Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
I do not consider a beautifully made tool a work of art because the intention for its creation is dissimilar from producing an art object. In my view, art serves the purpose of communicating the authors thoughts through the objects that he or she creates. I do not think that an artisan who encases a diamond into a hammers handle wants to say something or relay some knowledge to its use other than underline the beauty and place a high price on his creation. According to Hall, Evans, and Nixon (2013), an art object has to signify something. Tools that are meant to be used every day do not need to sign anything because an average user will only recognize and appreciate its proper functioning. However, a tool can be created with the purpose of serving as a work of art but then it cannot be utilized otherwise. It will be set for display in order for the viewers could grasp the meaning or the idea the creator put into it. A work of art requires an audience and if only one person uses it, then the item has no artistic meaning.
Art does not have to be visual. It may also be audial. Songs, in my opinion, can also be considered art if they convey particular wisdom to the listeners. Social or historical context does not seem to be necessary for an item to be considered art. For example, natural landscapes are timeless and depict seas, forests or plains in their variety. They more often than not convey the artists emotions when he or she painted it. Historical context could be identified retrospectively. Some techniques and styles were named after their inventors or followers are long deceased. For example, expressionists such as Edvard Munch never identified themselves with that term. Gordon (1991) claims that Czech historian Antonin Matj
ek coined it later in 1910.
References
Gordon, D. E. (1991). Expressionism: Art and idea. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.