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:

"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?"

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?"

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?"

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?"

Dewey and Nature.

Looking back on my previous posts, I realized that I didn't respond to anything about Dewey's text in the textbook. I know this is a bit late, but I'm just trying to catch up on the blog posts that I missed.

Dewey’s view of the relations between art and nature is that art imitates nature and is “"prefigured in the very processes of living," according to the text. However, we are not conscious of this relationship between art and nature because of how natural it is to us. The raw art of the natural world could almost be considered an outline, according to Dewey, and a model for the artistic intentions of mankind; because it is ingrained in our being, this natural inclination for art, we are not fully conscious of it and, instead, attach a conscious intent to creating art to substitute for that which is not. As Dewey writes in the text, "Art is the living and concrete proof that man is capable of restoring consciously, and thus on the plane of meaning, the union of sense, need, impulse and action characteristic of the live creature." In other words, this means that art itself is the evidence that mankind naturally imitates the world of animal life because of our innate connection to the natural world. Furthermore, our cognitive intervention of consciousness regulates our artistic inclinations and varies the art we create in an infinite number of ways. If it wasn’t for this intervention, however, the idea of art would cease to exist, and the intellectual movement that is known as art would not have been achieved in the history of humanity.

My question is, "If our inclination for artistic endeavors can be traced back to animal life, then how did we evolve as a society artistically? Was it our interpretation of art that made it so modern?"

Response #11.

In Skyla's blog, she questions, "Are there works of art that you see as breathtaking and does the beauty of the piece take away from the message/meaning in it? Basically, can beauty be too distracting?"

There have been no pieces of artwork - from my experience - whose message was taken away some by it's beauty. For me, the opposite usually happens - usually when I see a piece of artwork that is breathtakingly beautiful, it adds to the meaning of the piece and I grow to appreciate it substantially more than when a piece is merely average, in my opinion. For instance, music is beautiful to me, some pieces moreso than others. One of the most beautiful acoustic guitar instrumentals is a song called "Ocean" by the John Butler Trio, and the first time I heard it, I was moved to tears by how beautiful the piece sounded to me. I love acoustic guitar, I play the acoustic guitar, but the song made me appreciate the sound of the guitar a whole lot more because of how beautiful and moving the song was. There are no lyrics to the song, but the message of passion and sorrow and beauty still shined through because the musician was able to totally commit his body and soul to his instrument in such a way that the music was spellbinding. It certainly did not distract me from the song at all, because it made the song was it was.

My question is, "Do you believe that contemporary mainstream music overlooks the spiritual function that music was originally intended to portray?"

When is Art?

In this week's topic of discussion, Goodman is brought into question in his proposition that we should question not what art is, but when art is. If there is so much controversy over what makes a piece of work art, then why should we bother trying to define it as art or not? Wouldn't it be easier not to try to define what art is, but rather distinguish when a piece of artwork and when it is not?

In the text, Goodman argues the symbolic properties of a rock and when it is art. When a rock is lying on a driveway, one can safely assume that it is not functioning as a piece of art, because there is no symbolic duty that the rock must fulfill. It must simply lay there and perform it's rock-like function. However, if that rock was brought into a museum and showcased as a piece of artwork, then it must have symbolic functioning it must fulfill. The viewer, then, must look upon that rock with artistic intent: What is it's texture? What shape does it take form? What color is the rock? How is the rock relating to the other objects in the room? The rock may not necessarily be art in the driveway, but in the museum, it performs the function of artwork because there exists symbolic function.

My question is, "Goodman brings up the proposition that when a Rembrandt work is hung in replacement for a window, it is not considered art. However, can’t it perform both duties of being a window and also a work of art simultaneously because the viewer can still look upon it as a piece of art in their own home?"