Art doesn't have to "mean something", but it's supposed to evoke a feeling in the viewer. If that feeling is confusion or disgust... how do you know that this isn't precisely what the artist intended? Art is only a failure if it leaves you indifferent.
That said, I have a very personal, idiosyncratic definition for visual art: if I could do it, then it's not art because it requires no talent! :-)
Oh, dear. If that's the case, then the vast majority of two-dimensional visual art is a failure for me. I don't so much view things as read them (did I mention that I'm really a text-primary learner?); very few pieces of art inspire any sort of emotional reaction, just an intellectual one.
Having said that, I'm not the least bit sure that I think the intent of the artist in a visual work is all that relevant - certainly no more than the intent of the author in a literary work, and I'm a reader-response theorist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-24 09:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-24 01:17 pm (UTC)Monet made a few people feel like that, too.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-24 03:12 pm (UTC)That said, I have a very personal, idiosyncratic definition for visual art: if I could do it, then it's not art because it requires no talent! :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 08:39 am (UTC)Having said that, I'm not the least bit sure that I think the intent of the artist in a visual work is all that relevant - certainly no more than the intent of the author in a literary work, and I'm a reader-response theorist.