Goodman

Goodman's theory of art is that the question is not what is art? but when is art? This completely changes the game and the idea of defining art and everything surrounding it. Instead of trying to find a set of specific conditions and rules for art and the definition of art, we are now looking at how art is employed and the uses it is put to. One of these uses is being symbolic or having symbolic meaning. Goodman believed that art must be symbolic or represent a symbol to be art. This is almost the direct opposite of what Bell said, that art does not have to have meaning but must have "significant form" or a collection of lines, shapes, colors that give us aesthetic emotion. There is no need for symbolic meaning or meaning at all behind the art piece to be a great piece of work in Bell's eye. I do not know how I feel about these assertions. I feel like if a piece of work is great, it appeals to the masses and for that to be true, I feel it must have some type of meaning that appeals or strikes a chord with all of us. So there is meaning, there is something that says something to us and makes us wonder and stare at this painting or sculpture or read a book or poem over and over again or listen to a song on repeat because something inside of it makes us feel something or a connection to it. This meaning makes us love art. It provides an outlet for our emotions and pent up worries. As cliched and corny as it sounds, it's true. We need it. On the other hand, can we not look at a piece of art and still think it is beautiful without feeling anything? Do we have to feel something or find meaning to find art beautiful?