I always have this question in my mind .. why a piece of art which is accredited as an "ART" most of the time not popular among masses. In other word preferences of masses are usually not considered "True Art" .
What is your opinion............๐
I always have this question in my mind .. why a piece of art which is accredited as an "ART" most of the time not popular among masses. In other word preferences of masses are usually not considered "True Art" .
What is your opinion............๐
INNER VOICES 21.2
MUKTI vs MAIRA 22.2
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: S8 - M41: New Zealand vs Pakistan🏏
Gift of Giving: A Creative Writing Contest: WINNER ANNOUNCEMENT
Shahid Kapoor Questions Credibility of Critics
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: Super 8 - M42: England vs Sri Lanka🏏
Kalyug ka Parshuram ~ Shivprasad Deshmukh || Neil Bhatt AT
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: S 8 - M43: India vs South Afrika🏏
Originally posted by: Morning_Dew
I always have this question in my mind .. why a piece of art which is accredited as an "ART" most of the time not popular among masses. In other word preferences of masses are usually not considered "True Art" .
What is your opinion............๐
An artist survives for appreciation.... so many a times the art will tend to reflect that... some extra-ordinary ones like Van Gogh... end up devastated since their belligerent compulsiveness to their aesthetics is totally over-looked by generations of their time...
Art is absolute... but if the artist wants to experience their rewards they better respond to the expectations of the masses but if they feel exalted with the art and believe is perfection in expression of the nature they run the risk of being rejectd by their generation...๐
Originally posted by: persistence
querty, feel like giving you a hug. ๐ณ soumya is missing. ๐ณ ๐
Now, is Qwerty an art or an artist?๐
Originally posted by: Morning_Dew
I always have this question in my mind .. why a piece of art which is accredited as an "ART" most of the time not popular among masses. In other word preferences of masses are usually not considered "True Art" .
What is your opinion............๐
I don't think the highlighted statement is true. If the Smiths, Joneses , Patels or Khans prefer a particular piece of art , it is still an art but with diluted value.
Originally posted by: qwertyesque
An artist survives for appreciation.... so many a times the art will tend to reflect that... some extra-ordinary ones like Van Gogh... end up devastated since their belligerent compulsiveness to their aesthetics is totally over-looked by generations of their time...
Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran
I personally feel..any art which can be identified by a common person is divine..whether its mass or class....some of the popular arts peices are not famous among massess because the art pieces donot have a direct meaning or no sense at all..I wonder if massess have that much time tointerpret the inherent or non existent divinity in those....๐
Yeah Myth and the below one can be done by my 6 year old nephew dont know why the old Picasso gets credit for such kiddie stuff.....๐๐๐.... If common men generally start being categorized as artists the side-walks of mumbai will be the new Louvre.de la rue..๐๐๐