Reaction to Fred Ross and Clement Greenberg's articles

After reading the two pieces of writings, I agree that a work of art is "the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world" (Ross, 1). I feel that a work of art must convey meaning and make the viewer really think about it. The best types of art relate to real life, by either real pictures or conveying real human emotion. I also agree that the best art are "things that we might experience in reality, and that actually have an aesthetic effect" (Ross 1).

I feel that great pieces of art should be more than just lines, colors, and paint. It should convey some sort of meaning that relates to the viewers. I like when Ross states that "it is an artist, a human being, who is doing the selecting- not nature and not chance." Real art should touch the viewer on an emotional level. It should reflect on the human being and the adventures or stories that come with it. I think Ross sums up real art when he says "real art communicates or expresses compelling stories about the odyssey of human life; all the leagues it has traveled, all the lands it has visited" (Ross 2). When artists just paint with no meaning or emotion, its not enjoyable for me. It is not real art when "people splash paing on a canvas in pretty patterns, or brushing it on in aesthetically pleasing color combinations" (Ross 3).

Although I agree with Ross's arguments, I also agree with some of Greenbergs comments. I understood Ross's points more clearly but I agree with some parts of Greengergs. I agree that real art can also represent literature. Some of the best paintings of the 17th and 18th century came from literature. I also agree with Greenberg when he states that "everything depends on the anecdote or the message" (Greenberg 29). The message that is being recieved by the viewer is very important. I also agree that music can be an art. Music touches people on an emotional level, and making music art can be interesting. Music can produce a kind of art that is in "pure form" (Greenberg 31). Even though some music can be considered art, I still feel that real art should be a sort of painting with emotions or feelings.

Greenberg offers poem as a type of art. He agrues that poetry offers "Possibilities of meanings." I do not agree because although poems can provoke a type of emotion, poems require you to read and art should just require you to observe. That may seem sort of lazy but that is how I view great art. Poerty requires a reader and real art only requires a viewer.

My opinion is that real art should be based on real life, communicating some sort of meaning to the viewer. It should also provoke some sort of emotion and make the viewer think. If an art piece grabs real human emotions, I think its real art.