When people ask me what art is, the first several words that come into my mind is no limits and no boundaries. No matter whatever the definition is, art is always no limits and no boundaries. Then, as for this article, the author defines art as “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature” (Page 15) which is really about what I believe. Art is an object, an experience and everything relate to human-being, otherwise, art is about creativity,art comes from people’s deep heart, and art can express you inner thought.
However, besides human nature, I would like to say the nature is art as well. For example, when you go to the forest, you can see as many trees as you can, but every tree has different shape and style. I do believe these different nature phenomena are art which created by nature itself, not by human. In that case, everything in the world I believe it is art, and it is attractive and influential.
After stating the definition about art, the author starts to talk about the art in different period, like medieval times, renaissance, and eighteenth century, which helps me to gain more ideas about art. In those different periods, the forms of art are really different. Art starts to serve religion and then gradually change to god centered and men centered. In this period, art become portray of life and world. After that, the trend of art tends to be the combination of social and intellectual. As I mentioned above, I think art is no limits and no boundaries gradually.
The author uses a quote to clarify the opinion she has, that is ““Disinterest” implied that viewers could appreciate any art, even the artwork of eras or cultures far removed from their own, whether or not they understood the meaning the works had for the people who made and used them. In this case, art was “universal””(page 18). It actually takes some time for me to understand this sentence. It says viewers appreciate any art even if they could not understand why artist made them. It may kind of explain the no matter what type of art, people can have their own perspective to realize and to have their own understanding of what art is. Then, back to what I believe, art is not limits and no boundaries.
When people ask me what art is, the first several words that come into my mind is no limits and no boundaries. No matter whatever the definition is, art is always no limits and no boundaries. Then, as for this article, the author defines art as “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature” (Page 15) which is really about what I believe. Art is an object, an experience and everything relate to human-being, otherwise, art is about creativity,art comes from people’s deep heart, and art can express you inner thought.
However, besides human nature, I would like to say the nature is art as well. For example, when you go to the forest, you can see as many trees as you can, but every tree has different shape and style. I do believe these different nature phenomena are art which created by nature itself, not by human. In that case, everything in the world I believe it is art, and it is attractive and influential.
After stating the definition about art, the author starts to talk about the art in different period, like medieval times, renaissance, and eighteenth century, which helps me to gain more ideas about art. In those different periods, the forms of art are really different. Art starts to serve religion and then gradually change to god centered and men centered. In this period, art become portray of life and world. After that, the trend of art tends to be the combination of social and intellectual. As I mentioned above, I think art is no limits and no boundaries gradually.
The author uses a quote to clarify the opinion she has, that is ““Disinterest” implied that viewers could appreciate any art, even the artwork of eras or cultures far removed from their own, whether or not they understood the meaning the works had for the people who made and used them. In this case, art was “universal””(page 18). It actually takes some time for me to understand this sentence. It says viewers appreciate any art even if they could not understand why artist made them. It may kind of explain the no matter what type of art, people can have their own perspective to realize and to have their own understanding of what art is. Then, back to what I believe, art is not limits and no boundaries.
Hi, Yiran. I have read your passage, and I think it is excellent. You emphasize the notion of art is not limits and no boundaries. I believe that you refer to two objects in this blog, one is art and the other is viewer who appreciates artwork. One the one hand, you indicate that natural features of trees which are not cultivated or decorated by human beings. One the other hand, you quote that regardless of period or understanding, viewers could appreciate any art. Both viewpoints make “art is not limits and no boundaries” confusing. According to statement of authority, it seems that both art and viewer are not limited. Besides, you still neglect that why art is not limits. Could it be said that everything without factitious traits is art, or surely it doesn’t mean that everything created by human beings is not art? If so, how could we explain the worth of Vinci’s masterpiece and his big fan in contemporary society?
Shelly
Hi, Shelly! Thank you for your response and question. It makes me think deeply！First, according to what you mentioned above, you doubt that why art is no limits, so I would like to interpret “no limits and no boundaries” in my point of view. I use natural features as an example first, because I believe art is not always limited my human being, that is to say, as the natural features, they can be art as well and they have life as well. In this case, I think art is no limits. The, I use a quote from the article, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature” (Page 15). That is to say, everything can be art, there are no special standards for something to be treated as art. For example,as for language, English is art, but it does not mean other language is not art. All of the language no matter which countries use belongs to language as well. The article says “art-like activities exist in all societies and all walks of life” (Page 26) Therefore, I believe art is no boundaries, and there is no limits.
Besides, based on your second question “Could it be said that everything without factitious traits is art, or surely it does not mean that everything created by human beings is not art?”(Shelly’s comments). I think it is really a great question! Actually, I think not everything has an absolutely correct answer. I would like to say art is surrounded us, maybe is a life like a tree, maybe is not a life like a stone, maybe some people create art by themselves, maybe some natural features can give people feelings to create art. I believe, art has no expired time, and different people have different perspective to appreciate art. For example, person A may like this piece of art, person B may not.
I really hope my interpretation is helpful somehow!
Yiran