I found most of what I read to be really confusing, and when I could understand what he was saying I thought mostly that I didn't agree with him either. I'd like to focus on the part about art having purposiveness, but not have purpose. I disagree, and here's why.
Whenever I create art, it has a purpose. I'm a story teller, and even though my work doesn't always include speech bubbles or a definite dialogue, what I create always communicates some sort of narrative. I suppose because of this, Kant would probably just say that what I do isn't art anyway, but there are whole periods of artists that painted narrative scenes. For example, the entire series entitled Marriage a la Mode, by William Hogarth, is satiric story of an arranged marriage based on money and status instead of love. Purpose: using paintings to tell a story that comments on the business side of marriage in contemporary society. Form: FINE ART.
The end. I'm done.
No comments:
Post a Comment