If art is developed through natural development and experience can art be entirely universal? People’s biological and genetic appreciation for art is unlikely to change much overtime, but people’s experiences will vary over diverse landscapes and cultures. If art is created based on the feelings engendered by living in a certain culture it might not be as accessible to someone in a different culture, but if emotions are the same across all people then it should not matter what inspired someone for someone else to understand. Taste could easily differ across cultures though. People like what they are familiar with and if a piece of art is completely foreign to someone in a different location and time they may not like it. This art is not universally appreciated then, but it might be as relevant emotionally. It also may not be as relevant emotionally if people have an instinctual dislike for it as different and do not give it the chance to impact them with the intended emotions.
Also, if art is taught in school it might encourage people to restrict themselves to certain standards of art. They will likely be told the right and wrong ways to produce art and get in the habit of doing so in their own creations of art in school. They would also learn cultural standards for art outside of school, but it might be easier to break societal preconceptions if they do not get in the habit of making art the way a teacher tells them to. This might mean that if art is taught in school the focus should be on quantity so that students do not pigeonhole art, but the more quantity is taught the less time students have to develop skills in any one method.
Is art truly universal?
How should art best be taught in school?
No comments:
Post a Comment