In this week's chapter of The Nature of Art, we were told to read the segment on Adrian Piper and her unique views on art and fetishism. The Q&A question had us analyze and interpret Piper's perspective on performance art and why it was so unique from other art forms that we've studied in this class. Piper maintains that performance art is unique form other art forms because it is the only art form that the human being has an active role in; because of this, every human being is different, therefore every performance is different from the other based upon each performer's unique personality. Essentially, the performer himself or herself is art because they are the ones who make the performance what it is. There is a "social collaboration," according to Piper, between the performers and the audience which takes away the mysterious third party element of out-of-control interpretation, but still maintains the same basic contextual forms of art such as having a basis for interpretation, judgement, and analysis. Each performance is an unreproducible act that can never be repeated in the same exact way again.
My question is, "Do you think that the human form it in itself a form of art? Why or why not?"
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Response #14.
This is a response to Chelsea's question in which she asked, "Do you think that forcing our children to take art classes (as many elementary and high schools do) creates in them an appreciation of art, or does it cause them to resent it?"
I think it can go both ways depending on the child who is taking the course and the environment that the course is in. I've taken my fair share of art classes, and for me, both of your scenarios happened. On the one hand, the art classes that I took helped me learn about art, understand the mediums, learn a little bit about the history, and how to improve my skills - so that made me appreciate the art a whole lot more. By learning those things and taking those classes to improve my skills and understand the history, I had more knowledge about art so I was better able to interpret other people's artwork as well as make my own artwork deeper.
On the other hand, I did have some classes where the bad outweighed the good and it made me resent art at the same time. I had one art teacher who pissed me off to no end because I simply did not agree with her teaching habits and the way in which she taught art (she taught art the way she did art, which obviously not everybody does art the same). For instance, her style of art is very mechanical, calculated, and precise while I've been more on the abstract side, so I don't follow any "rules" when it comes to art - I follow my emotions. Being in that teacher's class really made me resent her and my own art because every day was a constant question of "What is art?" and "Why is her art supposedly better than my own?"
All in all, though, it really all depends on the child and the art class itself, because every art teacher has a different teaching method.
My question is, "Do you think there is a specific way of teaching art?"
I think it can go both ways depending on the child who is taking the course and the environment that the course is in. I've taken my fair share of art classes, and for me, both of your scenarios happened. On the one hand, the art classes that I took helped me learn about art, understand the mediums, learn a little bit about the history, and how to improve my skills - so that made me appreciate the art a whole lot more. By learning those things and taking those classes to improve my skills and understand the history, I had more knowledge about art so I was better able to interpret other people's artwork as well as make my own artwork deeper.
On the other hand, I did have some classes where the bad outweighed the good and it made me resent art at the same time. I had one art teacher who pissed me off to no end because I simply did not agree with her teaching habits and the way in which she taught art (she taught art the way she did art, which obviously not everybody does art the same). For instance, her style of art is very mechanical, calculated, and precise while I've been more on the abstract side, so I don't follow any "rules" when it comes to art - I follow my emotions. Being in that teacher's class really made me resent her and my own art because every day was a constant question of "What is art?" and "Why is her art supposedly better than my own?"
All in all, though, it really all depends on the child and the art class itself, because every art teacher has a different teaching method.
My question is, "Do you think there is a specific way of teaching art?"
Monday, April 26, 2010
Dickie and the Artworld.
In this week's chapter, we were to discuss George Dickie and his interpretation of art via the institutional theory of art. Dickie takes most of his inspiration and influence from Arthur Danto, who first introduced the world to his theory of the "artworld." In the chapter, he discusses that something can be called a work of art if it is conferred by a representative member of the artworld.
However, that brings into question who is entitled to become a member of the artworld, which was the question that Johnson brought up for the Q&A over the weekend. According to Dickie, "the core personnel of the artworld is a loosely organized... set of persons including artists (understood to refer to painters, writers, composers), producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others" (223). He also explains that anyone who thinks of themselves as a member of the artworld is, in fact, a member of the artworld. The artworld is based on appreciation of the art itself by presenters of the art, "goers" of the art (art enthusiasts, one might say), and the artist itself. The entire artworld is a social institution circulating with activity by all of its members working hand-in-hand to create art what it is.
Although Dickie's interpretation of art is very frigid for my liking, I do appreciate and agree with the fact that almost anybody can be a member of the "artworld" and one does not need to be of a specific status in order to understand, create, or appreciate art.
My question is, "Dickie writes that 'a person who sees himself as a member of the artworld is thereby a member' (234). What do you think could be the implications to such a theory?"
However, that brings into question who is entitled to become a member of the artworld, which was the question that Johnson brought up for the Q&A over the weekend. According to Dickie, "the core personnel of the artworld is a loosely organized... set of persons including artists (understood to refer to painters, writers, composers), producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others" (223). He also explains that anyone who thinks of themselves as a member of the artworld is, in fact, a member of the artworld. The artworld is based on appreciation of the art itself by presenters of the art, "goers" of the art (art enthusiasts, one might say), and the artist itself. The entire artworld is a social institution circulating with activity by all of its members working hand-in-hand to create art what it is.
Although Dickie's interpretation of art is very frigid for my liking, I do appreciate and agree with the fact that almost anybody can be a member of the "artworld" and one does not need to be of a specific status in order to understand, create, or appreciate art.
My question is, "Dickie writes that 'a person who sees himself as a member of the artworld is thereby a member' (234). What do you think could be the implications to such a theory?"
Response #13.
In Aditi's blog, she asks, "Do you believe that artwork that depicts these things [conflict, depression, tragedy] is most effective? Is this perhaps why there is so much of it? Do you think art can exist without tragedy?"
It's interesting that I stumble upon this question now, because as I was just surfing the internet, I found an image (text from a book, I'm assuming) that corresponds with your question. The text reads:
I found this quote intriguing, and I find myself agreeing with it for the most part. However, there must be more that comes into play. There has always been an association with mental illness and creativity - some of the most prolific writers, artists, and musicians of our ages have been struck with mental illness. Edgar Allan Poe was believed to have suffered from either bipolar disorder or major depression, Jackson Pollack also suffered from depression and alcoholism which lead to his death, and Vincent van Gogh - one of the most famous artists of our time - suffered greatly from mental illness and eventually institutionalized himself. However, one has to question other factors that may have come into play. Artistic people, by nature, seem to be more drawn towards the darker side of life, indulging in things such as drugs and alcohol which could distort their perspectives on life and art. And depending on which kind of drug the artist may be using, it could eventually send them spiraling into psychosis.
When someone has enough troubling situations in his or her life and traumatic events that alter them forever, it could lead to some form of mental illness, or "tragedy" as you put it in your question. I do believe that art can exist without this tragedy, though. There have been numerous artists, musicians, and writers that have [i]not[/i] suffered from any tragedies or illnesses in their life but they still manage to create outstanding pieces of artwork. Perhaps these pieces may not necessarily show that darker side of human experience that only the tragic seem to know, but it is part of the artworld nonetheless.
Myself, I find myself appreciating art more when there is tragedy behind it, because that means there's a story behind the piece itself, a story behind the artist as to why and how he or she created it. It creates more depth in the piece for me.
My question is, "Do you believe that people with mental illness are more prone to be artistic individuals? Or does the artworld itself bring out those tendencies in people?"
It's interesting that I stumble upon this question now, because as I was just surfing the internet, I found an image (text from a book, I'm assuming) that corresponds with your question. The text reads:
"Writers, especially poets, are particularly prone to madness. There exists a striking association between creativity and manic depression. Why are more creative people prone to madness? They have more than average amounts of energies and abilities to see things in a fresh and original way - then because they also have depression, I think they're more in touch with human suffering."
I found this quote intriguing, and I find myself agreeing with it for the most part. However, there must be more that comes into play. There has always been an association with mental illness and creativity - some of the most prolific writers, artists, and musicians of our ages have been struck with mental illness. Edgar Allan Poe was believed to have suffered from either bipolar disorder or major depression, Jackson Pollack also suffered from depression and alcoholism which lead to his death, and Vincent van Gogh - one of the most famous artists of our time - suffered greatly from mental illness and eventually institutionalized himself. However, one has to question other factors that may have come into play. Artistic people, by nature, seem to be more drawn towards the darker side of life, indulging in things such as drugs and alcohol which could distort their perspectives on life and art. And depending on which kind of drug the artist may be using, it could eventually send them spiraling into psychosis.
When someone has enough troubling situations in his or her life and traumatic events that alter them forever, it could lead to some form of mental illness, or "tragedy" as you put it in your question. I do believe that art can exist without this tragedy, though. There have been numerous artists, musicians, and writers that have [i]not[/i] suffered from any tragedies or illnesses in their life but they still manage to create outstanding pieces of artwork. Perhaps these pieces may not necessarily show that darker side of human experience that only the tragic seem to know, but it is part of the artworld nonetheless.
Myself, I find myself appreciating art more when there is tragedy behind it, because that means there's a story behind the piece itself, a story behind the artist as to why and how he or she created it. It creates more depth in the piece for me.
My question is, "Do you believe that people with mental illness are more prone to be artistic individuals? Or does the artworld itself bring out those tendencies in people?"
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Danto and Contemporary Art.
In this week's reading, Johnson assigned us to read Arthur Danto and his theory of art. In the text, Danto questions how contemporary art is considered art and what makes that art an art object and it's real life object not art. To elaborate, in the introduction, Wartenberg writes, "How could a large painting consisting of nothing more than two large criss-crossing black brushstrokes on a white background be called art?"
The same question popped into my head when I visited Mass MoCa one afternoon. It was the first time I had ever gone to Mass MoCa and I was really excited. The entire experience was entertaining, for the most part, aside from one exhibit in particular. There was a room consisting of "modern art" but half the paintings in the room did not seem to be artistic to me at all. One of the paintings was just a canvas painted with white paint over and over again - to me, that doesn't qualify as art, it qualifies as persistence. Leaving Mass MoCa, I questioned why something as simplistic as that could be considered art, and apparently Arthur Danto had the same thoughts go through his mind when contemporary art was just coming into the forefront.
In the reading, Danto also questions what distinguishes an art object from the real thing that the artist used as a reference for the art object itself. He uses the example of Andy Warhol's Brillo Box - what makes the piece of artwork art, and the actual carton of soap pads not art? Why isn't the carton considered artwork if the painting is just a still life of that object? This question hasn't personally come into my mind at all through my years of taking art courses, but it certainly intrigues me.
My question is, "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"
The same question popped into my head when I visited Mass MoCa one afternoon. It was the first time I had ever gone to Mass MoCa and I was really excited. The entire experience was entertaining, for the most part, aside from one exhibit in particular. There was a room consisting of "modern art" but half the paintings in the room did not seem to be artistic to me at all. One of the paintings was just a canvas painted with white paint over and over again - to me, that doesn't qualify as art, it qualifies as persistence. Leaving Mass MoCa, I questioned why something as simplistic as that could be considered art, and apparently Arthur Danto had the same thoughts go through his mind when contemporary art was just coming into the forefront.
In the reading, Danto also questions what distinguishes an art object from the real thing that the artist used as a reference for the art object itself. He uses the example of Andy Warhol's Brillo Box - what makes the piece of artwork art, and the actual carton of soap pads not art? Why isn't the carton considered artwork if the painting is just a still life of that object? This question hasn't personally come into my mind at all through my years of taking art courses, but it certainly intrigues me.
My question is, "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"
Response #12.
In her blog, Skyla asked, "Do you think the body is a blank canvass for self-expression or should people respect their natural selves and leave expression to painting, writing, sculpting and other forms of creating tangible art objects?"
I wholeheartedly believe that the boy is a blank canvas used for self-expression. I'm sure I've made similar posts in the past (I've always been drawn to these questions, haha), but it's one of the stronger opinions of mine that I uphold. I've always been a supporter of tattoos and piercings - I only have one piercing and one tattoo thus far (however, hopefully that's soon to change), but I believe that the existence of tattoos and piercings in the United States is still a slightly taboo subject, as evident by the ban of visible tattoos and piercings in the workplace.
This is the way I think of it, though... what makes the human body different from other canvases or foundations of art? Painting has its upholstered canvas, writing has its paper, sculpting has its stone, photography has its film, etc. Why can't the human body itself be a foundation for a work of art, if it isn't considered a work of art already? I consider the body to already be a work of art, it's a miracle how the body works on its own with all of its intertwining of systems. But that's besides the point. As much as I love the natural form and things being naturally on its own, I do believe that our bodies were meant to be a canvas also, it's too amazing of an organ to not want to experiment with it. The way that our skin happens to stretch far more than our minds are able to comprehend, how even when hanging from two hooks inserted into the skin, our bodies manage to stretch and retain its equilibrium. Our bodies were meant to be played with, and we're all unique individuals, so why not alter ourselves as we wish?
My question is, "Do you believe in the phrase 'art for the sake of art' or does there always have to be a deeper meaning to a piece of artwork?"
I wholeheartedly believe that the boy is a blank canvas used for self-expression. I'm sure I've made similar posts in the past (I've always been drawn to these questions, haha), but it's one of the stronger opinions of mine that I uphold. I've always been a supporter of tattoos and piercings - I only have one piercing and one tattoo thus far (however, hopefully that's soon to change), but I believe that the existence of tattoos and piercings in the United States is still a slightly taboo subject, as evident by the ban of visible tattoos and piercings in the workplace.
This is the way I think of it, though... what makes the human body different from other canvases or foundations of art? Painting has its upholstered canvas, writing has its paper, sculpting has its stone, photography has its film, etc. Why can't the human body itself be a foundation for a work of art, if it isn't considered a work of art already? I consider the body to already be a work of art, it's a miracle how the body works on its own with all of its intertwining of systems. But that's besides the point. As much as I love the natural form and things being naturally on its own, I do believe that our bodies were meant to be a canvas also, it's too amazing of an organ to not want to experiment with it. The way that our skin happens to stretch far more than our minds are able to comprehend, how even when hanging from two hooks inserted into the skin, our bodies manage to stretch and retain its equilibrium. Our bodies were meant to be played with, and we're all unique individuals, so why not alter ourselves as we wish?
My question is, "Do you believe in the phrase 'art for the sake of art' or does there always have to be a deeper meaning to a piece of artwork?"
Saturday, April 17, 2010
David Hume and Taste.
This will be my last catching-up-post, I think after this one, I'm all caught up with the material in class. I apologize for my blogs being a bit out of order because I've been a bit behind schedule, but I can assure you that after this blog, my posts will be chronologically sufficient.
David Hume presents the idea that instead of questioning what creates art a piece of art, as a society, we should explore whether there are objective standards for assessing art and whether something is considered "good art" or "bad art." He does not solve the antinomy that Wartenberg describes in the introduction to his essay because people will always have their subjective views on art, and it is only a matter of taste that affects the "sentiments." On page 42 of the textbook, Hume writes, "Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty." In other words, people will always have their specific idea of beauty because it exists primarily inside of their own mind, and their vision of beauty is not like anyone else’s. Therefore, a person’s idea of a great piece of artwork may differ severely to another person’s idea of a great piece of artwork. Although Hume claims that there is a universal susceptibility to qualities of artwork that ensures that there will be universal agreement that some pieces of artwork have more beauty within them than others, he also acknowledges that there will always be aesthetic disagreement among art.
My question is, "Everybody comes from a different background, a different life; therefore, their subjective views and taste of art will always be different and unique. How can there be a universal agreement on the goodness of art when we all come from a different background of what is considered 'good' or not?"
David Hume presents the idea that instead of questioning what creates art a piece of art, as a society, we should explore whether there are objective standards for assessing art and whether something is considered "good art" or "bad art." He does not solve the antinomy that Wartenberg describes in the introduction to his essay because people will always have their subjective views on art, and it is only a matter of taste that affects the "sentiments." On page 42 of the textbook, Hume writes, "Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty." In other words, people will always have their specific idea of beauty because it exists primarily inside of their own mind, and their vision of beauty is not like anyone else’s. Therefore, a person’s idea of a great piece of artwork may differ severely to another person’s idea of a great piece of artwork. Although Hume claims that there is a universal susceptibility to qualities of artwork that ensures that there will be universal agreement that some pieces of artwork have more beauty within them than others, he also acknowledges that there will always be aesthetic disagreement among art.
My question is, "Everybody comes from a different background, a different life; therefore, their subjective views and taste of art will always be different and unique. How can there be a universal agreement on the goodness of art when we all come from a different background of what is considered 'good' or not?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)