Where does the line between art and non-art end?
The difference between art and non-art have marveled nations. Some stare at pieces in the hopes of creating a relationship with it. Whether it fulfills the necessity of expression through encapsulation. It really depends on our interpretation of art and non-art and the manifestation of emotions they evoke.
Art is very expressive and flamboyant. The minute it has no appeal it becomes non-art. Persons, at least 41.52%, think that an art piece with no emotion is not art at all. The zeal that comes with art impression and expression is that we try to feel what the creator was trying to accomplish. If the piece exudes torment and pain, we immediately try to grasp the emotion and frame and compare it with the pain we felt ourselves. This is why I love art. Its moods are so relatable.
For some persons, art is not about making money, it's about making transparent beauty. Ideally, 31.45% of patrons think so. I beg to differ; art is not always beautiful. It can be morose, morbid and stygian. The beauty comes from being able to relate. To a certain extent, one may not always capture the resonance of a painting if you aren't interested. But when we hear the story of the piece and why it was forged, we begin to conceptualize the context of which it was created.
Being blind to the beauty of art can let your consciousness suffer. So open your eyes and your mind to lessons and language of art.