by 
hijklmno
ANSWERS: 2
-
I think it wasn't always like that, look at Norman Rockwell for god sake! His stuff was totally sentimental. Today art is almost code word for "anti-culture" and has to be edgy or plain weird now. Look at the NY Metropolitan having the jar of urine with a crucifix in it and declared it art. Why? Because it was revolting and disgusting and way edgy, even though it was not art at all but some sick statement by some digusting vile person. In my opinion, art can be sentimental, and some of the best art still is.
-
i agree that sentimental art is probably the direction modern art has to go in, centuries of talented painters and sculptors have already been seen and done and are seen as quite boring these days.That being said, where do all this generations talented painters and drawers go? The meanings behind Most sentimental art is missed entirely as it so abstract and placed in galleries without a cohesiver placard explaining its meaning that its value cannot be appreciated in either meaning or visual. The viewers own interpretation is left to its own devices which is useless to a non art person. Both aesthetic and sentimental art have purposes that can be appreciated. But i think sentimental art is frowned upon becasue the work is being presented and titled as "art" but doesnt demonstrate talent in this subject, no drawing, or painting ability is shown, only talent in understanding and developement of theory and academic writings.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC