What is your opinion of knowledge in arts?

[sanf512]

Hey Guys!,

How are u? I´m writing you to know the different perspectives about as knowledge in arts.

I need your help!

So my question is:

What do you count as knowledge in arts?

And i have ones which i would like to debate with us!!

Knowing in arts means to have the technical and skill sufficient to to produce a piece of art? or means having the enough knowledge to recognize a piece of art?

Have Knowledge about the art history and the various artistic movements through the mankind history, implies knowledge in art or knowled OF art? You may establish one striking difference between the two expression?

I really like knowing your differences opinions about this linkings question

This my first topic, don´t be harsh with me, If something, I´m doing wrong, let me know

I´ll aprecciate yours answers

PD: Sorry for my BAD ENGLISH I´m Ecuadorian

Edited May 20, 2012 by sanf512

[blenderer]

Well, first of all you have to define knowledge. Without that definition you won't get far.

But then to the questions you posed. It is a very good point that you made about the difference between "knowledge of art" and "knowledge in art". If we think about different AOKs, I wouldn't put "art history" under the arts but rather under history. So I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about art history and the knowledge it gives as it is clearly connected to an AOK that is outside the question.

What I would do, however, is discuss the technical skills that you mentioned, the "rules" in art and why they exist and why some people stick to them while others don't.

I don't want to do too much of the work for you, but I'll just say that think about the messages that pieces of art contain. Could those be seen as knowledge? Also consider if all pieces of art convey a message?

Hope this helped! Whatever you do, find many concrete examples (shouldn't be too difficult in this case) and always think how you can challenge your own arguments and assumptions.

Good luck

[ro_1293x]

Continuing off of what was said before... Knowledge IN and OF Arts lead you in two different directions. Knowledge OF the arts is always important. Understanding the history of a style or genre of art teaches us much, as anything in history does, of the cultures of people, their own views or morales of society of that time, perhaps even of the way of life or struggles they encountered. Learning of a particular type of theatre in India hundreds of years ago teaches us of how and who they worshipped Gods and we would also realize that for a period of time there were no women performing, because of the sexist nature of the society.

But knowldeg IN arts is a very different matter altogether and it's hard to argue what that knowledge IS? There is only so much that can be learned in an art, only so much that can be taught to an artist. Often times a work of art is not a product of calculated, precise knowldege, but rather based on the feelings or intuition of an artist. I can learn the different styles of acting and as a director of a play try to teach that to my actors because I think it suits my vision. But what the actor himself will actuall produce on stage is a mixture of the techniques I have taught him, and inevitably always, party of his own personal touch because he just knows or feels that this character deserves this treatment.