One of the arguments made by Dissanayake, if I understood the article correctly, was that art interpretation was made popular by the rich and cultivated into a high-class hobby for those with the advanced, thus expensive, education. In the article, Dissanayake stated that art had become an “ideology whose principles were articulated by and for the few who had leisure and education enough to acquire them” (18). While this is undoubtedly true, and those living in high society hold private collections of art, it is important to bring up the point that practically every famous and renowned artist lived lives of great pain and agony. The point that I am trying to bring up is that these artists and the work they produced, may have been better interpreted by those in the same social conditions as them, and not those with college diplomas. Practically every artist that I have studied, including Monet, Cezanne and Picasso all lived very troubling lives. On top of that, many of their most famous pieces were painted during some of their roughest years, years when they were dealing with multiple mental maladies. In my opinion, those who have felt the same pain, as the artists would better interpret this artwork. I do not feel that those living in high society, specifically during the time period mentioned in the article, would be able to understand the pain that many of these pieces of art conveyed. This was the “then let them eat cake” era after all. Art hast always been a wealthy fascination, which is why galleries hold viewings with champagne and cheese. However the greatest pieces of art were painted by the troubled, understood by the troubled, and then later came to the forefront by the wealthy. While this is just my opinion, and I am taking a giant leap here, I believe everyone understands that great artwork, not just those with education and class.
‘Unit 01’ Category
-
Assignment #1
July 21, 2014 by meunier@uoregon.edu
Category Assignments, Unit 01 | Tags: | 2 Comments