Throughout the history of humanity, and during the last two centuries in particular, there have been many analytic attempts to define art. To me, expressionism seems to be the most persuasive view, because I believe that art cannot always be perceived by a rational mind. It is often based on feelings, and expressionism focuses on the transition of feelings, subtle or complex, from the artist to the viewer (Padgett, 2019). In my opinion, only by opening oneself to an endless range of emotions conveyed through art can one comprehend the beauty and purpose of it.
That does not mean, however, that expressionism is the only valid way to define art. In fact, I believe that none of the analytic explanations of art can provide a comprehensive and all-encompassing view on it. I am convinced that one is much more likely to find value in an art object if they interpret it using different analytic views. For example, the concepts of formalism can help to understand the visual aspect of the object’s forms and the meanings that these forms imply, while expressionism can provide interpretations of the artist’s emotions.
It is difficult to say if analytic views of art are true or not, as I believe the concept of truth can vary for different people. The fact that there might be one “true” way to interpret a work of art seems impossible to me. I do think, however, that the combination of different views can provide one with an understanding of certain art objects that is likely to be “true” for them. This understanding can give certain value to an artwork, which other people may or may not understand and share. In any case, such an interpretation allows covering more aspects and perspectives on a given work of art, which, in turn, enables a more comprehensive insight.
Reference
Padgett, A. (2019). Art: How to view understand and criticise modern, contemporary and traditional art works. Lulu.com.