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.