However, to your question about the need to have education to enjoy it, my answer would be yes and no. There are works of art that are enjoyed by most everybody, with or without education. But certain works of art take much more effort from the wiewer's part to understand, and therefore to enjoy it. As an example, a Rembrandt, Michelangelo, or any member of the Hudson school of painting is much more "approachable" and much easier to enjoy than a Picasso, Klee, or Jackson Pollock.
So art, in the sense above, is not quite universal, but rather an acquired taste. It depends.
Attila, I would have to disagree with your notion that you have to understand art to enjoy it. You may have to understand it to appreciate the artists motivation but not to enjoy it. I do not think that a sculpture by Michelangelo is really more obvious than a Jackson Pollock. There are huge cultural and social not to mention religous and political cues to comprehend before you really 'get' something Michelangelo has done. The surface value may be less abstract than a Jackson Pollock but the depth is no less so. I think this applies to this tree - in my eyes it is a stick in a pot based only on the photos here) - to those that understand it, it is a beautiful masterpiece. An enormous juniper may be more obvious, thus more appealing to the masses, but the appeal is often the scale and drama of it not the motivation behind it.
I do agree art is an accqiured taste, but like wine/art/architecture/anything really - you can like it because you like it or like it because you understand it.
Just a thought Euan
|