Nature+of+the+arts

IB TOK > The Arts =Nature of the arts=

• Does art have to have meaning? Conversely, if something is meaningless, can it be art?

• Is a work of art enlarged or diminished by interpretation? What makes something a good or bad interpretation?

• Can anything be art (for example, Duchamp’s Fountain, Cage’s 4’33”)? Are there limits to what is acceptable in art (for example, Kirkup’s The love that dares to speak its name, Hirst’s Mother and Child Divided)? Who decides?

• Some languages, such as Balinese, have no generic word for “the arts”. To what extent might the concept be a culturally relative one? To what extent, even within those languages that have a generic term, is the term “the arts” elastic in definition?

• Do all the arts share certain common features? What might these be? Is there a distinction between arts and applied arts (crafts)?

• What roles do the arts play in people’s lives? Are these roles unique to the arts? (Can art change the way we interpret the world? Does involvement in the arts help the development of personal value systems? Can art express emotion? Does art enlarge what it is possible to think?)

• Are the arts a kind of knowledge, or are they a means of expressing knowledge? If the latter, what knowledge might they express?

• How important is form in art?

[Life is very nice but it lacks form. It’s the aim of art to give it some.] Jean Anouilh//**
 * //C’est joli la vie, mais cela n’a pas de forme. L’art a pour objet de lui en donner une…

• What is the origin and nature of a sense of beauty? Is this sense specific to the individual or to the culture, or is it universal?