Classification and naming of art has become a blog that discusses the importance of classifying and naming of art. There is no doubt that classification and naming of art has become a popular tool when it comes to art. There are many different types of classifications and names for art that have been changing over time. In the past, there were only a few classifications for art but as time passed, more were created which made it easier to classify and name the different kinds of arts.
This type of classification or name for art is very important because if you didn’t have any form of classification or name for an art, it would be hard to identify or even see what kind of art it was. It would also be hard to know how good a piece of art was in comparison with others if there was no way to compare one piece to another piece. This blog is about how we classify and name different types of arts both in the past and in the present
In a recent post, I discussed the importance of classifying and naming art. What makes art, art? What determines whether any given set of lines or colors is going to be considered a work of art rather than just a pretty picture? The answer to this question relies on what others consider art and the response one’s work will create in others.
The image above is an example of collage by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Vonnegut created collages to illustrate his short stories and novels. How could we classify this picture? The first thing to do might be to name it as a “collage.” So, let’s call this a collage by Vonnegut. But what kind of collage? Well, the fact that it is cut from magazines tells us that it is not a painted canvas. It is not a stained-glass window or a mosaic either, so those options can be eliminated early on.
But maybe we should go back and ask more about why we called it a collage—what makes this different from something like the cubism paintings below? Why would we call this a collage but not these cubism paintings by Pablo Picasso? Does it matter if these pieces were created by an artist or if they were created by someone
Art is a word that can be used to describe many things. It is important to classify art in order to understand it. Some things are art. Some are not art. This blog is about understanding the difference between the two and how naming something as art or not affects its nature.
The blog has been active since April 1, 2012 and has had over 30 posts so far. The blog often uses some of the most interesting contemporary art images to discuss what kind of art they are.
Art is not as hard as math or science, but it is harder than writing. To understand art, you need to read a lot and think about what you are reading. One reason to read art criticism is that it helps you to learn the language of art. Each period had its own vocabulary for talking about art. Learning that vocabulary can help you to become a better art critic.
Examples of Art
Art is a very broad term, used by many people to describe different types of creative endeavors. In an attempt to narrow down a definition, art can be described as a modification or interruption of the perceived world. There are many examples of art, some of which include:
Visual Arts – Painting, Sculpture, Drawing, Photography
Performance Art – Dance, Music
Fiber Arts – Weaving and Knitting
Poetry – Writing
Film – Movies and Documentaries
Theater – Plays and Improv Comedy
Computer Arts – Graphic Design and Computer Graphics
There are many more art forms than this list displays. However, these categories tend to stick near the top of any list. Because of the vast variation in what people consider to be art, it is nearly impossible to come up with an all-encompassing definition that gives each individual their own idea of what art means to them. Instead, this definition tries to cover the most common forms of art that can be found in most societies today. The idea behind this definition is that while there may be a large variety of arts available in each society, they will still have a few things in common when being put into categories. This allows for some generalizations about art in general. For
In an effort to celebrate what can be seen and described in art, I have been writing about specific depictions of the human form. But it is also important to consider the conceptual and emotional content of an artist’s work.
Taste is a very subjective thing and defining it is not an easy task. For example, there are many people who think that Munch’s Scream is a masterpiece of modern art, while others think it is nothing more than a joke. However, there are some universal principles that can help us to understand how certain works of art affect us emotionally and psychologically.
This is why I believe that any real analysis of art should include both the description of the shapes and colors found in a work as well as the abstract concepts contained within it.
Artists themselves often seem unable to express what they intend with their creations. The most common problem encountered by a critic trying to describe an artwork is not coming up with words that accurately describe the visual aspects of what he sees, but finding a way to explain the conceptual or emotional aspects contained within it.
An artist may not even be aware of why he created his artwork at all. It is for this reason that critics are often better able than artists themselves to provide insight regarding a particular piece.
When I was in college, I took a class in art appreciation. The professor was an expert on the Italian Renaissance. He was particularly knowledgeable about the Venetian painters. One day he came into class, pointed to the painting on the cover of that week’s New York Times magazine, and said: “This is an example of Mannerism.”
We all looked at it. It didn’t look much like any of the art we’d seen before. The figures were distorted. The colors were strange. We didn’t understand how the professor could put it into any category we recognized.
Turing’s paper is like that painting. Although it mentions computers several times, it does not fit into any of the established categories for discussing them. It seems more like a work of literature than a work of mathematics, but it is written with a mathematical tools that are unusual for 1948. It uses words such as “possible” and “impossible” without bothering to explain what they mean; but then, Turing doesn’t bother to explain what many other technical terms mean either, such as “binary digit”. It doesn’t use equations, or even numbers; but then, neither do most papers in theoretical computer science today.
Turing’s paper has been called many