I found it very interesting to ready about Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. Even from the picture that is given in the book it can be seen that these boxes are almost identical to something that anyone could see at a grocery store or that someone would use when moving storage. This question of “is it art?” is what I have been pondering since taking the class. I see the photograph of the boxes and do not see art. I see it al almost someone being lazy about coming up with their next big piece of art. As I continued to read I came across a line that said that the boxes, “make the narrow and restricted views of earlier philosophers, who defined art in terms of Beauty, Form, etc., seem too rigid.” This caused me to stop and think about how I was viewing art. According to this book, I am viewing art too “narrowly” and need to stop thinking like “earlier philosophers.” The problem that I have though is that I was not taught by these earlier philosophers. Rather, I came to my conclusions either on my own or based on something else in my development. However, it appears that in the art community, I would be alone in my thoughts.
As I continued to read, one other part really stood out to me. It said that Danto had explained that the art world is welcome to all that that all types of art should be accepted. However, Danto did not give a good explanation of how this art would communicate its message. This was exactly what I was feeling. I didn’t necessarily have an inherent dislike to the Brillo Boxes but it was that I could find to reason or underlying meaning in them that I couldn’t see them as art. Then, I got my answer in the next sentences. It said that the lack of communication of meaning doesn’t make it not art but rather the communication can separate art from good art. This helped me a little with my understanding of “what is art?” but I still am trying to wrap my mind around someone paying millions for art that under this qualification wouldn’t be even considered good art.
No comments:
Post a Comment