I do not agree with what Hume says about beauty. My personal favorite work of art out of an entire museum is not necessarily the most beautiful work of art. Giving each piece the same thought and wiping out any prejudice against something on the piece which otherwise may appear as “unattractive” is the only true way to distinguish art works of quality, is something else Hume claims. I strongly agree that the only way to find the “best” work of art is to wipe out any prior prejudice against certain qualities of the piece as Hume says. I do not believe that only certain people have the ability to do this. Everyone, with the proper education and will power, is able to distinguish quality from amateur. 

Any thoughts? Can anyone convince me otherwise? 

Good Versus Bad

My question to everyone is, is it possible for pieces to be better than others?

My opinion: With the proper skill and training all artists are on the same level. Obviously a five year old's stick figure drawing will not match up to a painting by an artist who has been studying art for fifty years of his or her life. However, if two five year old children with the same artistic abilities both drew pictures, then one would not be any better than the other. Perhaps one child drew a piece which had flowers and the other child drew a cat. If the observer preferred cats then the observers taste would automatically favor the drawing of the cat, and it would appear as the "better" piece. It is all a matter of opinion and taste. Skill level is a completely different level all together. Skill can only exist with practice and dedication.

What are your thoughts?

Indefinable

Finally...

Finally I can agree, perhaps not completely, with a theory on what art is. Morris Weitz claims that 'the nature of art as a practice makes definition impossible'. 

Why? Art is constantly evolving as a practice and until art is completely evolved we will not know how to define art. Can a practice fully evolve? 

No, a practice can never completely evolve. As long as humanity is around to create and invent new, innovative art forms, art will never reach a point where nothing else exist beyond that point. Perhaps genres are more difficult to create than new mediums, but that will never stop art from evolving. As long as humanity exists, so will art. 

Is art a philosophy or is philosophy an art? 

Nature's Art

Can nature's art be seen as the most beautiful art in the world? This question was brought up by Josh in his last blog.


Yes, nature's art is the most beautiful "art" in the world, but I do not think it can be considered art. Waking up to see a sunrise over the mountains like I do everyday is certainly something which inspires an aesthetic emotion. Nature's art is not intended art though, and therefore, it isn't true visual art. 
Nature can, however, be captured by an artist. Then and only then is it considered art. Whether it is a photographer or a musician capturing nature's art, it will always be art as long as it is intended. 
For me, and many people nature is the most beautiful thing to stare at. It memorizes us with its shapes, lines, and colors. Though we must remember that art is not always beautiful.


Can art be as beautiful as nature?