As with the controversy on the definition of art itself, I wasn't surprised through the reading to see the complexities of the meanings and value of art in society.
The idea that the words we apply to things have no natural meaning, that the word itself means nothing out of context, was interesting to me. The example in the reading was that the word "cat" didn't actually have a true connection to the animal it represents. It's merely a way of referencing or symbolizing that animal through speech.
Even further, is that the word itself would carry connotations and cultural attitudes towards the animal, which vary through different eras/cultures.
I hardly had thought of the word "cat" as capable of such complexity.
As for the value of art, it seems to be based largely on the desirability of the work. When others desire a work of art, or revere it, it can begin to accumulate value in the public's eyes. Over time, these values appended to famous art become common.
We even assume that a famous artist' work should be worth thousands, or hundred of thousands of dollars.
If they have passed away and are famous, we assume it should be worth even more.
To a degree, I'd say the value of art is determined by what individuals themselves dub it worth. And over time, that worth becomes a fact that can't be easily controlled or changed.
-Thomas Holland
No comments:
Post a Comment