Catching up on some of my missed blogs from the past few weeks, this blog is in reference to Q&A#9 in which we were asked to discuss the significance of ethics in regards to aesthetics.
In order to determine whether ethics is in any way significant to aesthetics, one must first define the meanings of the terms "ethics" and "aesthetics." Aesthetics refers to a branch of philosophy that deals with taste, beauty, and the otherwise superficial nature of the human condition. On the other hand, ethics refers to a branch of philosophy that deals with the question of morality, right versus wrong, and social acceptability. I believe that ethics is related significantly to aesthetics because most people judge beauty based on what the social normality of it is perceived to be. For instance, the slaughter of a pig may be a tribal celebration, an act of art and beauty to primitive cultures, and the entire ordeal would be considered beautiful to some. However, modern age has sculpted us into thinking that any kind of murder is morally wrong and the ethics of the situation is brought into play – instead of that celebration being "beautiful," it is now seen as sinful, wrong, disgusting, or immoral. The term "aesthetics ethics" also ties into this concept – aesthetics ethics is the idea that human conduct should be governed by that which is beautiful. The image of beauty is largely based on what is trendy or popular in today’s day and age, so ethics and aesthetics have the tendency to go hand-in-hand.
My question is, "Has society always been so largely dependent on aesthetics as a basis for judgments? If not, what do you believe has changed throughout the centuries that caused us to become so judgemental?"
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Response #10.
In Katherine's blog, she writes, "Children entertain themselves (in the broadest sense of the term) by playing games like tag and hide & seek. Child's play is certainly appreciated by most people, but is it a form of art?"
I don't believe it is a form of art because the children are not playing those games in order to create art. Rather, the children are playing those games in order to entertain themselves. The intention is not to create art, but rather it is to exercise the mind and body and be used as a distraction to what otherwise would be insane amounts of boredom. Child's play isn't part of the art world unless it counts something artistic the child has made (finger paints, music, stuff like that) but the mere games that they play, I personally don't believe that it should be considered a form of art. We may be able to appreciate it in an artistic context seeing as how it appeals to our aesthetic natures, but I don't believe it is a form of art.
My question is, "Is a child as young as toddler age still considered an artist if he or she creates a great piece of artwork without the intention of it being great art?"
I don't believe it is a form of art because the children are not playing those games in order to create art. Rather, the children are playing those games in order to entertain themselves. The intention is not to create art, but rather it is to exercise the mind and body and be used as a distraction to what otherwise would be insane amounts of boredom. Child's play isn't part of the art world unless it counts something artistic the child has made (finger paints, music, stuff like that) but the mere games that they play, I personally don't believe that it should be considered a form of art. We may be able to appreciate it in an artistic context seeing as how it appeals to our aesthetic natures, but I don't believe it is a form of art.
My question is, "Is a child as young as toddler age still considered an artist if he or she creates a great piece of artwork without the intention of it being great art?"
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Response #9.
In Nicole's blog, she asks, "Is it possible for the artist to convey feeling and meaning to someone who has never experienced what is being portrayed?"
I think it is possible for the artist to convey feelings without the viewer ever experiencing the same experience. Even though we don't necessarily experience the same things with other people - the same situations - feelings and emotions can be matched and in that way, we're able to relate to other people's experiences. I think it's the same for art. An artist can portray an image of somebody being raped, for instance, and although the viewer isn't a victim of rape or may not know somebody who has been in such a situation, the artist can portray the experience in such a way where the viewer can't help but sympathize with the art-victim's experience, they can portray the feeling of being caged or being scared and vulnerable and in that aspect, the viewer can relate to the piece and understand the art more.
My question is, "Music has been considered an art form for centuries. Do you believe that music as an art form (music without lyrics, specifically) uses the same foundation of emotions and feelings as other art forms, such as painting or literature?"
I think it is possible for the artist to convey feelings without the viewer ever experiencing the same experience. Even though we don't necessarily experience the same things with other people - the same situations - feelings and emotions can be matched and in that way, we're able to relate to other people's experiences. I think it's the same for art. An artist can portray an image of somebody being raped, for instance, and although the viewer isn't a victim of rape or may not know somebody who has been in such a situation, the artist can portray the experience in such a way where the viewer can't help but sympathize with the art-victim's experience, they can portray the feeling of being caged or being scared and vulnerable and in that aspect, the viewer can relate to the piece and understand the art more.
My question is, "Music has been considered an art form for centuries. Do you believe that music as an art form (music without lyrics, specifically) uses the same foundation of emotions and feelings as other art forms, such as painting or literature?"
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Response #8.
In Jenna's blog, she asked, "In you opinion, at what point can someone be called an artist?"
I believe that someone can be considered an artist if they truly feel the passion and the drive to create a piece of art, not for the general public's benefit but for the artist's benefit himself/herself. They create art for the sole purpose of either releasing emotion or revealing a part of themselves otherwise hidden or to send out a message that they wouldn't otherwise say. Their brains think creatively in a way which is different from most other people's brains, and they can render their art in such a way that when viewed upon by the general public, it changes their perspective on an idea of the universe or is just simply deeply appreciated for its sentimental value. I don't believe it has anything to do with recognition as much as it has to do with knowing that you can create something beautiful and life-changing in such a way that it changes the way somebody thinks.
My question is, "Do you believe that people are capable of calling themselves artists without giving off the impression of arrogance, or is it usually a label given to people by other people?"
I believe that someone can be considered an artist if they truly feel the passion and the drive to create a piece of art, not for the general public's benefit but for the artist's benefit himself/herself. They create art for the sole purpose of either releasing emotion or revealing a part of themselves otherwise hidden or to send out a message that they wouldn't otherwise say. Their brains think creatively in a way which is different from most other people's brains, and they can render their art in such a way that when viewed upon by the general public, it changes their perspective on an idea of the universe or is just simply deeply appreciated for its sentimental value. I don't believe it has anything to do with recognition as much as it has to do with knowing that you can create something beautiful and life-changing in such a way that it changes the way somebody thinks.
My question is, "Do you believe that people are capable of calling themselves artists without giving off the impression of arrogance, or is it usually a label given to people by other people?"
Monday, March 8, 2010
Analyzing Art.
In today's class, we discussed the possibility of an artwork's artistic value being taken away by over-analysis. Does analyzing a work of art take away from it's artistic value, or does it make the viewer appreciate the piece of art even more? It depends on the individual. In class, we went over the example of Moby Dick - the white whale itself is a symbol for nature and the things that are out of human control. After the analysis of the text itself, one may gain a deeper appreciation for the novel instead of merely seeing it as a surface-level tale of a man and his whale. However, if one over-analyzes a piece of art, they may focus in on one particular element and lose sight of the artistic merit of the piece entirely. In many of my literature classes that I've taken since high school, I've noticed that with most of the books that I've read, I have over-analyzed them to the point where I began to lose interest in the book itself because of the tedious process of analysis.
We also discussed today how the abstractions of the piece of artwork is directly proportional to the need for narration from the artist of his or her original intent. The more abstract the piece appears, the more there is a need for commentary from the artist - it seems more and more often, with the emergence of more modern art, there is a much-needed basis for interpretation whereas the art itself can no longer stand alone. However, does this merely mean that we're over-analyzing the piece itself and we're ignoring the intent of the emotional expression of the piece? Take Jackson Pollack for example - his splatter paintings may seem abstract and meaningless, but surely there is an emotional intent behind his work. Does he need to narrate the symbolism behind his pieces? Or can his art stand on it's own?
My question for the class is this: "Do you believe that modern art is becoming more and more abstract, and therefore harder to interpret, or are art-viewers just getting lazier at piecing together the meaning behind a painting?"
We also discussed today how the abstractions of the piece of artwork is directly proportional to the need for narration from the artist of his or her original intent. The more abstract the piece appears, the more there is a need for commentary from the artist - it seems more and more often, with the emergence of more modern art, there is a much-needed basis for interpretation whereas the art itself can no longer stand alone. However, does this merely mean that we're over-analyzing the piece itself and we're ignoring the intent of the emotional expression of the piece? Take Jackson Pollack for example - his splatter paintings may seem abstract and meaningless, but surely there is an emotional intent behind his work. Does he need to narrate the symbolism behind his pieces? Or can his art stand on it's own?
My question for the class is this: "Do you believe that modern art is becoming more and more abstract, and therefore harder to interpret, or are art-viewers just getting lazier at piecing together the meaning behind a painting?"
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Response #7.
In Katherine's blog, she asked the question, "What qualities does a work need to have in order to impact (change/alter) the emotion of the viewer?"
I know for myself whenever I view a piece of artwork that changes me emotionally, most of the time it is because there is something within the piece that I can relate to and it strikes me on a personal level. Music, for example, has always been an art work that I've been able to relate to and it changes me emotions so boldly. Some of my most favorite and intimate songs have been about topics that were close to heart with me, and therefore it changes my emotions whenever I hear it. Music that doesn't have lyrics too can also alter my moods because the music itself moves me, and I can feel within the musician the passion pouring through their fingers as they create that music. When I listen to a piece of music and I can tell that the musician is passionate about what he or she does through the music itself, it usually moves me to such a point where my emotions are at their peak and I'm able to feel a mixture of happiness, sorrow, fragility, chaos, and stillness all at the same time. So as for qualities that a work needs, I think it definitely varies with each individual because we all have different life stories that are applicable to the art that we subject ourselves to.
My question is, "Do you find yourself moved the most when viewing artwork or listening to music that reflects your thoughts and feelings? Or is it something completely unrelated to how you feel that tends to move you the most?"
I know for myself whenever I view a piece of artwork that changes me emotionally, most of the time it is because there is something within the piece that I can relate to and it strikes me on a personal level. Music, for example, has always been an art work that I've been able to relate to and it changes me emotions so boldly. Some of my most favorite and intimate songs have been about topics that were close to heart with me, and therefore it changes my emotions whenever I hear it. Music that doesn't have lyrics too can also alter my moods because the music itself moves me, and I can feel within the musician the passion pouring through their fingers as they create that music. When I listen to a piece of music and I can tell that the musician is passionate about what he or she does through the music itself, it usually moves me to such a point where my emotions are at their peak and I'm able to feel a mixture of happiness, sorrow, fragility, chaos, and stillness all at the same time. So as for qualities that a work needs, I think it definitely varies with each individual because we all have different life stories that are applicable to the art that we subject ourselves to.
My question is, "Do you find yourself moved the most when viewing artwork or listening to music that reflects your thoughts and feelings? Or is it something completely unrelated to how you feel that tends to move you the most?"
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Bell & Music.
In class on Monday, we discussed what makes great music so great in terms of Bell's interpretation of art. We came to the conclusion that the hybrid of instrumental music and poetry creates great music and the combination of the two creates such a fusion of poetic grace that what comes out from it is beautiful, even if one of the mediums may not necessarily be deemed as "good" when standing alone.
For example, Bob Dylan's voice alone may cause some to cringe, because let's face it, Dylan's voice isn't exactly the best in American music history. However, when paired with his guitar, harmonica, and lyrics, he's become one of the classic icons of American music that has stood the test of time. His lyrics are considered art because of the beauty and the grace within them, and without the honesty of Dylan's lyrics, Dylan wouldn't have become as popular as he did. The same can be said for The Doors' singer Jim Morrison, whose lyrics were seem as philosophical and intricate when paired with music, but when released as a book of poetry, did not sell well at all. The hybrid of the music and the lyrics made Morrison's words in such a way that the audience was attracted to it.
My question is, "When you listen to music, do you distinguish the music from the lyrics or do you tend to take the piece as a whole and judge it based on the hybridization of the music and the lyrics?"
For example, Bob Dylan's voice alone may cause some to cringe, because let's face it, Dylan's voice isn't exactly the best in American music history. However, when paired with his guitar, harmonica, and lyrics, he's become one of the classic icons of American music that has stood the test of time. His lyrics are considered art because of the beauty and the grace within them, and without the honesty of Dylan's lyrics, Dylan wouldn't have become as popular as he did. The same can be said for The Doors' singer Jim Morrison, whose lyrics were seem as philosophical and intricate when paired with music, but when released as a book of poetry, did not sell well at all. The hybrid of the music and the lyrics made Morrison's words in such a way that the audience was attracted to it.
My question is, "When you listen to music, do you distinguish the music from the lyrics or do you tend to take the piece as a whole and judge it based on the hybridization of the music and the lyrics?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)