In my Art History class, the instructor has said that if art does not have a function, it is considered decoration. I don't know if I agree with that. I don't think art has to have a function, nor do I think that art without a function is just decoration. Couldn't decoration be considered a function of art? Isn't it ultimately up to the viewer to decide what the function is since things can be interpreted so many different ways? Is function really that important? I'd like to hear what others have to say about the idea art vs. decoration.
-Daniel Rogers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment