Posted: Apr 23, 2011 7:02 am
Mr.Samsa wrote:AndreD wrote:I do enjoy the aesthetics of many of the artworks you posted, especially the aboriginal, pottery, and native American-style examples. Hell, early Greek geometric style is amongst my favourite pottery and it's pretty much nothing more than interesting patterns. It's more the Warhols, the Hirsts, and Malevichs which I dislike - those minimalist abstract shapes and items just don't do anything for me.
Warhol was brilliant! Argh, you're killin' me here, AndreD. It's like saying you like poetry, particularly limericks because they're funny, but you don't think Bukowski or Kerouac were really poets because their stuff doesn't rhyme.. The best part of art is the meaning and ideas behind it, not the splashes of paint or the pretty images.
I'm not saying these people aren't artists (anyone can be an artist), just that I don't think their work is particularly good so it doesn't appeal to me. I disagree that all that matters is the meaning behind it. The art should have the potential to evoke significant emotion in the viewer in and of itself and/or be aesthetically pleasing, not merely exist and then have it explained by an associated note, in my opinion.
To follow your analogy, I do think that poetry should follow certain rules, like having a meter - I can't stand that free verse shit. Like striking random keys on a piano might be thought of as music, it isn't pleasant to listen to and as far as I'm concerned, wouldn't be missed if no one ever did it again.
If one wishes to solely express their ideas without incorporating a relatively superior aesthetic quality then I think they should write prose, it's the most suitable format for expressing ideas whilst aesthetics plays a secondary role.