For this discussion, I'd like you to think about Henry Sayre's conclusion that "Initially, drawing was not considered an art in its own right, but only a tool for teaching and preliminary study.
By the late Renaissance, it was generally acknowledged that drawing possessed a vitality and immediacy that revealed significant details about the artist's personality and style".
Tell us what you think about this observation - is drawing merely a tool to be used in the service of other artistic media, such as painting or sculpture?
Or should drawings, for example, Kathe Kollwitz's Self-Portrait, Drawing , and preliminary studies such as Leonardo da Vinci's Study for a Sleeve and Study of a Woman's Head be considered works of art in their own right? Explain your reasoning.
In your post, think about and discuss what you think constitutes "art" (or even "good" art, if you want to get more specific).
Now that you've had some time to think about the various principles and elements that make up what we call "art", what separates art that is worthy of a museum gallery from doodles or other visualizations that most people wouldn't consider to be art?
Be sure to incorporate the vocabulary you've learned recently (Does true art need to be representational, for example, or does it need to have content/subject matter?
What formal qualities and design elements might separate art from non-art?)