|
|
|
|
|
by ivanbakel
1620 days ago
|
|
>Street painters sell kitsch art instead of modern art because the average street buyer prefers kitsch :) But does that mean that the average street buyer considers street-vendor kitsch art? Not necessarily, since street vendors don't have to produce art in order to sell paintings - they just have to make things people will buy. I would say that consumerist, mass-produced products like street-hawked paintings can't really be art in the commonly-understood sense. The issue I have with what you're saying is that you seem to consider "enjoyment" and "appeal" the be-all and end-all of the definition of art. I sincerely doubt that most people would agree with you; most people can probably distinguish between media they enjoy and media they consider art. I would bet that most people would define art as needing to contain something of the sublime (even if they don't use that word.) It seems unlikely to me that you could successfully fill museums with kitsch. >Regarding forgeries, I guess we can separate artistic value into historical value and aesthetic value. The original Mona Lisa has more historical value than its copies, but equal aesthetic value. But do they have equal artistic value? Or does the historical value of the original somehow factor in to its artistic value - hence explaining why people don't flock to see copies of the Mona Lisa in other museums? |
|