It appears as though my idea that art which is appreciated by more people is “more” art has created some discussion (Guy Tal and Skolai Images) . By “more” I do not mean “better”. “Better” is a supposedly objective determination made by a rule set derived by people who study art. What I mean by “more” is “greater impact”, and that is I feel, what gives art value. I believe that the creation of art is a cognitive process combining imagination and skill for the purpose of expressing some emotional response to a subject or just the maker’s state of mind. What makes art powerful is its communicative, or emotive impact on others.
If, as I believe, art requires a viewer in order to be complete, to count as more than just paint on canvas, words on paper, than something is “art” as soon as that first responsive viewer exists. But art is a subjective idea. The label of “art” is a judgment made by people. What I perceive as random marks, may hold emotional meaning for someone else. I suggest that the power of something as “art” ( it’s “artfulness” )is a cumulative process so that the more people “see” it as art, respond to it, the “more” it is “art”. Being “art” to more people, I feel makes it “more” art.
I believe the Mona Lisa is more “art” today than if it were locked away in a closet after made. It will be more “art” a hundred years from now than today. Artists understand this, museums understand this, galleries understand this, investor’s understand this. It’s the reason they put their works out into the public through exhibits, books, catalogs, magazines, DVD’s, the internet and any other means they can find. The perception of something as “art” is a cumulative process, a work takes on the value of being “more” art, the more people respond to it as such.
******************************************************************




Recent Comments