“All that should be assessed in evaluating the merits of an artwork are its formal properties.” Two arguments against this view

An artist expresses their personal views or the views of society through the medium of art and to portray this view affectively human emotion is necessary to make a piece of art great. The image on the left represents the freedom of India in 1947. With aesthetic appreciation, we can say that the silhouette image is translucent to the overall image, which gives the image a nice contrast. Also at the bottom of the image, in purple is written ‘Gandhi’, and above in purple ‘his own weakness.’ This shows a good balance of colour to sepia contrast. Through aesthetic appreciation, the art can be analysed in-depth; however, without taking the artist’s emotions in context and the historical significance is inhumane to do so. Hatred, pride, love, determination, expression, liberty, acceptance and strength are a few adjectives that can be represented with the historical context and the artist’s view. This art can also be viewed in a different perspective: the silhouette image can represent how Gandhi’s death may be a loss yet, his views and the way he led his life will always be remembered. So an art can be analysed for its aesthetic qualities, yet without taking into account the artist’s emotions and the historical context it just becomes perspective lines and colour.

Art also informs the audience. With an image of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr or Rosa Parks, can their historical significance for society be forgotten? This piece of art informs the audience about the hardship of India’s Independence. The King’s Speech informs the audience of how King George VI of Britain faced the difficulties of talking due to a stammer. This art informs the audience about King George VI in an artistical context. Shakespeare’s Richard III informs the audience on the perspective of Shakespeare of the King’s life.