What is art? Or what is the essence of art? Are there any essential characteristics of * * * in various art forms from ancient times to the present? If so, how do these characteristics distinguish art from non-art? What is art, just like what is beauty, has attracted many philosophers, aestheticians and art theorists to discuss and define it, whether in ancient times or in modern times. The book Introduction to Modern Art emphasizes that it is difficult to find out the essential characteristics of various works of art and summarize them with a definition. In my opinion, any form of artistic work has the same thing: any form of artistic work has its expressiveness, that is, it can express what its author wants to express. Of course, this meaning is broad. I mean, all works of art can convey one or some meaning to others, whether obscure or superficial or ordinary. After a little consideration, we can easily find that whether it is the cave murals in altamira, the Parthenon in Greece, the fountain in Duchamp, or the art of costume design and advertising in design art, it all contains the meaning of its author. Give a few simple examples to illustrate, such as the simple primitive sculpture Venus of Willingdorf, which expresses the reproductive worship of primitive people, and this is the significance of this sculpture. Therefore, we say that the Venus of Willingdorf is a work of art ... The following sculptures in the classical Greek period, such as "catching a 10% discount, punishing the shore @ Bashuo, crossing the south M", unified reading, swallowing the bag, restoring childhood and reducing admiration, express and show the authority of the church with its steady and solid body. During the Renaissance, Michelangelo's David showed David's strength and momentum, as well as his magnificent heroism. In Europe in 17 and 18 centuries, Diego Velazquez's work Innocent X showed Innocent X's majesty and his good political skills. /kloc-In the 9th century, Vincent Van Gogh's works such as Starry Night and Sunflower expressed his fanatical inner world. Before World War II, western modernism began to rise, and various works of art such as painting, sculpture and architecture began to gradually reflect the author's personality and inner world. For example, salvador dali, an important surrealist artist, whose work Persistence in Memory seems to imply eternity. However, after World War II, the works of western modernist and postmodern artists became more and more obscure and incredible. But one thing I am sure of is that these artists want to express a meaning to people through their works. Due to my lack of personal understanding and knowledge, as well as space problems, I can't do some in-depth research on these works one by one. I think my sentence "any form of artistic work has its expressiveness" needs to be supplemented with some explanations and explanations, because it doesn't seem to explain some artistic phenomena. Suppose there is an ancient primitive tool. For primitive people, this tool was made of stone and wood and was used for hunting, not to express a meaning. A very ordinary thing is definitely not a work of art, of course, if they have the concept of "art". Thousands of years later, when this tool was unearthed, people put it in the museum and regarded it as a work of art. Why? Come to think of it, let's dig it out of the ground, put it in the museum and go to the museum to enjoy it. So, in fact, we processed it and turned it into a work of art, and its creator is us. Perhaps what we want to express is our admiration for the wisdom of ancient humans. Assuming that it has not been discovered and put into the museum, this precious work of art will never be created. In addition, I have to explain the word "expressiveness". "Expressibility" does not necessarily express human emotions or profound connotations, but also includes thoughts and information, and even anything can be expressed, even if it does not actually exist. In fact, from a philosophical point of view, "actually does not exist" is relative. For example, a deaf-mute was born, never heard a sound, and no one ever described it to him. Like him, people around him never talk, but only communicate with words. In a word, he feels that he is no different from others, and there is no concept of sound in his mind. Therefore, sound "does not actually exist" for him. Similarly, in the minds of artists and even everyone, there may be something that "doesn't actually exist" for others, and then artists express it in various ways. However, any form of expression has its defects, such as the defects of language and writing without images, and the defects of painting without sound. In short, "things that don't actually exist" can't be expressed most truly. I think this can explain why some artists are vague when answering why they want to create a certain work, or they just decided but changed it immediately. This is only because of the defects of language and writing. For example, I saw a painting at the "300-year Art Exhibition of America", all of which were black oil paints. I can't understand what the author is trying to express. Maybe he wants to express something that doesn't really exist for you and me through this painting. But it can make us think and sing. According to my understanding, this kind of thinking is the aesthetic relationship discussed in the book Introduction to Modern Art. "We believe that as a work of art, it has an artistic relationship with people. In order to avoid circular explanation, we say that it has an aesthetic relationship with people, or an ornamental relationship. " "But the' aesthetic relationship' we are talking about here does not only refer to a relaxed and happy relationship between people and beautiful works (although it also includes this relationship), just as aesthetics not only studies beautiful things, but also studies ugly, lofty and tragic things. The' aesthetic relationship' is a broad and open relationship, which includes both the narrow sense of beauty and the caring attitude and emotional attitude between people and works. " The aesthetic relationship of art is defined by the structure of artistic intention, artistic works and artistic environment (artistic world). In this structure, people who are the subjects of aesthetic relations, that is, creators, appreciators, economic agents and exhibitors of artistic works, all play a decisive role. "-"Introduction to Modern Art "defines art as: 1 Art is the creation of aesthetic relations in the art world based on artistic experience; This aesthetic relationship is primitive, open and dynamic, and its manifestations are reproduction, expression, form, concept, culture and cultural relics. I think this is a narrow definition of art. Broadly speaking, this explanation is somewhat one-sided and secular. The main problem lies in the artistic environment, which is one of the components of aesthetic relationship. Does something have to be widely recognized before it can be called a work of art? For example, didn't Vincent Van Gogh's works become works of art before he became famous? Or, suppose there is an "inferior" artist now, isn't his work art? Must artworks be placed in museums, exhibition halls or hung on the walls of rich people's homes? It ignores the development of things and the relativity of concepts. I think that the minimum scope of the artistic environment in the broad sense of artistic aesthetic relationship is a person and the "works of art" that have aesthetic relationship with it, or something is a work of art for one person but not for another. In a word, I think the concept of art is very broad. In addition, "art is the creation of aesthetic relations based on artistic experience and occurring in the art world". I think this sentence is very good. "Art is the creation of aesthetic relationship", that is, aesthetic relationship creates art. Speaking of this, I thought about the origin of art. Since aesthetic relationship creates art, aesthetic relationship must appear before art, but it seems that aesthetic relationship can only be reflected in front of art, so there is a paradox. In my opinion, to discuss the origin of art, we should first discuss the origin of aesthetic relationship, that is, when aesthetic relationship appeared, what was its initial form of expression, and how aesthetic relationship created art. If we want to discuss this issue clearly, we should look at it from human origin, aesthetics, philosophy and other aspects ... I don't want to say more about complex issues. Going back to the concept of "expressive force" I put forward is also relative. Let's take the painting painted with black pigment as an example. Suppose I don't think about that painting, I think it's just a piece of cloth painted with black paint. This time doesn't mean anything to me. At the same time, there is no aesthetic relationship between me and painting, and it is not a work of art to me. In a word, this article can be represented by the right picture.