Would you be interested in seeing some of the “art” exhibits described here? Do you think it is a good idea for museums to cater to a larger crowd by making art more popular and interactive? Is the writer correct that these things do not belong in a museum, or is he being a bit of a snob? Is part of the problem that modern art is trying too hard to be orginal and shocking when nothing is original or shocking anymore?
I think every person is an artist. Of course everyone is an artist in a different way. Art is something you can express by drawing, painting, modeling or any other way, and it will always be art, because you feel it that way and you wanted to express something through your work.
ReplyDeleteFor me art is something which can be understood in many different ways, and that’s the beauty of it. If someone paints a plain, white painting with only one dot in the middle, he probably wanted to say something through it and express somehow his feelings. Art is only developing and artists are trying to find some new ways of how to express their feelings. Every kind of art is beautiful in its own way.
I would definitely be interested in this kind of art, because I like interactive exhibitions, and I like novelty. If this kind of exhibition would be I Bratislava and I would know about it, I would definitely go to see it.
I think that even adults have a soul of a kid and would appreciate interactive art. I was and always will be curious about discovering, learning and finding out new thing, and so is everybody in my opinion. I think we all like to experience something new, such as art which we could hear, smell of touch it. It is a bit new and unusual, but I think it would catch somebody’s attention.
For me, the fact that artists are trying to present to the world something new is only an advantage. We should keep up with the times.
I do not agree with the author, that this kind of art doesn’t belong to a museum. We shouldn’t make differences between arts. It is something what can never be right or wrong, because it I always original.
What is art? Is it only the ability to be original and creative or is there a piece of skill involved? Well, what can be easily observed is that the skill plays an inferior role nowadays. Exactly unlike the past times when painters, musicians and actors practised art for living, and the skill was crucial for them to beat their concurrence. Yet, it is about that everyone can be an artist. Every person is born with a certain degree of creativity. Children are encouraged even in the kindergarten to express themselves through some kind of art. But there is the example of graffiti on school toilets that are certainly unwelcome. Is it some kind of art? We may dispute.
ReplyDeleteBut I think that art is about making an impression. Either positive or negative. I appreciate creative and imaginative people and adore those traits. We need those who are able to make something original and shocking. And I certainly think there is room for such art. It only needs a good idea. Nevertheless, I have to admit to the author of the article that for some people somewhere is too far. I simply mean that a piece of art may be too appalling for someone. There is the distinction between the “good”, lovely art and the other, rebelling against social norms. Both are impressive, both are arts. It depends only on people which one is liked more, thus which is generally more desirable. And now I think that what the museums did, was basically a hunt for profit. In my personal opinion, plain old art is still good, and even though I wouldn’t expect it from museums, I would be glad to visit an interactive post-modern exhibition. Or maybe I would rather organise one.
Similarly to Rasto’s opinion, I also disagree with Barbora’s and Kristína’s opinions. J’accuse museums is for sure not what I would call a museum. In my opinion, a museum is a place where it is quite because people are educating themselves, they are thinking about what they see and creating their own opinion about it. A place were little kids are shouting and sliding down a slide is, as Rasto already said, an entertaining park. There is nothing what educates the visitors or what shows them a different perspective of life. Basically, the slides don’t have the purpose art should normally have. It is something the modern artists are trying to create so it looks original and shocking. I am not saying I would not like to go to this so called “museum”, I would, but with a different purpose I would normally go to a museum.
ReplyDeleteIn the last few years, I have attended numerous exhibitions at the Albertina museum. Every year the number of teenage visitors decreases even though the entry is free. As it is said in the article “”Monet and Cézanne are not at all easy to like, and that they complicate your life, in the best way. ” and I personally share this opinion. Monet’s drawings have thought me a lot about life and its beauty. However, if my parents would not take me to these exhibitions at early age, I would probably never go on my own. The new generation is more likely to be more amused and interested by a slide than by a historical drawing. Most of the parents are not forcing their children to go to normal museum because they don’t even want to go. Probably, nobody ever showed these parents how to look at art and what it teaches them.
To increase the number of visitors at normal museums we can persuade schools to take their student to different museums at early age more frequently. There they will learn more about art and history.