Hi. Amateur writer here. In my opinion, there's no such thing as "getting" art.
Why? There's a lot of differing definitions of art, but the one I like the most is Tolstoy's: art is about creating an emotional connection between the artist and the viewer [1].
Abstract art is made with this minimalist principle in mind - that one does not need to be realistic or even confined within the limitations of conventional artistic styles to develop an emotional connection with a viewer. That is, the viewer doesn't need to "understand" or compare a piece to reality to have an emotion from it.
For the most part, I think that classical art is enjoyed by those without an artistic background because there's at least an appreciation for the time and mastery invested into each piece. However, many people mistakenly believe that this appreciation is "getting" art. After all, you think "wow, that must have taken forever" when you see the Sistine Chapel.
However, that's just one emotion art can give you and it's a mistake to limit art to that. It's this belief that caused pieces that are potted plants on pedestals or red squares on large canvases to be alienating - "dude, I/my five-year-old could have done that!"
So let me put it this way - there's no such thing as "getting" art. Either it made you feel something or it didn't.
> I think that classical art is enjoyed by those without an artistic background because there's at least an appreciation for the time and mastery invested into each piece.
Really? I'm a non-artist and I find all that old stuff (pre Turner I guess) extremely boring. How many frikking paintings of the Virgin Mary and Jesus do I have to endure. They all look the same to me, same even with the Dutch masters fruit and skulls. (Wow, how interesting, a pear. Not.)
OTOH, maybe if I had some education I would appreciate the historical significance (see, she's raising her left pinky? That was a snub to the patron)
I also think that something fails to be art when it is not intended to illicit an emotion reaction from others. Perhaps many of the artists in that exhibit chose things that gave emotion to themselves and made no attempt to create empathy in others. Or maybe they were going after a small subset of the audience - who knows?
I disagree. Especially with art where I know the artist, I get where they are coming from. I can appreciate their intention, their insight, their craft.
That's distinct from the feeling, and just as valuable to me.
Why? There's a lot of differing definitions of art, but the one I like the most is Tolstoy's: art is about creating an emotional connection between the artist and the viewer [1].
Abstract art is made with this minimalist principle in mind - that one does not need to be realistic or even confined within the limitations of conventional artistic styles to develop an emotional connection with a viewer. That is, the viewer doesn't need to "understand" or compare a piece to reality to have an emotion from it.
For the most part, I think that classical art is enjoyed by those without an artistic background because there's at least an appreciation for the time and mastery invested into each piece. However, many people mistakenly believe that this appreciation is "getting" art. After all, you think "wow, that must have taken forever" when you see the Sistine Chapel.
However, that's just one emotion art can give you and it's a mistake to limit art to that. It's this belief that caused pieces that are potted plants on pedestals or red squares on large canvases to be alienating - "dude, I/my five-year-old could have done that!"
So let me put it this way - there's no such thing as "getting" art. Either it made you feel something or it didn't.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Art%3F