I liked the ideas of the first response by Steve. He claims to have no qualifications of being an art critic before he lets the reader know his opinions. I feel like this line is important and rather humorous. It really helps show the idea of an art critic. Who exactly is a qualified art critic? And if so, how did they gain that title? Art can be anything and can me anything to anyone, or no one. If there is such thing as an art critic, I would be seriously confused. This would create the idea that art should be done a certain way. This is not true at all. Art can be whatever a person makes it, and doesn't need guidelines.
I was a little confused when the second response claimed, "More people go to art museums than ballgames." This seems incredibly incorrect to me. Although I really have no idea, the idea poses some good questions. If this is true, the amount of art that is talked about or is in the mainstream media is significantly low. On the television, in the news, or even just talking with friends, there seems to be much more attention to what is happening in the sports world or in the political world. Advertisement industries pay millions of dollars for a 30 second commercial during the super bowl. So, if this statement is actually true, I'm confused and also interested where all is this art is being noticed.
No comments:
Post a Comment