• Mrs Tay
• Bryan Chia
• Bryan Tan
• Esther Loh
• Dipar
• Fathin
• Eric
• Nicole
• Wei Jiang
• Charissa
• Joycelyn
• Shawn
• Michelle



Coding/Design: Yours-Tragically
Icons: Enlaced

~~~~~~~~~~*****~~~~~~~~~~

In my opinion there is no definite definition for the term art or for the term valuable. Both items are determined by personal tastes and preferences. Some people call certain items/pieces/performances art yet some call them rubbish. Some people find certain things of value yet some don't. For instance, I find my memorabila of certain value because they remind me of past memories and happy times. But those same items might not carry the same value to another person and they might find it useless. Art on the other hand is a little trickier. Most people only define art because that is what its been defined as. Take for example at auctions. People with plenty of money to spare often bid on useless things, for instance a blank canvas, just because it was critiqed by a well-known art critic or likened by a famous celebrity.

There is no bold line to judge what is valuable art and what is not. Most of what is judged to be valuable is often because people of "authority" say so. Than what I ask gives these people the "authority" to judge another person's piece of art. Is the the experiance? Degrees of Expertise? or because of their background? For this I am unsure. But for one thing I can be sure of, it is that every piece of art an artist produces would be valuable to the artist him/herself. Surely there isn't an artist (or at least rarely) that does not treasure their own masterpieces.

Although there is a large grey patch still present, artworks, in these modern times and age, still have to be critiqed so as to set a certain standard for future generations as well as to alleviate the artist and leave behind a "legacy". Some criterias of which artworks are judged by I can only guess. Maybe for instance, the artist itself. If the artist is famous (and/or dead?) the artwork would be considered more valuable. Or the art form. Paintings usually fetch a higher price than say performances. Or perhabs the subject matter. In my opinion, the general public would most likely pick a more optimistic subject matter compared to a more pessimistic one.

All in all, though I still strongly believe art cannot be judged as valuable or not, I agree that there must still be a certain level set so as to seperate the real art from flukes. And artists still need to make a living... so i guess art can be judged? Perhabs by the standards of the past (e.g. picasso, van gogh?). Furthurmore, art has always been judged upon even from the past. So i guess we can never be run away from being judged.