The Intentionality Thesis & The Violation of Art.

In class on Friday, we discussed the intentionality thesis of art in trying to describe what makes art the way that it is. The intentionality thesis states that there must be an intention behind the piece in order to consider it art. However, this could be intention on either the artist or the observer's side. For example, an artist may create a painting with the intent for it to be art, but when the painting is completed, a critical observer may look at it in such a way that his or her intent is not for artistic purposes. Does that still make the painting art? Another example, something in nature may have come about not for the intention of it to be art, such as the aurora borealis, but onlookers look at it with the intent of seeing art. Is the aurora borealis, then, considered art?

In class, we also discussed whether or not we thought that technology has violated or "molested" art in contemporary times. My personal belief is that technology has both violated and benefited art. A lot of modern art nowadays is very abstract and controversial, consisting of a lot of mixed media and human interaction pieces. Without new technology to make such art possible, it would cease to exist, so technology has completely transformed the way art is. However, it has also violated art. Music post-production doesn't sound quite the same as it used to back in the 1970s and 1980s - the raw, natural sound is gone, replaced with ProTools and other layering technology. Also, we have become so accustomed to seeing classic pieces of art on the Internet like the Mona Lisa that the enthusiasm when seeing it in real life has diminished greatly - people figure they don't even need to go to art museums anymore because they can just as easily see art online. It just isn't the same.

My question is, "Art has become so metaphorical and abstract nowadays that almost anything can be considered art. Some artists take it to the extreme and put others and themselves as risk for their art. Where are the boundaries between what is art and what is just plain reckless?"

Response #2.

This is in response to Chelsea's blog in which she asked, "What do you believe is the best course of action if people are spreading a rumor about you that is not true?"

All throughout high school, I was always that kid that nobody really knew too much about because I kept to myself and to my friends most of the time. However, for some reason, my name floated around the school despite my tendencies to lay low - I guess out of intimidation because I was never afraid to really be myself, or because I've always been a bit out there, so people didn't really know what to make of me. But nevertheless, there have been instances where people did spread false rumors about me.

Through my experience, I can say the best way to deal with these rumors is just to ignore them. Rumors are a really immature and childish thing to deal with, and if you create them into a problem bigger than they should be, you're not only giving people the attention that they want, but you're also making a spectacle of yourself, leading people to further believe that the rumor is true. However, if you just ignore the rumor, brush it off your back as if it's nothing, then it will soon die off. You won't be giving people the satisfaction of knowing that it possibly bothered you, and because you showed that it didn't bother you (even if it did), then people may figure out that it is untrue and go about their daily lives and leave you alone.

Although this is on an unrelated note, my question is, "Do you believe that Beauty is purely subjective, or is there a collective social standard of what is deemed beautiful and what is not?"