My topic is value in art. In the text book it gives the definition that it is not its monetary worth, but its intrinsic value to the individual and to society as a whole. Another source also gives me an idea about the value in art, “A work of art that transcends a form, but that is also intelligible, and an object that strikes down an idea while allowing it to spring up stronger.” Both ideas use different ways to express and describing the meaning “value of art”. Even though agree to both definitions, I prefer the second statement from Immanuel Kant. Whenever we are trying to just put one definition to something, we are actually destructing its meanings. The meaning of the “object that strikes down and idea while allowing it to spring up stronger” already gives a definition. In the Buddhism sutra there is an idea to express, “Form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form.” For example, cup is not a cup. When we fill with water, we call it “cup”. We put the pens inside, and we call it “pencil holder”. If we put the soil and plant a seed, we call it “flower pot”. Therefore, whether how high or low the value in art is depends on how people understand and value it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myq8upzJDJc&feature=related
I am going to show a video to explain my idea about the value in art. The video is an experimentation done a few years ago in Washington D.C. World famous violinist Joshua Bell was asked to play in Washington Metro during a morning rush hour. How the people will receive him and his work?
How we define the value in art? Does everything that is put in the museum can be called “artwork”? A chair at home, we call it furniture. A chair in the museum, we call it “artwork”. How people value the artwork? Therefore, everything can be artworks; everything can not be artworks.
However, if it could speak, what would it say? If it could speak, it would say, I am just a “____”, but you give me a name “____”. All of the names are not really my name.. I could be anything you name me to be, and when you call my name, I could also be something else.
If I want to create an artwork, I would try to do a simple one because simplicity can give audience more rooms to image. Audience A can have a totally different understanding from my artwork than audience B. There is no absolute answer to my artwork just like a cup may not even be a cup sometimes.
very interesting and deep. You have convainced me and I am not even sure now if I should call my tv an electronic object or an artwork :). I agree that we are the ones who transform things into artwork according to the value that we give to those things.
ReplyDeleteHi Li, your topic is very interesting. I like your description of the value in art, and I also think that the value of an artwork is also determined by how people appreciate and value it.
ReplyDeleteGood luck.
I agree with your idea:"Whenever we are trying to just put one definition to something, we are actually destructing its meanings". Any a artwork doesn't need to show exactly meanings on the paper. It can be felt by many different people and by the different ways. That is value of art for understanding by the own ways of people.
ReplyDeleteThu Ton
Thank you.:) Li
ReplyDelete