"2. Does Weitz's theory of art “cheapen” the value of great art?"
For closed definitions, like a square, no square is "better" than another. If it is, then the thing it's being compared to is probably not a square. All squares are squares, and that's simply that. But art has an open definition, and it's very subjective. People have preferences. If what a child draws with crayon is art, then it can be compared to the Mona Lisa. Modern art, which many do not appreciate, can then be compared to classic art. I think in this aspect, it can "cheapen" so called great art.
But, if crayon drawings and fine paintings fall under the same umbrella term, then what can you do to have certain types of art stand out in way that is different than others? We separate art into different categories. Music, for example, has many, many different categories. Let's make the assumption that all music is art; no one would dare put rap music in the same category as classical.
We have all these sub-definitions, so I don't think people should feel like it's being cheapened if they fall under the same umbrella terms. After all, the only real thing that art must have in common is that it's man-made. After that, wouldn't it be fair game?
No comments:
Post a Comment