What I mean by aesthetic here is that Artistic values, or what we call "rules", when the artist employs them according to his vision, purpose, and his feelings ... This overlap creates aesthetic values!
En mi consideración, todo arte tiene una esencia estética. En cuanto a las "reglas", cambian según la estética precisamente del arte, que es amplia y cambiante.Tanto el concepto de arte (contemporáneo o no) como de estética son movibles y están sujetos a múltiples factores sociales, contextuales, históricos, estructurales, psicológicos, etc.
Yes, dear Dr. Bouameur Assala Belsem Yes, contemporary art still has a special aesthetic... that whatever medium the artist uses, the artwork must carry its aesthetic value. Experimentation and connection with contemporary currents does not mean presenting art devoid of values. Every attempt to strip art of its aesthetic dimension is doomed to oblivion. And the force of the struggle that is taking place now in the heart of formation in attempts to replace and permanently replace it will inevitably lead, after passing through its due temporal maturity, to liquidate the false, so that the value remains preserved by the conscious memory of art. All the artist has to do is to intensify his relationship with the audience more and more, deriving the advantages of contemporary art in communicating aesthetic concepts in more than one form, and the audience must also benefit from the plastic artist in helping to understand art and its sublime values.
Another approach would be to understand 'art' in terms of system theory.
'Art' is only created in the eye of the observer. The provocation lies in the fact that there is no art that exists outside of society, outside of an observer. Social conditions therefore not only influence the work of art in its form and semantics, but works of art simply do not exist without them. It is always an observer who makes and designates distinctions in a work of art. The history of art teaches us that not only is the concept of art itself subject to change, i.e. that every society speaks differently about art, but that the objects and genres in which art is experienced have also changed considerably over time. What is considered 'art' has not always been what is considered art today
A brief look at the relationship between business and art shows the extent to which social conditions determine the understanding of art. The increasing decoupling of art from its serving function vis-à-vis religion and politics was achieved above all through its ever stronger connection to the economy and the fiscal communication medium of money. Art was not evaluated in terms of its appropriateness with regard to the religious and/ or political context, but whether it was 'beautiful' - free of a function. The relationship between the art and economic systems "leads to an assessment of works of art that is independent of the subject matter. It is also less dependent on interaction, although market access generates its own specialized interactions and mediation instances" (Luhmann).
The emergence of art criticism in the 15th century, philosophical aesthetics in the 18th century and the art sciences since the 19th century are observations of the second and third order. Although they had a system-forming effect and promoted the differentiation of the art system, they were not able to provide individual artists with adequate standards for their work. Instead, groups of like-minded people formed within the art system and historicizing art and styles were constituted - as a reflection of the preservation of identity and difference. The point of view determined the understanding of art and the semantics of artworks.
Art is a social system that establishes its structure, i.e. its elements and relations between the elements, by means of communication itself, and thus creates, changes and destroys it. When we speak of 'art communication' here, we do not understand this as communicating about art, but rather as communicating through art.