For any art - a novel, poem or movie - to have merit, does it need to be understandable to the majority of people?

Posted by: shickum

Art

Vote
19 Total Votes
1

Art Is Pain

19 votes
7 comments
2

Emotion in art

Yes, in order to attain merit, art must be interpretable to most. Though the interpretation may vary.
0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
cyber_onions says2016-12-14T14:38:37.2892837Z
I don't see how 'Art is Pain' or 'Emotion in art' have anything to do with the question... People can interpret/understand art without having an emotional connection, and art can connect with viewers without needing to be painful... To answer the question, the idea of 'the majority of people' also needs to be clarified. Is this the majority of people who view the work? (gallery-goers, people who read books, people who listen to the radio) or is it the majority of everyone (including people who don't read, listen to music, look at art etc.). In the second case, no artworks don't need to be understood by people who have no intention of engaging with them - art usually has a particular audience. If the first - I would say no, again. Many pieces of art require prior knowledge/literacy to understand and engage with. A person who doesn't know anything about totalitarian states or the Russian Revolution might read Orwell's 'Animal Farm' and think it's a stupid book about animals. But it's not Orwell's job to make it obvious. I think rather than the artist pandering to potential readers/viewers/listeners, the 'majority of people' need to become more literate with art forms. It's not the duty of the artist to educate where no education is wanted.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.