I think that the best “art” in New York is not made by people at all. The natural beauty of the world is so much greater than anything that any person can create. I’d much rather take a walk through central park and experience the natural beauty than go into a museum and find works of art made by people trying to copy natural beauty, or specifically not trying to copy natural beauty because they are too “modern” and “progressive” for that kind of thing, and making ugly works of art is considered cooler.
What I think is the best sort of art is when natural beauty and man-made ingenuity come together into a cohesive whole. There’s a reason why the Hanging Gardens of Babylon was considered one of the seven wonders of the world.
I took this picture a few months ago, and I think it beautifully synthesizes the man-made and the natural world.
NY Sunset
I agree in some ways, with this idea. There is some art that exists in nature that is beautiful, and more beautiful than man made art. However, the only reason that we can even consider this “natural art” as art, is because we are human. It is our senses and perception that make something art. What these modern artists are trying to do, is recreate nature through their own perspective. Many artists will acknowledge that nature is the most pristine form of art. In class we discussed how telling an instrumentalist “you sing on your instrument” is a compliment. The voice is the most natural instrument that humans have access to, and that is what most instrumentalists try to sound like. Of course, there are always exceptions, but in general, musicians are trying to emulate the voice. This idea–that the artist is trying to replicate nature in some way–holds true for other forms of art as well. So while I agree that nature expresses the purest form of art, it is not necessarily the best. The human ingenuity–which I would call the human perspective–sometimes can add something to nature, that I feel I can connect more with.
I’m not sure if I agree with your statement, as it seems to me that the beauty of some art is the view from a new perspective. While yes, nature is beautiful and inspiring, I’m not sure I can classify it as “art” the same way I can a painting or a picture. In a sense, art is about sharing a vision or perspective with others and looking at things in new light. This necessitates human decisions and interactions or there is just nature. Which while beautiful, does not have a larger goal behind it besides being beautiful. Even emulation of nature has a root in a purpose and point which the artist is trying to make and is not just a beautiful thing to look at. For example, de Kooning had the ability to draw excellently realistic still lifes, yet he wanted to share a different perspective to the world, resulting in his internationally famous works. His perspective and vision are what drive his works, not his paintings inherent beauty. It is very logical, and probably more correct to say that nature is more beautiful that his works, but to say that they share a vision and point is less than founded. Even the picture you took, which is beautiful by the way, is you sharing your perspective of the beauty found in the combination of nature and man made structures. The fact that you took a picture means it has a point and vision behind it.
I would also slightly disagree. Humans have an inherent nature to want to create things. If we believe that G-d created the world, it is said that G-d infused humankind with His Creative Abilities, and each person uses that inherent desire to a certain extent (in particular artists). Every artist will obviously want to create different things, whether it be a landscape portrait or de Kooning’s abstract paintings. Nonetheless, human artists get their artistic inspirations from the world around them, so it doesn’t really make sense to say that you only like the natural world synthesized with human art; human art stems from the natural world, so it doesn’t seem right to separate them into two distinct forms.