I liked the fact that there were two arguements presented back and forth in this article, it helped to see two perspectives on art. I think I tend to lean more towards Metcalfs arguement about basically how art is in the eye of the beholder rather than placing overwhelming value on individual works. I liked the example of Xanadu, which I relate to the movie Citizen Kane in which Orson Welles character Charles Kane built this enormous estate in Floridia. I don't remember if he even finished it, but he ultimately ended up living there alone with No Trespassing signs, and after his death they found obscene amounts of art still in crates. I think that this shows how wealthy and influencial people give value to an art piece simply by admiring the work. Essentially art is all around us, but only when it given value by an influencial person is it really worth anything. I think Metcalf is trying to point this out and state that art should be valued differently by different viewers.
I had a difficult time following the arguements due to my lack of knowledge of art. I was able to recognize a few artist and terms but was lost with majority of their arguements. I am sure these arguements are much more persuasive and meaningful to the art community who have studied this works and artists.
No comments:
Post a Comment