Creative Acts

Royal BloodSo clearly our opinions about contemporary art are different. I am often fascinated by the use of material and the unconventional way of development. You obviously, would sometimes rather wear black shades then to have to look at a piece of contemporary art in public space again. But, no mather how often you say you don't like it, you still use the word art. Can it be that, because some people placed it in an enviroment that is arty, you think it;s art? What's the difference between art and artistic decoration.

I don't really like any art (here talking of statues and paintings to help me express my views) from between 31 bc till 1800 ad. And you wanna know why? The Romans did not create many art of their own. They often copied bronze statues from the Greek to marble, since they did not know how to make bronze statues themselves. The Laocoon group, maby one of the most famous statues, is a copy.

And because most of the art from the early middle ages till 1800 is made as an order by the royal court or the pope, meaning no creativity was used. Being a painter was a skill, a profession the same as the one of a baker. It has been like that since the greeks and it didn't change until the enlightment. Being an artist was not being your own boss.
The liberal arts never included anything creative but music. Liberal arts where things including mathematics.

So, little history to say this: Personnaly, I want to see creativity in a work of art. I do not want to say that there was never a truely creative piece of work, but they are rare.

And contemporary art can be really borderfree. In older art you often have to know a lot about symbolism to understand a work. Since there are many christian symbols used in Western art. Looking at a piece of contemporary art I find it easier to understand at certain levels. Perhaps I;ll never know the intentions of the creator, but I can understand some. The parts I don't understand, make me think, and that's what I like about contemporary art.