The concepts of artworkism can be seen in the realm of modern art in a few distinct ways. Rather of attempting to depict actual objects or convey certain ideas, many abstract and minimalist painters placed a great deal of emphasis on the materials, forms, and visual effects of their works. This is consistent with the notion that art ought to exist purely for aesthetic purposes, as an exploration of the formal aspects of the piece. In fact, some conceptual artists of the 1960s and 1970s produced works that resembled concepts more than conventional art objects, challenging the premise that the artwork itself is the most significant component.. Art critics have also examined how museums and galleries handle art as valuable items that are isolated from their larger social context. Furthermore, arguments concerning the relative merits of “fine art” vs “craft” sometimes center on whether particular formal attributes should take precedence over functional applications. Even yet, despite being a separate concept, artworkism has influenced numerous contemporary art movements and conversations around the nature of art.
At its heart, artworkism prioritizes the physical artwork itself, its material features and formal aspects, over external contextual circumstances or representational interpretations. This point of view developed as a reaction to more didactic or socially engaged approaches to art that stressed the artist’s intentions or the work’s potential to express specific ideas, emotions, and political statements.
Similar to artworkstic principles is the concept of “art for art’s sake,” which was promoted by scholars in the 19th century. This point of view contends that art ought to exist only for aesthetic purposes, independent of political, moral, or practical considerations. As an independent, self-contained piece that may be valued for its own aesthetic qualities, it improves the artwork
Some conceptual artists started to question the physical artwork’s absolute priority in the 1960s and 1970s. Individuals such as Sol LeWitt and Lawrence Weiner produced works that worked more as concepts or guidelines than as conventional artworks. This attacked the artwork’s centrality as a distinct, material object and pushed the limits of what was acceptable for art.
Let us consider painters. The paint’s properties, specifically how it feels and appears on the canvas, are the main subject of so many of them. Paint is being explored as a separate medium, rather than just being employed to demonstrate other objects. The mass of stone or the shiny appearance of metal are examples of the natural characteristics that sculptors stress in their work.
Even the way we describe and think about art tends to focus on the internal structures and components of the piece itself, rather than on its larger cultural or social context. This tension is shown by the long-standing disputes about whether “fine art” is preferable to more practical “crafts” – it’s all about pointing out an artwork’s physical features over its useful functions. In so many regards, the idea of concentrating on the artwork being the most meaningful component has only recently become engrained in the art world. It’s not something everyone mentions openly, but it’s a big element of how we make, display, and experience visual art nowadays. It’s just about everywhere, you know?
No products in the cart. 