grindy |
07-06-2015 12:02 PM |
To argue this on a meta level:
I'd postulate two basic approaches to art, taken from the two basic approaches in linguistics, precriptive and descriptive.
If you approach art in the prescriptive way, you have a basic set of rules by which you measure and analyze art. By the adherence of the work to those rules you judge how good it is and whether it's art at all.
If you approach it in the descriptive way, you try to analyze it in itself and in accordance to why the artist made it and in what way it might resonate with the audience and with oneself especially. The question whether it is art or isn't, isn't even really posed.
In accordance with being a descriptivist I won't say that any of those two ways is right or wrong, but I think the descriptivist has the potential for having more fun with art.
|