the prospective buyer of the work. The artist is not limited only to express their ideas, their feelings, their way of living or acting, their reactions to his environment ... but also when, unfortunately, often think of the future appreciation of the spectator-buyer. The work must please be hit, must want to buy it to increase the artist's economic coffers. Why, then, relegated to a last level the role of historian, who can get to influence the ideas of the viewer, can lead to the kind of art you want to find?
On the other hand, society is becoming more mechanized. The individual goes from one place to another regardless of the medium. Therefore, you must have a way of escape for all that lurks within debrace (no hurt feelings)? I think that historians can provide the historical basis for understanding the reasons and circumstances d the work, but their analysis and artistic value should always be in the hands of an art historian.
So, leave here briefly record my opinion on this subject. Enough to relegate not only art history, but the Humanities in general background, were consistently above the Sciences. I think every branch of knowledge should be valued in itself, not absurd comparison that has no place or space, and may offend the sensibilities of the Guilds.
pd: Thank towards the post's comments above, but only I know who is one of them. Please tell me quiin writing. Thanks
0 comments:
Post a Comment