Um, that sounds more like propaganda. "Art should exist to make you believe what this group of people believes?" Yeah, no. The point is only that art need not have any message whatsoever. It's woodcarvings and pottery and decorative patterns. I really don' t think that's all Art is. And when i say the value is in the interpretation, I mean that Art makes you think, not tell you what to think. All that tends to do is cater to an audience. And this is how a lot of people condemn aesthetics as a value judgment based on taste, which pretty much all other aspects of art are, except the admiration of skill in and of itself. And if that's all most people want to make of art, well, so much the worse for them. I'm not saying all art should be Art or anything of the sort. I also don't mean that it should lay out an argument like an academic work. That's not art's medium. That's not how it draws things together. And that's certainly not the only sort of thing capable of interpretation, profundity, making people think. It's often one of the less profound, really...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 07:58 am (UTC)No idea what you're talking about.