One of the most interesting movements in art history in my opinion is DaDa. It is mysterious, creative, controversial, political and wild all in the same sentence. Some of the Dadaists were into politics and put some societal imagery or discrepancies in their works, even in plain or "hostage" alphabet cut outs.
I think my liking to Dada comes from its differences from certain more beautiful paintings and sculptures as just pleasing to the eye or renaissance critics. Now, don't get me wrong those pieces are historical and I believe they are beautiful also, however beauty isn't defined in just that sense. There is a certain almost impossibility for everyone to think one piece of art is beautiful so in the opposition you wouldn't be able to get one individual to think every piece is beautiful. The underlying problem, as was the question of is a piece art is that the right question to ask is towards the individual themselves.
"Is [insert artwork here] beautiful to you? This would be the question that I would ask, stressing the word you even though it might already imply that. So.. in the eye of the beholder is how I believe artwork is perceived to be true beauty or not. Duchamp is a very famous and well-known modern artist but some of his work might not seem as the typical "beautiful" piece of artwork blending in with
Renaissance artwork. Now again nothing against Renaissance artwork enthusiasts and I only compare societal beauty to that group because it makes sense to me.
I think this piece is beautiful with its extraordinary shadowing, hard outlined figures and its almost childlike crayon effect. Both figures are reaching up and it just makes you want to look right up at what they are reaching up at with such vigor. Not to mention what is that background figure doing in the back?
No comments:
Post a Comment