Fine Art v/s Decorative art? Any difference?
A large debate that cannot be solved in a blog post. I say “tomatoes” you say “tomatoes” and we’ll end up talking about the Campbell canned soup and Andy Wharhol’s famous print.
Let’s start with one clear definition: Decorative art can be fine art, but fine art has a larger scope than the decorative one.
For example: a flower bouquet by a naturalist from the 17th century Dutch period is considered decorative today and a reproduction can be seen in a hall way or a dining room because it fills a space, decorates nicely, matches colors and generates an ambiance.
But then what is the purpose of art? If decorative and design have a function and a purpose, is there any purpose to art?
A generally accepted purpose is the pursuit of an artist to express what cannot be done in any other way. Some artists believe that their work comes from an undefined source of inspiration. And they seem to be possessed with their work until the art is finished.
Another purpose is to chock with one’s work. When Warhol made these Campbell Soup prints, it was surely a message to the world about industrialization, images of the consumer’s culture and confort of mass media.
When Leonardo painted his Mona Lisa, he surely wanted to create an enigmatic and therefore controversial portrait.
There must be many other ways of interpreting the matter. Let us know what you think about it.