Fine Art

Fine Art

Fine Art The phrase "fine art" came in to existence in 1767. It was used to refer to describe an art that was "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste." Initially the phrase referred only to visual arts - sculpture, painting, etc which usually were art of the classical style. The emphasis "fine" reflected not the quality but rather to the purity of the art's creation. In short, it's art produced for the sake of art, with no deference to practicality or utility - much like the study of pure science. But through the 20th century the definition of fine art has broadened by the work of modernist activists and now refers to classical music, established plays and traditional dance (ballet, for example).
Why Jackson Pollock's Convergence (p. 510, Figure 734), is a work of "fine art" as opposed to an arbitrary composition of paint? Suppose we had every piece of art as either a landscape, portrait or still life, wouldn’t it be interesting? The conversationists on Art appreciations will be talking on the same topics like dynamics and colour compositions, symmetry etc. But a painting like the “convergence”. Here it must be made a mention that the development and progression of "fine art" is akin to the changing visions of art itself. Jazz which used to be considered as trash once has now become a part of fine art and the University of Michigan Museum of Art wouldn't hesitate to display a Miro. Similarly in “Convergence” there maybe nothing special at all, but maybe something monumental evolved from that painting. The contemporary art challenges one’s perception, and in return the perception must challenge contemporary art. Thus “Convergence” can be termed as a fine art. Jackson Pollockobserves - "When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it...

Similar Essays