I enjoyed reading this piece very much. The style of writing was not filled with jargon, and I found myself immersed in what Boas had to say about the meaning of aesthitic art versus industrial activity, etc. I agree with Boas completely in that, "It is hardly possible to state objectively just where the line between artistic and pre-artistic forms should be drawn." Alois Riegl's idea that "the WILL to produce an artistic piece is the essence of artistic work" seems to speak some truth. However, that does not explain why some pieces are said to have "no taste" by critics, despite the artists' WILL to create it.
The point that artistic effect has a twofold source, (form, and the ideas associated with form), gave me a much clearer understanding of the actual meaning of "art". How nostagia, symbols, or a particular meaning plays into the aesthetic form of art gives "art" itself a deeper meaning besides merely the artists' expertise.
One thing I was somewhat unsure about was whether people like Richard Thurnwald, Emil Stephan, and Alfred C. Haddon were art critics or cultural anthropologists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your opinion very much after reading this book.It is an interesting book though I was reading the translation version.I was preparing some powerpoint for our class's reading salon.But I am lack of some primitive art information and pictures.
Can you help me?thanks a lot.
pls contact me:ziysa@tom.com
waiting for your response.
I agree with your opinion very much after reading this book.It is an interesting book though I was reading the translation version.I was preparing some powerpoint for our class's reading salon.But I am lack of some primitive art information and pictures.
Can you help me?thanks a lot.
pls contact me:ziysa@tom.com
waiting for your response.
Post a Comment