Work of Art?

To be labelled a "work of Art", a painting, sculpture or other art form should display certain qualities that are unique. However, over the past century there has been a decline in the quality of prize-winning artwork and it is now possible for quite ordinary pieces of art to be labelled "masterpieces" whilst true works of art pass unnoticed. Do you agree or disagree? Give me you reasons. Thanks.

Work of Art?
The definition of "Masterpiece" has evolved along with the rest of world culture over the past century. Just look at the changes in popular music since the late 1800's and you'll see the comparison.





Inspired art comes in many different forms, and always has. It's only recently that "non-mainsteam" art forms are recognized as valid representations of modern culture. And that's what art is - a representation of the current culture.





Our understanding of the arts has now extended into categories like abstract art, interpretive dance, and experimental jazz, to name a few. That means we have become more flexible in recognizing the unmutable principles of art that exist in non-mainstream art forms.





Not everyone will find validation in every work of art. Some of the established "masterpieces" from centuries past leave me cold. And there are some splendid abstract pieces that have won recent acclaim, and that is a long-awaited milestone for art.





I don't think it's all bad - 100 years from now there will be a distinct record of the changes this century wrought, identified in the arts we chose to describe it. In the end, from an anthropologist's point of view, we ARE what we leave behind.
Reply:As they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Also, there is no accounting for public taste.
Reply:Let's face it, unless you do stuff that is considered sellable you don't have much of a chance. Take a big art festival for example. The people that judge you and let you in also have to think about can your stuff be sold. If they feel it will bring in a hefty price tag you're in.





Most people will never find any success above a small following. (In any form of art.) Most art sold is either hanging above someones couch (Because the colors used matches the furnature.) or it's office decore. A lot of collectors I've known will buy only if they feel it can be resold with a profit. It's this type of thinking that keep some very talented people out of the foreground and kept in the back.





Times have changed, you can't just run on talent. you have to be a commodity. Even then if you become successful you run a good possibility of being the flavor of the month.





If your lucky enough someone will come across stuff you did after you're gone and think it's worthy and wonder why didn't we hear of this person before? Then you'll start to get recognition but for you personally it will be too late.





As far as what's masterpieces or not it comes down to critics. There's a saying that goes "Those that can do, those that can't become critics." And that is pretty true, they are the powers that be. We live in a world where critisism runs rampant and if you get good reviews you can become great. Unfourtunatley, when a critic looks at your stuff he or she may not like it because of personal tastes. To me that is wrong. If you're going to critisize something you have to be open minded enough to look past your own taste and go by what's actually in front of you.





Then there's the whole trend issue. Does what your doing fit in with what's hot at the time. This is another B.S. part of what can make or break you. There are those out there there that will follow every trend and constantly change their work just to get noticed. Sometimes it's these people that end up with the recognition while the ones that have been doing it for ever are left behind. Why because they're constantly in peoples faces yelling "Look at me! See what I can do!





There's also the butt kissing aspect. How much butt are you willing to kiss to be out there. I've seen those with less talent climb up someone's *** to the point where they don't know where they leave off and the other begins. Those with more talent and have more confidence in their stuff tend to rely more on their work to get them through. That doesn't always work.





Yeah, I totally agree with what you're saying!
Reply:The reason so many artist's remain unknown until after their death is because the public's taste change. The Impressionist were excluded from many exhibits. They were ridiculed because they painted differently that what was popular. An artist paints because there is a need in him to create. When one paints for the public. Things that will sell. That is usually when his work declines. When an artist has his own style, it is not appreciated until he is gone. What people don't realize is that ( Every Artist Has His Own Vision) Each artist when starting out should repeat these words often.

canine teeth