Art needs to be socialised, and you need a lot of context to understand that, and that doesn't mean having read a few art history books.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not as much a history person as an art person, but I mean, you can read history through art.
Art must unquestionably have a social value; that is, as a potential means of communication it must be addressed, and in comprehensible terms, to the understanding of mankind.
Art is essentially communication. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's why people make art, so other people can relate to it.
Art is great. At its best, it engages the intellect and challenges the spirit; it connects us across history and reminds us of our humanity.
It's easier to make art for a society at a certain point in time with an understanding of what's going on.
We want people to experience art and think about it. The art reflects our time, it is about our culture.
The value of writing about art is its effect on the imagination. Paintings allow us to inhabit another culture, place, and time period, and address the issues of those time periods that resonate with our own time.
Art history looks at art works and the people who have created them.
Art really is something very difficult. It is difficult to make, and it is sometimes difficult for the viewer to understand. It is difficult to work out what is art and what is not art.
Believe it or not, there were very few books on art, years ago.
No opposing quotes found.