I dabble in art - maybe more than dabble. I have a degree in Fine Arts / Art History, and have been creating art for a few decades. But I don't do it professionally.
With that context in mind, my take on this is that it might help people who don't appreciate art take one step in that direction because you've added more to the experience. Not bad, but not really what drives appreciation either.
I've found that what really makes people appreciate it is connecting it to the people behind it. When they see a work in the context of an artist's life, or the history of the time it was created, and understand it beyond just "look at this picture" and more of "Look at this person, their experience, their feelings, their problems and their joys, and see how they expressed all of that through art." Even if the art was a hired commission, which was historically common, just as it is today, the story of "I practiced a craft and got hired to do this" is still a story.
That really is what it boils down to - story telling. Tell a story, get appreciation. Fail to tell a story, get people who glace at it and respond, "OK. cool. Anyhoo."
A good answer for people who don't appreciate art, but you and I know it misses the point. Anyone who stops to think knows that the artist wasn't trying to rely on an explanatory label added by a gallery or a web site, they wanted the work to speak for itself or not at all.
We should be encouraging people to enjoy work for what it is, and if they don't see the point of it, to move on.
wat. I didn't lie about my perspective. If you disagree, by all means, share your thoughts. But that statement puts a really odd spin on your response.
Sorry, given your background I thought you might take my point. Didn't mean to accuse you of anything other than being kind. I know people tend to feel inadequate about art unnecessarily.
I dabble in art - maybe more than dabble. I have a degree in Fine Arts / Art History, and have been creating art for a few decades. But I don't do it professionally.
With that context in mind, my take on this is that it might help people who don't appreciate art take one step in that direction because you've added more to the experience. Not bad, but not really what drives appreciation either.
I've found that what really makes people appreciate it is connecting it to the people behind it. When they see a work in the context of an artist's life, or the history of the time it was created, and understand it beyond just "look at this picture" and more of "Look at this person, their experience, their feelings, their problems and their joys, and see how they expressed all of that through art." Even if the art was a hired commission, which was historically common, just as it is today, the story of "I practiced a craft and got hired to do this" is still a story.
That really is what it boils down to - story telling. Tell a story, get appreciation. Fail to tell a story, get people who glace at it and respond, "OK. cool. Anyhoo."
A good answer for people who don't appreciate art, but you and I know it misses the point. Anyone who stops to think knows that the artist wasn't trying to rely on an explanatory label added by a gallery or a web site, they wanted the work to speak for itself or not at all.
We should be encouraging people to enjoy work for what it is, and if they don't see the point of it, to move on.
> you and I know it misses the point.
wat. I didn't lie about my perspective. If you disagree, by all means, share your thoughts. But that statement puts a really odd spin on your response.
Sorry, given your background I thought you might take my point. Didn't mean to accuse you of anything other than being kind. I know people tend to feel inadequate about art unnecessarily.
[dead]