There is always some degree of “familiarity” when it comes to effective art, because it takes existing knowledge we have subconsciously stored in our minds and gives it a new purpose as we see it through a different lens. Whether it is music, theater, or 2D and 3D art, when we see a piece of art that parallels existing knowledge we already have, the effect is intensified because we already have set interpretations of a similar event allowing us to immediately resurface strong emotions which then act as a liminal point compounded by the individuality of the art piece.
Some might argue that effective art is original and “unfamiliar”. To which, I rebuttal that art , by nature, is a shared medium through which knowledge claims are projected upon individuals to interpret as shared knowledge. To make art meaningful, there must be some personal connection or familiarity for the individual to even give context to interpret the art.
Some might argue that previously attained knowledge will narrow our interpretation of art, as one might take a close-minded approach. In which case that also shows that prior knowledge affects both the influence of art as well as openness to new knowledge through art.
So, when we use our ability to empathize and add in unique details from an art piece, our views are intensified.
It makes me wonder, does effective art mold previously attained knowledge or is it an effort to generate new knowledge?
Comment below your answer!