i would also like to make a comment on chelsea's question Do you think famous artists produce better or worse work because of the pressures on them to keep being great?

I think that artists who have already produced something amazing, are under a great deal of pressure to produce more work of that caliber, and in some cases, their work is not as great.
For this, I would like to use the example of a close idol of mine, Peter Jackson. He directed, produced etc. the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. And when these movies came out, they were so well done, so fantastically executed, stunning, and highly praised. The last installment even won 13 oscars, including best picture. But what is the moral of this story?? DONT MAKE SOMETHING SO INCREDIBLY AMAZING THAT EVERYONE EXPECTS EVERYTHING YOU DO IN THE FUTURE TO BE EVEN BETTER. Because although Lord of the Rings was a triumph, it gave the public such a high expectation of Peter Jackson to create things that were even better than that. And then he came out with KING KONG as his next film, and the world was greatly disappointed. (well not disappointed, but probably a little let down, cuz it wasn't as awesome on every level)

But that is just the case when the pressure is extreme. When the pressure is not as much, or when the quality of the work could benefit from improvement, then the artist is encouraged and motivated to improve and do better than before.

So things are a bit dependent on the caliber of the work.

My question right now is what is an artist to do once they have reached the peak of their performance and can no longer improve?

and as sort of a follow up to a discussion i brought up last week in my blog, here is the painting that i referenced,

http://www.quotesque.net/images/Bosch-goed.gif

enjoy!

So this is a response to Aurora's very interesting question, "what if art catches our interest by arousing a childhood impression or emotion, but its main purpose is to convey a hidden message or metaphor? is it still art, or does it fall into a different category? or is it just sneaky art?"

Well art is supposed to catch our interest, that is part of the purpose of it, regardless of the emotions evoked by the work itself. But by catching the viewer and arousing some kind of childhood emotion, it has brought the viewer in so that they may examine the work more closely. When an emotion from childhood is evoked in the viewer, it makes that artwork so much more powerful to that individual, even though it may be completely different from what someone else experiences. Also, if the purpose of a work of art is to bring out this hidden meaning or metaphor, it can convey it while simultaneously evoking that emotion in the viewer, becuase that is its original purpose. So it should still be considered art, even though it has taken on a number of meanings, because art should not be solely limited to doing one thing. Just like, for example, going to a restaurant and ordering a meal, and when you eat it, it makes you think of a moment in your childhood or a person that you knew when you were younger. The food still satisfies its original purpose of sustainance, but it has also done more by evoking a memory, and it is still considered food.

So my question now is how many new meanigns can art take on before it is turned into, or over-analyzed, into something that is no longer art?

Freud. Oh Freud.
Well it is simple to think that i do not get along with many of his theories. I think Freud and i should see other people. Especially if he thinks that every fantasy i have either involves being better than everyone else, or sex. I don't think i can take him seriously if he doesn't think that i can fantasize about dancing in the rain or coloring, because then i get the idea that he is expecting way to much from me in terms of intentions. And this is why freud and i are not lovers. We just wouldnt understand each other. I quite like fantasising about things that are neither ambition, nor erotic. This leads me to think that his view of art and intention is also very based on ambition and eroticism. Because, if those are the only things which people fantasise about, then it is obvious that it would manifest itself in their art. And then the meanings of art would be severely reduced to something that is no longer solely art, but a psychological expression of their surpressed desires. I think that Freud just had trouble pleasing women, so he theorized that everything is a result of supressed emotions/experiences, or hidden desires (hence all of the hyper-sexualized malarky). But that's just me. I mean, it does explain the concept of wish fullfillment in art, but the fulfilled wish may be something that the artist does not need to cope with or get out in an artistic medium. And child play is very important becuase that is where all of our basis of understanding things comes from.

So my question for right now is how can art be an expression of something originating in childhood if the artist, is a child, or does not remember their childhood?

This is a response to Emily's question, "If we find the human form in its natural state beautiful enough to use it in art, why do we feel that it's inappropriate to show off the real thing in public"

I think that there are a few answers to this one. Well to start off, the human form has been used in art for centuries, even millenia possibly, because it is considered beautiful, fascinating, a work of art, etc. And in some cases, even most, it is. But the cultural changes in popular societies and historical changes, have determined that the human body must be covered up. Obviously one reason is protection of the body. It would be pretty darn cold if we did not have clothes, not to mention, painful to walk places without shoes, but that is not the point. Some societies view it as perfectly natural for a woman to bear her breast in public, like to feed an infant, or some tribes do not cover up that part of the body. But in others, the human body is not shown off because it has been commercialized and de-valued. When you think of the human body's place in advertising nowadays, the aim is usually for some kind of lust inspired result. Our bodies have become a symbol of, well... nah, i wont say capitalism, but something almost to be sold.

However, what determines the body's portrayal in society is also a direct result of the intent. Some places and people believe that the body is a very intimate thing and so it is shown off as little as possible. Some others, it is depicted much more casually. BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS that it is not depicted as an object of lust. someone naked in public may not be nearly as bad as if it was something to be considered pornographic.

But it is something that we teach ourselves. Dont be naked in public, it isnt right. A guideline that is used to teach a set of values. These values, once taught, are not usually easily changed.

SO my question for now is, when did the human body really begin being considered a work of art and not just a subject for art?

So there was a topic brought up during class this week that i felt could be talked about a bit more. I understand that tolstoy believes that a piece of art can only be a successful piece of art if the intended emotion of the artist is communicated to the observer. But what would tolstoy think of art that is able to evoke many extremes of different emotions. Like a painting I think of in particular would be Bosche's triptych, "the garden of earthly delights". Some person could look at it and feel inexplicable awe at the skill and vastness of things which is contained in this painting. And someone else could look at it and be completely and utterly disgusted and call it an atrocity of mangled bodies and absurdity. And some other people may just, honestly, say "what on earth (or not) was he thinking?!!! this makes no sense". How do we know if the artist intended for only one single emotion, and with a piece as complicated and not obvious as this, how are we to know what the artist was thinking? We cant very well ask him. But he has evoked a set of emotions. If there is an intended set of emotions, than tolstoy would probably say that it was successful, but the artist was not specific enough in his emotions and intentions. Pieces like this can also evoke a pleasure in the viewer, and i think it is a different kind of pleasure that is derived from other kinds of paintings which convey another kind of subjective beauty. This may be a pleasure at the absurd, instead of a pleasure of something that touches an individual on a deep level.

So my question for right now is, if an artist intends for his work to have a specific emotion, and only one person feels that emotion, is it still art? or does it need to be universally accepted?

this is a response to nicole's question. "Do you think rituals and traditions of other cultures should be tossed aside because we find them amoral? Or is our perception of morality simply too rigid"

Well to go out on a limb and answer that one. Of course not. we cannot simply toss aside anything becuase it is different. otherwise life around the world and in our influential spectrums would become very boring and closed-minded. Our perception of morality is varied depending on cultural and historical factors. What might be considered immoral 500 years ago is probably considered commonplace nowadays. Take for instance teen pregnancy or premarital sex. Nowadays itws commonplace. 500 years ago.... it was commonplace too! cuz people didn't live as long and when the couple was engaged, the were expected to act the same way as a married couple. But say, 100 years ago, it was a complete travesty if that occured and now we have adjusted to the occurance and adapted. Becuase values change over time. And simply because they are not fashionable now, does not mean they never will be. So no, we cannot simply toss aside the morals and actions of another culture simply becuase we do not agree with it. Rituals can be fantastic and important and influential to changing some societies and improving others. If we simply eliminated things becuase they were different, then there'd hardly be anyone alive now, so to speak.

So my question to you all, is how does an idea of something immoral become commonplace over time, where is the turning point?

SO whats all this talk of chairs on the ceiling that can calculate mathematics?! it sounds like a verse of "hotel california gone" terribly wrong. This was a really huge discussion on nature and art and man made and qualifiers of art. And because all of you were there, i can conclude to a certain degree that it was not resolved in the slightest. So i would like to make a few points. Is that chair an imitation of a true idea of chair? I dont think so, becuase although it is a chair to a certain degree. the function we have assigned to the true chair is no longer the stable factor in the new chair. It is an imitation, to a certain degree. It has become a new idea of chair. And how can we change that idea of chair? Can we? is it within our power? Or is it not? It is easy to assign new meaning to an object, but assigning meaning, we do not change the object physically. Like from my example of a book functioning as a footrest. It is both, becuase we have assigned the meaning to them as both. But the chair is a funtionless show chair. But it is a chair nonetheless.

So my question as of now is, can changing the true meaning of an object or idea, completely transform it into a new thing. Can we in fact change the true idea of something?

Alright so Skyla posed an interesting question and i would like to answer it to the best of my ability. she asked ": In general, why are humans so reluctant to admit to our mistakes when we know only good can come out of it?"

Well it appears that there are some people who do not like admitting they are wrong in spite of the circumstances or the benefits of it. Part of the nature of humans is to seek out some social approval, and if one is wrong, that approval can be threatened. It takes a lot of humility to admit that one is wrong at times, and that reluctance comes out of a discomfort in the situation. Just like I may be unwilling to admit I am wrong because i am embarrassed of some part of the truth. I desire that approval of others, which makes me unwilling to admit my transgression. Also, sometimes, when one admits they are wrong good does not come from it. There is always the possibility of learning from their mistakes, but sometimes an incorrect act or thought of an individual can be detrimental and admitting it is punishable, such as prison, or spreading a rumor that caused the lives of certain individuals to be effected negatively. SO there is that underlying fear of punishment which prevents some people to admit their wrongness. And some people are just plain stubborn, and feel that regardless of the outcome, they have to be right. But I have yet to meet someone who fits that description, who is unwilling to learn or attempt to change the way things are. But if we were 100% sure that only good would come of admitting or mistakes, i am sure we would be much less reluctant to do it.

SO my question right now is, can there be a mistake in art, which one would have to admit having made? or do the values which change overlook any mistake?

Alrighty. So today i would like to bring up an issue that was mentioned in class and i wanted to say something so badly and i raised my and and waved it around, but to no avail. So i believe the discussion was something of how until very recently, famous artwork consisted of a lot of naked people, or as the term used, pornography. And when artwork portrays that nowadays, it is deemed offensive, and there is a different meaning assigned to some works as time progresses and values change. BUT i would like to point out that there is a GIGANTIC difference between portraying people naked, and pornography. These classic paintings with nakedness shown, portray the human body as a work of art and is by no means offensive, but requiring much skill to accurately show and portray at its finest. However, a painting of pornography is something that can be vulgar, showing a pornographic act and offensive with no value to the society. So, anyway, big difference. It is also like the point brought up in class about being able to show violence as long as your aim is to show the heroic in battle. This is much like the subject of nakedness in classic paintings, because the only way to show someone without clothes in a work of art, bare, for a very long time, was if the artist was depicting some biblical or mythological scene. Other than that it was not allowed by the higher powers.

So my question for now is, is it possible to classify the human body as a vulgarity in art in a non pornographic sense?