DeviantArt Image
Is it possible to objectively describe any human artistic creation? A few questions has always hovered in my head, with what parameters identifying a painting, sculpture and design at the School of Art, how to qualify a model or design in the Faculty of Architecture, what criteria exist for evaluating the costumes and creations fashion designers, or how objective evaluation is given to a musical, theatrical, poetic or narrative. All these issues point to human imagination and creativity can not limit or parameters arbitrary rating criteria from zero to twenty, from zero to ten, or the F to A.
Who is the assessor to judge a work of yours? If Picasso had put parameters of a sudden his "Guernica" had obtained a ten at the most because a teacher did not understand; Munch for his "The Scream" had gained only 14 for lack of colors in the design of a master ; if Sauvestre for the design of the Eiffel tower had received a "C" for lack of ornaments, not to mention the poor Duchamp for his "Fountain" had not obtained or five, for filing a dirty toilet as art.
ratings with creative, even without go to the extreme in some other fields such as tests or papers are completely subjective. They rely heavily on the concepts of "art" with teachers or assessors, the relative and constantly changing the terms "art", "creative", "fashion" among others like it are those that mark the impossibility of objective scoring. For a teacher a job can be a masterpiece, a work of "art", praising your work so effusive and even lively, but the same work can be appreciated by another qualifier as regular, or, worse, by another professor as a complete insult to the art.
Dada or Dadaism movement, is a clear indication that creativity and value are not good companions. This movement was characterized by a completely different way of making "art" unconventional criticism arising from the monotony of art, specifically literature, but who gets to influence art in general. Thus, the "fountain" of Duchamp is the simple image of a toilet, that is, change abruptly as a revolution-style "anti-art." In time, these works may have been qualified and even being subjected to mockery, but in our time, the assessment has changed and takes it as a revolutionary moment in the history of "art."
So what is "fashionable", "artistic", not subject to a qualification, or assessment, as everyone knows the value of their work, as there is a first step in which the artist chooses what works and what does not present it is totally true that an author is self-limiting, but it seems totally inconceivable that other people outside your creative and imaginative to be able to submit your work, you will each qualify as fit for display as a note of zero to twenty or F to A. Everyone calls her work, knowing as he has carefully post and if in fact credited with the value it deserves, the question is still pending and will continue, as I believe, for a long time what criteria qualifies a piece of "art"? Andre Javier Murillo
0 comments:
Post a Comment