I'm not sure if this study demonstrates what it sets out to prove (click on the image to read it--it's short!), but I love two things about it:
1. John Everett Millais is held up as a representative of "good" art. (And I love Millais!)
2. The study's premise is that a person's positive response to art is NOT based on what convention tells you is good art, but that there can be agreement that a piece is "good"/"bad" based on each individual's response. Responses to art are not driven by art historians OR by individual whim. Appreciating art is fundamentally a personal experience, but one that can be shared and understood by others.
However, there's something vital missing from this study: a method for appreciating art other than simply "exposure" to a piece. To fully understand the meaning depicted in any piece, including Millais' Blow, Blow, Thou Winter Wind (and therefore whether the work is "good"), one needs to do more than merely be "exposed" to the artwork...
1. John Everett Millais is held up as a representative of "good" art. (And I love Millais!)
2. The study's premise is that a person's positive response to art is NOT based on what convention tells you is good art, but that there can be agreement that a piece is "good"/"bad" based on each individual's response. Responses to art are not driven by art historians OR by individual whim. Appreciating art is fundamentally a personal experience, but one that can be shared and understood by others.
However, there's something vital missing from this study: a method for appreciating art other than simply "exposure" to a piece. To fully understand the meaning depicted in any piece, including Millais' Blow, Blow, Thou Winter Wind (and therefore whether the work is "good"), one needs to do more than merely be "exposed" to the artwork...
RSS Feed