Sunday, November 16, 2008

Abstract Real Art

Looking at different pieces in a museum does it matter if it is an abstract piece or realistic? Which is real art, or does it matter? Please justify why you believe so: Knower's perspective. I think that individually you need to address this question before jumping to any conclusions about the movie. Either way you are biased (I know I'm not suppose to use that word but oh well). To show you what I mean I'm express mine:
Kelly Rappe: I'm an abstract artist myself so growing up seeing different artists and how they boil down their art down to the true essentials amazed me. I wanted to strive and see if I could do that. Don't get me wrong but I do enjoy realistic art, even though I'm horrible at it. I feel my emotions for all the abstract artists turned down in society make me want to stand up for all of them, even if it isn't true. I think both are real art. My sense perception also pays a role. Anyone who has been in an art class with me learns really fast that I think there art is really amazing because I think that criticizing it isn't true understanding.
-Kelly Rappe


Peter XP said...

I myself tend to perceive in a more realistic perspective, not only in art, but in the world. It's nice to see both real as well as abstract art in a museum, but I would tend to gravitate towards the realistic ones as I can connect with/understand them on a deeper level. As for the abstract ones I'd just say, "It's profound!" to sound sophisticated since I don't get it at all. To define real art is to simply be able to picture that image/sculpture/whatever in your own life, so maybe both may be considered real, iunno. Moving on, the difference of the two does matter in that people like definition so as to distinguish themselves. For example, people define themselves as being their profession, political stance, or whatever, though it may be one-dimensional to do so.

Don Park said...

Art in my opinion doesn't matter as to how it looks. If its art for one person, then that should be good enough to be considered art. Abstract art just happens to have a looser "rule" around it. For example, for something to be considered realistic, i'm assuming here so if i'm wrong just tell me, it has to follow a strict set of criteria. It shows the object as what it is, instead of what it could be. The interpretation is already there, already decrypted. While in Abstract art, the interpretation is free to be manipulated and changed. The interpretation is different from one person to another.