RE: The Subjective Nature Of Art
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
To judge whether a creation is art, it is not enough that we like it. Taste is subjective, but art requires deeper criteria. It is necessary to start from aesthetic principles and define what we understand as art, because not everything that claims to be art truly is. The concept of art has evolved over the centuries, and although its subjective dimension is recognized today, that subjectivity must rest on a solid foundation.
Aesthetics, as a philosophical discipline, provides that foundation. It allows us to distinguish between what is art and what is not, beyond the emotions a work may evoke. That a creation moves us does not automatically make it art, just as an opinion about life does not constitute philosophy. Everything evolves, but to speak of art with rigor, we must do so from knowledge and aesthetic reflection.
I agree with you that the concept of art has evolved over the centuries. In the past, people were called artists because their works were aesthetically pleasing. While I agree that aesthetics once served as the solid foundation for judging whether a piece of art was good or bad, times have changed, and that foundation no longer holds the same weight.
It is very true, my dear friend, that we must reexamine the assumptions that Aesthetics currently upholds in order to distinguish between what is considered good art and bad art. At times, this discipline has overlooked valuable artistic works, perhaps merely for the sake of accepting what is politically or socially correct.