The beauty of nature is captivating to the eye. The wonders of the pristine forests and uncharted oceans are marvels that have been made by nature over thousands of years. There is beauty in all the natural things in this world. Often times, beauty is also associated with works of art. Things that are aesthetically appealing to the eye are considered as art regardless of the artist’s goal or even the piece’s function. It was assumed that nature is not art; art is not nature because art is made by man.
I believe that nature is art. I would also suggest that art is a part of nature itself. Nature is like a pool of wonders and art is a part of that big pool. Ignoring the philosophical perspectives and basic assumptions of art, the relationship of art and nature should exist freely outside theories and principles. It is true that art created by man is not nature because it was fabricated by the hands of artists and not by the forces of nature. During early times, people would carve and paint objects that look similar to things found in nature. These are exhibited in cave paintings and pottery. Back then, art was made to imitate things that we can see in nature so that we can capture them in images and preserve them, it is like an expression of a person’s creativity as a product of the things we see in nature. In short, art is not nature because it was made to imitate things found in it, instead it is a part of it.
DOES ART ALWAYS HAVE A FUNCTION?
The purpose of art is to be art. If you don’t treat its function as art or when it stops functioning as a piece of art, it then takes the description of whatever is done to it. Art’s purpose is not to be decorative only. Art can serve many functions which depend on the context it is placed in. For example, if you own a rifle and hang it up on a wall at home, it then functions as decorative art. But when it is placed elsewhere like a military barracks it then just becomes another ordinary sight. If we imply and treat it as art, it is then considered art and not just another ordinary rifle. This is what I believe is most important in defining the function of art. In order for something to “function” it must always fulfill the purpose of why it was made and if it works the way it was intended to be. If art fulfills that intention it is then “functioning” as art. But when you take it down from the wall you hung it up in and start using it, it’s just another utilitarian object. As long as an object is treated as art it will always serve its purpose and fulfill its function as an art piece it will indeed always have a function to “be art”. I believe this statement answers the question If art always has a function.