Art may or may not be beautiful. It may or may not be close to such feelings as suffering or love. In my opinion, art should have the right message and content from the author. To force observer's to think. Often in public opinion we hear that many works are "ugly" and "eccentric", and these works very often getting awards. In the eyes of critics of art or some people it looks completely different and they see the main message in the author's work and appreciate his creativity.
Some time ago at night I met a large group of wild boars, traveling along the road near my home. They looked rather frightened and upset, and this may have resulted from the lights flashed on each side and the noises of cars rang out. In spite of everything, the wild boars managed to cross the road safely, but in this confusion they strongly damaged the fence to cross to the other side of the forest. I watched the whole incident as an observer and it looked quite strange. Well, because a group of wild boars passing through the zebra crossing isn't an everyday sight. But I think that, in that situation when wild boars appeared on the road, all the drivers should stop and let boars to go to the other side, but in this case not everyone did the same and the animals suffered a big shock. Th ey could at least understand a little about the situation of these poor animals.
So is a painting which just tries to recreate reality, e.g a landscape, a work of art? It does provoke us or makes us think ...
OdpowiedzUsuń