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?"

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?"

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?"

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?"

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?"

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?"

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?"