Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Representational art encompasses all drawings that symbolize something that already exists in real life. The displays portray things with significant visual similarities to the actual world; they depict real-life subjects or objects, even though some forms can be moving towards abstraction. Representational art was embodied by the initial artworks and sculptures that were discovered and documented. The earliest theories regarding art were proposed by Aristotle and Plato, who believed that all art is a form of imitation or representation (Carroll, 1999). This essay examines whether art is necessarily representational, giving arguments to counter this claim.
Representational art
The initial formulation of art states that all creations must be imitations of events, actions, people, or objects. The origin of this claim is the imitation theory, which holds that something is categorized as artwork only if it imitates something, meaning art must be representational (Carroll, 1999). Counterexamples of this formulation exist in abstract painting. Famous portraits by artists like Yves Klein and Mark Rothko are not imitations of anything; they purely represent fields of color and are still regarded as significant art pieces in the twentieth century (Carroll, 1999). For this reason, the idea that imitation is an essential feature of all artworks is not comprehensive and thus fails as a general philosophy of art. Most art creations accepted today do not meet the purported obligatory condition that anything artistic is imitative. Additionally, art history reveals that Plato and Aristotle’s art theory is too exclusive as it does not count most things that people consider to belong to the art category (Carroll, 1999). Some pieces displayed in art museums are not imitations and thus counter this proposition.
Similarly, the representational theory, which claims that art must stand for something that has been captured in the creation, is false. Although it is more generalized, the idea remains unsalvageable because much of art is not figurative. For instance, many fine architectural buildings do not stand for something, yet they are considered art. The St. Peter cathedral in Rome has decorative art, yet it is a house of God and does not stand for a house of God (Carroll, 1999). Hence, the representational theory of art is also too exclusive to function as a general concept of the subject (Carroll, 1999). Some poems, songs, abstract paintings, and orchestral music are not symbolic. Conclusively, both the representational and the imitation theories do not designate an essential property of artworks nor provide a general philosophy about the subject.
The final notion of art is the neo-representational theory, which provides an inclusive feature of both modern and ancient pieces. The conceptualization argues that artistic works must be about something (aboutness) in order to count as art. It postulates that artworks necessarily possess semantic content; they express something about a subject (Carroll, 1999). For example, King Lear art says something about governance – a divided house falls. The formulation is grounded in the premise that art pieces require interpretation by viewers (Carroll, 1999). History resources and criticism of individual artistic works have one common property – interpretation. Therefore, the presumption that it is appropriate to interpret artworks holds (Carroll, 1999). Subsequently, if something warrants an understanding, it must be about a topic and thus possess semantic content or aboutness. Therefore, the theory successfully designates an essential aspect of all artistry-aboutness, proving that art is not necessarily representational.
Conclusion
To conclude, the representational and imitation theories claim that something must represent or imitate a real-world aspect for it to qualify as art. However, these conceptualizations do not designate essential properties of all artworks nor provide a general philosophy on the subject because they are too exclusive. Art is not necessarily representational because some individual forms are not symbolic, such as buildings with decorative elements. However, representation is essential because it provides a means of integrating much literature within the art umbrella. Nevertheless, it leaves a lot of things people regard as art outside the category; therefore, art is not necessarily representational.
Reference
Carroll, N. (1999). Philosophy of art: A contemporary introduction. Taylor & Francis Group.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.