I plan to investigate the different philosophies on art and what previous philosophers considered art to be. Besides the obvious need to be aesthetically pleasing, if there something else that art contains that is different than just a pretty picture.
I have discovered that there is a known difference between a piece of art and a work of art. In the eyes of many famous philosophers of the past, true Art is something that unifies our collective consciousnesses and places us in a higher realm. This area we are brought to is where we find understanding and see things differently than we have ever seen them before.
I chose this topic because whenever I go to places like the art gallery or even the art room at my school, I wonder why some people get famous and why other people don’t. I find it interesting that someone like Emily Carr who is so well known and has one of the most respected Art Universities in the lower mainlands named after her, and what made her art so special. I have seen some of her work and when I look at it I feel like it is something that one of my classmates could make but there is still something special about it. I think this is why these questions are so important, it is so that we can understand our feelings when we view something beautiful and how this may change our lives.
This is an important topic because I think that it is something that a lot of people have asked but the answer is not always so clear. It raises many questions about if art even has to be aesthetically pleasing to make it true art and if the philosophy of art is separate from aesthetics. I think that this would not be possible in most cases but im sure there are instances where a work of art is beautiful and speaks to many people but it is not beautiful in the visual way, perhaps that is where aesthetics does not come into play. I think this also raises questions about how we can calculate and understand the reactions and emotions that people around the world may have. When one person or even one group of like minded people look at a work of art and agree that it is something more than it appears to be and that it allows oneself to see the true meaning of the picture, then who is to say that this will be understood globally. There is always going to be a certain margin of subjectiveness to art and I think the way people try to understand it is by making philosophical theories and trying to categorize different aspects of art with words like elements and form