When I read, "What are the functions of art" I was surprised to see that this author decided that there are usually three categories for the functions of art. I would have guessed there would have been more but when I tried to think of another function everything I thought of could have been placed into one of these categories. I was happy to read that the viewer is half of the art. I agree with this completely from personal experiences. Every time I have viewed a work of art I have noticed the pieces that mean something to me, or the pieces that I enjoy are because of how I can relate to them. Every piece of art can be viewed differently depending on the viewer and their personal experiences.
I grew up dancing since I was in the 4th grade. This form of art has been very important in my life. The form of dance I enjoy doing and watching the most is modern. This form is very easy for me to look into and understand in different ways. Every time I attend a dance performance the different pieces react to me very different than to other people I go with. I usually try to make a story out of the movements, or try and see what they are trying to tell us. I think this style of art could fall into all three functions of art. It is physical because dance is obviously a physical form of movement. Dance is also social and personal as well. It is social because it brings people together to view the performance. Dance is also very personal especially since I have been a dancer I understand that to perform well you have to feel the dance and make it your own in a way. The choreographer can only do so much, it is up to the dancer to tell the story and make the art come alive.
I attached two pictures. One is a picture of me dancing and the second is a photo of a work of art my friend did from the picture taken.
My question here is... Is it wrong for an artist to attach an explanation to their artwork so that the viewer gets the point that the artist is trying to make? Would that ruin the idea of art?
No comments:
Post a Comment