bribrius
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 8,709
- Reaction score
- 1,311
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
[/QUOTE]New Criticism allows art to exist in it's own "space", it allows the audience to participate with art, rather than simply being "shouted at" by the artist - it acknowledges that audience worldview has value and merit in it's interpretation, rather than denying it. It introduces the notion that art is an experience that we share, rather than this sort of one-dimensional, singular message. It allows art to be art, not art history - which has entirely different objectives. (not that there is anything wrong with art history)
What I think is important to remember, however, is that the artist also has an experience with the art he or she creates. This experience is not invalid or inferior to the audience, and the audience's experience is not inferior to the artist's.
Basically new criticism is saying that so long as you're truly experiencing art, you can't be experiencing it "wrong" simply because you came to a different conclusion from the artist.[/QUOTE]I like more historical. Consider the selective color. Selective color meets the requirements for throwing off the composition. It attracts the eye more easily to a subject. As a tool, it works and was very well received by most. I myself like selective color to a extent (just not on serious work). The audience clearly enjoyed/enjoys it so experience it just fine. Selective color makes your job easier in creating a work. So what is wrong with it? It never quite gained legitimacy as it was doubted it would stand the test of time. People started considering it a fad. Does selective color belong is serious works of art? At its peak, some may have believed it was a legitimate tool. Instances like this call in to question the audiences merit. As peoples tastes change and fads to come and go. I believe the audiences experience always is inferior. The artists vision and rendering comes to completion upon completion of the work. It is fixed, does not change. Unmoving. The audiences experience and thoughts on that work does change, as the audience changes whether one individual to the next looking at the piece or one generation to the next. Why i never understood why so much weight was ever put on the audience (unless you are dealing with paid work). Along with that we have quotes like "art is made for its generation" but then near opposite "true art stands the test of time". Well which is it?
What I think is important to remember, however, is that the artist also has an experience with the art he or she creates. This experience is not invalid or inferior to the audience, and the audience's experience is not inferior to the artist's.
Basically new criticism is saying that so long as you're truly experiencing art, you can't be experiencing it "wrong" simply because you came to a different conclusion from the artist.[/QUOTE]I like more historical. Consider the selective color. Selective color meets the requirements for throwing off the composition. It attracts the eye more easily to a subject. As a tool, it works and was very well received by most. I myself like selective color to a extent (just not on serious work). The audience clearly enjoyed/enjoys it so experience it just fine. Selective color makes your job easier in creating a work. So what is wrong with it? It never quite gained legitimacy as it was doubted it would stand the test of time. People started considering it a fad. Does selective color belong is serious works of art? At its peak, some may have believed it was a legitimate tool. Instances like this call in to question the audiences merit. As peoples tastes change and fads to come and go. I believe the audiences experience always is inferior. The artists vision and rendering comes to completion upon completion of the work. It is fixed, does not change. Unmoving. The audiences experience and thoughts on that work does change, as the audience changes whether one individual to the next looking at the piece or one generation to the next. Why i never understood why so much weight was ever put on the audience (unless you are dealing with paid work). Along with that we have quotes like "art is made for its generation" but then near opposite "true art stands the test of time". Well which is it?