When judging art what is that we truly look at? My mentality was that the reasons why the arts that are in museums and admired by many are because of who it was attached to. I felt as though what held importance were the prestige and the title that was brought with the painting. If anyone else were to paint the things that are hanging on the walls of abstract section of museums, it wouldn’t be looked at the same way as if it was attached to a painter.
For someone who has never taken the time and has a background education in art, it is simply a mere painting or drawing. Especially when it comes to abstract art. Abstract art is defined as, “Art that does not attempt to represent external, recognizable reality but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.” so this brings up the question where does the limitation of abstract art? How are we to declare the differences from Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock works to a children and monkeys art?
There has been a study performed by Boston College’s Angelina Hawley-Dolan and Ellen Winner. This included 72 undergraduates, which half were majoring in studio art and the other half were psychology major. There were 30 painting, somewhere painted by a child, a monkey, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, or an elephant, and of course well-known painters. From these sections the participants were asked if the labeling on the painting were correct or not and to which it belongs to. They were also asked which painting they preferred.
From the results, I was shocked to find out that it that participants were able to pick out the professional painting and many even preferred their works. I thought the results were that some may pick the professional one, but many would still make the mistake thinking those that were painted by monkeys and children were professional works.
Hawley- Dolan states after her results, “This finding shows that we can see the mind behind the art…We see more than we think we do when we look at abstract art.” She explains while studying the participants, she had learned that after being asked why the participants choose the works they did, they states it was more about the painters intentions. I am still peculiar on if abstract art is it really art because it strictly great art but is it because who made it. For example when people go out of their way to purchase something just because someone else is connected to it. Like the crazy idea, buying an item that is no use to you, but just because P Diddy touched it. (Even though there is no sure thing that he actually had any encounter with the item.) The study did open my eye on how one can tell the difference between professional and amateur art. Art isn’t simply just because it was attached to person or honor. It is about intentions, perception, and emotions connected to it. Everyone perceives things differently. Even though we all may like the same art such as Jackson Pollock’s crazy dripping technique, we all see different things within the work.
http://dasbloggen.com/
http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37158/how-psychologists-and-a-team-of-monkeys-babies-and-elephants-proved-that-abstract-art-takes-talent/?utm_source=nlda&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
No comments:
Post a Comment