It is not just a simple portrayal of our current thoughts or moods, as well as not a simple understanding of past cultures. Art is a tactile way of expressing humanity as a timeless, self-aware group of beings. Everything that we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste is a form of art. It is not restricted to one sense of our bodies, but can be all at once. I have an incredible amount of trouble getting used to new practices in music, but I realize that just because I do not understand it does not negate the fact that it is a form of expression that the world uses to evoke its true potential. I cannot think of a single object around me that does not serve this function. Even a machine was an image in someones head that they had to will into life. How can I say that it too is not art? I cannot. But is there a difference in what I consider “true art” and “art as a result of …show more content…
For example underneath that broad model, any one person can do anything and call it art that deserves to be appreciated. If this were the case, there is nothing that sets apart those of true skill. (Notice that I do not state talent.) In music, there is an extreme difference between playing random notes to tell how you feel, and listing to a well composed atonal composition. Schoenberg was a composer known for his unique ability to compose music atonally to evoke emotions, while still making sense musically. He applied his skill to his art, making what he composed unique and enjoyable. The same applies for all forms of art, be it culinary, visual etc. What separates the artists from the masses is the unique ability to apply skill to expression. You do not call an adult an engineer because he/she played with Legos as a child. Yet with this guideline, there is another problem. How do we maintain that individuals are expressive if only the skilled can be