This is a response to Christine Pavo's question, Is it necessary for one to understand the message of artwork?. Though this may be a contrary belief to the theories of art we looked at (and the theories we are going to look at) I believe that all art does have a message, but it isn't one single message. I think the purpose of art is to communicate the feelings of an artist and generally when you are communicating you are trying to get something across (a certain message) even if it is on the non-verbal level.
I think the problem with many people is that they forget that not everyone is the same. Many of the theories we have looked at are very inclusive and objective, looking at art at this one thing that needs to convey this one thing!! This isn't so, nothing in life is like this, nothing in life portrays something that will be deemed the same to everyone. A work of art to person A conveys a total opposite message to person B. To me the chords in the song portray a sad melody and to you it may portray a sarcastically happy melody. One work of art - two different views. We get a message out of the song, but based on our experience, our mental and emotional state at the moment and recent events, the message is a totally different one. When we think about message I believe we can say that a message is just the understanding we get from observing something/ being told something etc. So it is impossible not to get a message from a work of art, however it isn't necessary to feel the same. :-)
My question is if art didn't exist, could life still go on?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment