Who determines what is considered art and just because a painting or sculpture does not become famous, it is still considered a great piece of art? Do you think it is necessary for someone to have to attend college to become an artist or are some people just born with that creative talent?
Obviously, if I could answer these questions with any authority I would make a lot more money than I do now.
You can ask similar questions about any creative medium - what makes a great actor? What makes an important novel?
There are a lot of books and papers on this topic - I encourage you to go to the library and do some research. If nothing else it makes for interesting dinner conversation.
As I usually discuss in my first Art Appreciation lectures - there is really nothing concrete that separates art from non-art or good art from bad art. In earlier periods there was more of a clear demarcation, but in our time things have become more ambiguous.
It seems that the only true test of art is the test of time. Many of the art pieces that were considered significant in their own period are no longer of much interest to us. Whereas, some artist who were once ignored are now synonymous with great art.
This does not mean that we cannot place some kind of judgment to contemporary works - I'd doubt that anyone would claim that "Dude, Where's My Car" is a greater movie than "Schindler's List". But we have to be careful to recognize that we might be inflating the importance of something because we are not being objective.
Prime example - I'm sure that everyone remembers their first breakup. At the time, it may have been horrible, but soon you learned that such things were not that big of a deal.
And no, there is no absolute necessity of attending college to become an artist. It really depends upon the path you wish to take. Let me explain this through a lame analogy - Star Wars!
Han and Luke are both heroes of the Rebellion. We could argue for forever about which one was more instrumental in bringing down the Empire, right? But both of these characters had to take different journeys to achieve their goals.
In order for Luke to conquer his challenges he needed to have intensive training and personal introspection. Han did not need any of that - he just relied on his ingenuity and survival instinct. Against someone like Vader, Han would not have lasted a minute. Fortunately, he did not have to - that was Luke's battle.
In many ways Han, Leia, and Lando were the ones who actually defeated the Empire – Luke’s struggle was really for the “soul” of the galaxy, if you can forgive the awful analogy. You see where I am going with this? Each individual has to create their own destiny.
For me the path was through the academic world– which is why I’ve always identified with Luke. In order to defeat the challenges that I would face, I sought knowledge and awareness that went beyond the needs of most. That was just the destiny that I created for myself. But that in no way means that it was superior or more significant than any other path.
And as far as talent – well let’s just say that I spent a lot (a LOT) of time and effort to obtain that talent. So that is why I often get annoyed when someone compliments my "gift" - it has been a costly gift, let me tell you!
No comments:
Post a Comment