on art

2006-10-09 - 5:41 p.m.

A friend has had me ruminating on the function of art lately. While it's fair to say that there are a million arguments that could be made here and that not a single one could be complete, here's my primary take on it.

My dad and I have frequently argued about what makes good art. The visual arts have been our primary debate. Dad believes that art's purpose should be to represent reality as accurately and perfectly as possible. He's never been into more abstract works.

But the issue comes into play that there is no one true representation of reality. Even if a photo or painting exactly duplicates what an artist was seeing, he or she is giving the viewer a look into the artist's view of the world. The subject matter alone conveys messages about what the artist feels is important to look at. The angle gives still more meaning. The lighting, the time of day, the spatial relationships. Think of the difference in a macro close-up of a flower's stamen or a wide, sweeping landscape of that same field. Both were representations of the same reality, but what's important? What's the feeling?

If life's about our connections, our loves, friendships and understanding of each other, art functions to help us share our world view and to come closer to understanding the world view of others. When the message works, art can help us share our experiences and consider our own points of view.

So, while even the exact replication of reality is art and helps us understand each other, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

�

Pretend it's 10th grade. Leave me a note.

previous - next

�