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?"
Friday, April 16, 2010
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?"
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?"
Monday, April 12, 2010
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?"
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?"
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?"
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Aesthetics and Ethics.
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?"
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?"
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?"
Response #6.
In Skyla's blog, she asks, "When you are in a sad/depressed mood, do you tend to look at art that also expresses the same mood or do you find more uplifting art appealing? Basically, do you view art that expresses the same mood you are feeling or do you look at art that doesn't correspond to your mood at the time?"
I tend to look and view art that corresponds with whatever mood I'm feeling at the time; for instance, if I'm feeling particularly sad one day, the only music I tend to listen to is slow and tranquil - maybe not necessarily sad - music, that reflects the train of thought I'm in. I find that whenever I listen to more upbeat music, or look at more "upbeat" art that reflects a more positive outlook, it annoys me more than anything else if I'm not following that same pattern of thought. Therefore, when I'm trying to objectively view a piece of artwork, I try to detach my current state of emotions from the piece itself or else my opinion may become incredibly distorted by whatever mood I'm currently in.
My question is, "Do your favorite pieces of art tend to reflect the darker side of the human psyche, or the more lighter aspects of society?"
I tend to look and view art that corresponds with whatever mood I'm feeling at the time; for instance, if I'm feeling particularly sad one day, the only music I tend to listen to is slow and tranquil - maybe not necessarily sad - music, that reflects the train of thought I'm in. I find that whenever I listen to more upbeat music, or look at more "upbeat" art that reflects a more positive outlook, it annoys me more than anything else if I'm not following that same pattern of thought. Therefore, when I'm trying to objectively view a piece of artwork, I try to detach my current state of emotions from the piece itself or else my opinion may become incredibly distorted by whatever mood I'm currently in.
My question is, "Do your favorite pieces of art tend to reflect the darker side of the human psyche, or the more lighter aspects of society?"
Friday, February 26, 2010
Technology and Phones.
In class today, we discussed how technology has affected our ability to interact with other humans and our ability to read facial expressions. Many people in the class had the perspective that because our generation is so used to texting others and using facebook that we wouldn't be able to interact with others as often if our phones and the internet was to be eradicated. I feel the opposite. For example, my roommate lost her phone and she was without a phone for a good 2-3 weeks, but despite her not having a phone to contact people, she was still able to see everyone she wanted to see everyday. It was as if everything in the universe fell into place; she would randomly run into the person she wanted to see in the mailroom, things like that. When we're so busy running around making plans in advance we forget that things just naturally seem to happen that way on their own. During the time when my roommate didn't have a phone and I left my phone in my room for the entire day, we and 2 other friends just happened to randomly stumble upon each other at the same exact spot on campus when we needed to see each other and it worked out perfectly. This may be magical thinking but I think if everybody were to get rid of their phones, then the world would naturally take over and that would happen everywhere.
My question is, "The text states that 'phantasies are… the first preliminary stage… of illness' in the mentally ill; however, if everybody experiences these phantasies, does that mean we all have the capabilities to succumb to mental illness?"
My question is, "The text states that 'phantasies are… the first preliminary stage… of illness' in the mentally ill; however, if everybody experiences these phantasies, does that mean we all have the capabilities to succumb to mental illness?"
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Response #5.
In Skyla's blog, she asked, "Why do human beings only focus on the negatives of people, things, and even art when our flaws are actually what makes us beautiful?"
I think people do that because they don't want to acknowledge the fact that we are all flawed, because having flaws in some aspect or another gives us vulnerability and most people don't like the feeling of being vulnerable and open for attack. Therefore, we cover up these flaws to protect ourselves, and this may happen on either a conscious or a subconscious level. We are always trying to reach a level of happiness or contentment that may be unattainable to some, and because these flaws exist, it just prevents us from reaching that goal of ultimate happiness.
I agree with Skyla, however, that people's flaws are what makes them beautiful. Despite the disdain I hold for most people, I still somehow find them all so beautiful because we all have our flaws that we are trying to hide. It just makes us so much more human and alive when we do acknowledge these flaws and accept them for what they are.
My question is, "Beauty is a universal abstraction that has intrigued us for ages. What do you find beautiful that most other people may not?"
I think people do that because they don't want to acknowledge the fact that we are all flawed, because having flaws in some aspect or another gives us vulnerability and most people don't like the feeling of being vulnerable and open for attack. Therefore, we cover up these flaws to protect ourselves, and this may happen on either a conscious or a subconscious level. We are always trying to reach a level of happiness or contentment that may be unattainable to some, and because these flaws exist, it just prevents us from reaching that goal of ultimate happiness.
I agree with Skyla, however, that people's flaws are what makes them beautiful. Despite the disdain I hold for most people, I still somehow find them all so beautiful because we all have our flaws that we are trying to hide. It just makes us so much more human and alive when we do acknowledge these flaws and accept them for what they are.
My question is, "Beauty is a universal abstraction that has intrigued us for ages. What do you find beautiful that most other people may not?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)