Flowers in Art

I don’t think that paintings of flowers are art because I think that it lacks depth. Although the painting is really pretty and most likely took a lot of technique I think for a painting to be seen as art, it should be able to be interpretable, have some amount of depth, and a more defined concept that evokes emotion. As William mentioned in the reading, “science of feeling” I think art should make you dive deeper and react. Furthermore, I believe that art should have depth and a deeper meaning, just as Neala Schleuning said in her book Artpolitik: Social Anarchist Aesthetics in an Age of Fragmentation “Art, in the classical tradition, had a specific purpose and outcome. It meant something beyond the art itself.” (12) I feel like art should be an interpretation of life, and I don’t think that a painting of a flower can achieve that level of depth. Additionally, I think that art is useful in social movements because it that, first it identifies them with a symbol or piece of art such as a song or painting just as explained by Neala in her book “They redefined the role of art to demand personal artistic autonomy; to insist upon autonomy for art itself as a precondition for a politicized art, and to actively engage the artist in the task of bringing art into everyday life.” (20) I think art can be used in social movements to show the shared pain that people are going through and the reason for their fight. 

Do you think something has to be interpretable in order for it to be art? How do you think art has added unto social movements?

Schleuning, N. (2013). Artpolitik: social anarchist aesthetics in an age of fragmentation. Autonomedia.Williams, Raymond. 1976. “Art” In Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, 41-43. New York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, Raymond. 1976. “Art” In Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, 41-43. New York: Oxford University Press.

2 thoughts on “Flowers in Art

  1. I think you made a very strong argument in favor of your opinion regarding this piece’s classification as art. Personally, I feel more inclined to a broader view of what makes art. I do agree that being interpretable and having a deeper meaning in an important part of art’s role in culture, but I hesitate to rule out a piece like this, which as you pointed out is beautifully done, because it does not have a deeper meaning. I think art in its essence has to be visually either visually appealing or thought-provoking, but it does not necessarily have to be both.


  2. Because emotional response is not standard from person to person, how can one use this as a defining quality of an art work?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with
Get started
%d bloggers like this: