of a rabbit rotting and everyone feels sorrow then the piece of art is communicating poorly and is an unsuccessful piece of art. But if an artist creates, using Tyler's example, a picture of a dog that is intended to make people happy but one person is made sad by it because it reminds him of his dead dog then it is noise on the side of the receiver. It is not low-quality art. There is a problem with the viewer. Actually this is pretty similar to my post on offensive art.
Is it truly possible to determine the quality of art if the artist's intended emotion is unclear to everyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment