this is a response to Zach's question "Are we numb to good art or better informed about good art?"

Well i think that people today have a countless amount of things which are begging their attention, and some people do not have the time for good art, or resources, or are simply ignorant of it. But that is only some people. A large part of the population still is exposed to art and meaning and can come to their own conclusions on what art is. So i think the problem now is that people need to be re-taught how to appreciate art. Because there is so much art out in the world and that has lasted through time, but if people are unable to acknowledge or appreciate it, it is not nearly as useful, moving, or full of purpose. If people are unable to appreciate or recognise art, they will be unable to form their own view on art, and so much in the world can be learned through art. Being informed could be something which to work on. So numb is not the word i think that applies, but uninformed sure fits the bill. It is sad that people will turn to an actors name before an artists, but that is what they know and what is popular. Popularity is always an important factor.

So my question right now is how can people be taught about art if they are unwilling to learn?

So right now an issue i'd like to discuss is boundaries and techniques. But first, i'd like to bring up that I do, in fact, agree with Weitz's idea of definig art as a set of shared necessary conditions, instead of a very rigid definition which attempts to encompass the entirety of an ever changing medium.
Well anyway, going back to boundaries. In art, there are certain rules that have been made over the years, of how to draw a form, the correct way to hold a brush or tool, the way to use that tool, what constitutes a good composition, how to choose colors, etc. And these ideas have constantly been changing since the establishment of art. Art is something which grows with us, as humans, asnd changes as we do. When there is a great event or change in the world or how people think, it is documented in art, whether it be a direct representation of it, or a change in how the work is executed. We like to think that there are rules and boundaries to pertain to in order to easily define art, but an aspect of the nature of art is that new creativity pushes these "boundaries" and "breaks the rules". So now art includes this new thing and the rules change. Because art is ever changing. There can never be one set of rules because art was not created in one single instance and came with an omniscient set of rules, given to one person to share with everyone else (we all know what happened when that occurred, and im not talking about art in that case). Becuase it was created and recognised by man, and man continues to change, the boundaries for art will continue to change.
And now for technique. In class i brought this idea up and i think that no matter what is considered art, the amount of technique that is used is very important to the artwork itself. I am not sure if there are degrees of quality in artwork, but when a master paints an apple, the outcome is much different than when a 5-year old paints an apple. Some of this has to do with intention, but i believe that the "practice makes perfect" is not necessarily a rule for something to be art, but when it is done with a great amount of skill and technique, it can be enjoyed and appreciated even more where it may have not had as much appreciation in not living up to the full potential of the work.

So my question for now is, are there degrees of what is considered art?

Juggling,

Alright so this post has an interesting little background story to it. My boyfriend and I tend to break off into philosophical discussions at times and a few days ago we came up with an unanswered question which, thanks to the wonders of facebook, prof Johnson was able to answer it for me. My boyfriend is an avid juggler and armchair philosopher like myself and sent me this juggling podcast, wherein the host discusses the nature and circumstances which make juggling a form of art and I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO THIS BECAUSE IT BLEW MY MIND. So i'd like to discuss a few tidbits. The host fist off explains his view on what he considers to be art, and art in short, is something which is intended by the artist/creator and challenges the viewer in some way. Whether it be emotionally, intellectually, mentally etc. So if something has these qualities, it is art, AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS GOOD ART AND BAD ART and i had not considered that before. There are also a great deal of things that convey the same emotive meaning as a work of art, but that does not mean that they are. Such as looking at a painting and it makes you feel so small in your place in the universe, and looking at a vast mountain and it makes you feel so small in your place in the universe, and being in a crowd of people and it makes you feel so small in your place in the universe.
And so concerning juggling, the juggler or performer can put together a routine and the skill and thought and creativity which they put into it is meant to impress the viewer, evoke some sense of wonder etc. But they must also challenge the viewer. If they simply go through the motions and it is "ordinary" it is not challenging the viewer and not showing them something beautiful. And i could go on all day, but ill just let you listen to the podcast yourself, after the little teaser i've provided.

Thanks Ryan.

http://www.lukeburrage.com/audio/Juggling%20Podcast%2049%20-%20Juggling%20as%20Art.mp3

So my question right now is, do you think there is good art and bad art, or is all art simply on an equal level with all that is encompassed in the category?

Alright so this is a response to Nicole's question, "Do you think the way humans view and create Art is really the ultimate accomplishment or should we be open to other options and expansion?"

Well to start off, (ive noticed I tend to begin my responses with the word "well" but thats irrelevant) I think that the way humans view and create art id not the ultimate accomplishment. I actually believe that the fact that we actually view and create art and recognize that we do, is one of the ultimate accomplishments of our race. Humans will always adapt and evolve our ways of doing things, creating art being one of them. And this we can tell by simply looking at how art has continued to change over the years as well as our concept of art. There are many things that we can claim to be the ultimate accomplishment, such as traveling to space or achieving world peace etc, but since our society and capabilities will continue to change, that idea of ultimate cannot be determined. I think, whether we like it or not, we humans will continue to expand our options.

So my question right now is when do you think we all became consciously aware that we create art? Could that have been the birth of the first art critic?

Alright so i decided to answer an unlikely question this time, which was posed by Skyla. "What is your favorite novel and why?"

My favorite novel would have to be "the Satanic Verses", by Salman Rushdie. Why, you ask? Well partially for the simple reason that it is absolutely beautifully written. I really enjoy reading this book because every sentence is so nicely structured with wonderful language that it seems to me like reading poetry as i go through each paragraph. The author incorporates words that are in Indian and Arabic and other middle eastern languages and it adds to the aesthetic quality and beauty in the experience. Another reason that I love this book is because it is very controversial. It was a banned book and iI love banned books. (something about the forbidden that just makes it more attractive) It is also very thought provoking and it really, for me, widened my understanding of issues concerning human nature, and almost the satire of religion, which until that point, i had not questioned much before in my life. It reduces good and evil to two actors that survive an airplane crash and the people of the world choose their own sides to follow. I really recommend it.

So my question right now is, can a novel be a successful work of literature if it does not evoke a sense of aethetics or challenge the reader in some way?

so this is a response to Lisa's question, ""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?""

I believe that furstovoll (first of all), that depends on your definition of modern art. Becuase some modern art is very easy to view and interpret, straightforward. However, the kind i believe Lisa means is the abstract kind, or the simple subject that has a deeper meaning kind. I in fact, do not believe that art viewers are becoming lazy at all, in fact, i think art viewers are trying their darnedest to adapt. Becuase if you think about it, abstract art has only really been around for under 200 years, and that is a baby in the long run of how long art has been around. Art was originally reference based and very realistic. And there was no need for real interpretation because it was a simple representation. But then after impressionism, and surrealism, and dadaism and all of those other fantastic isms, art became more complicatied and full of expression and interpretation. And then we were forced to use our brains. And i believe that the less obvious a piece of art is, the more abstract, the more we are forced to use that kind of our own creativities to piece together meaning and hopefully get it right. it is fun, i think, to interpret paintings and works of art which are abstract because it encourages one to be creative. even if they end up being wrong. And that may be a reason for the lack of understanding, becuase some people are afraid of being wrong. And so i dont think that we have gotten lazy, i think that our abilities to make that kind of an interpretation have not developed as quickly as our abilities to create.

So my question for right now is, does art always need to have meaning?

john dewey. dewey, or dewnot?

ALright, so this week in class we discussed john dewey's view on art, and i am not afraid to admit to everyone that i really did not understand it very well. But there are some things that i do agree with,which i understand. I agree that we as humans have this aesthetic hunger and the need to satisfy it, so they make things which are beautiful. And it opened my eyes when I differentiated museums from the standard idea of what art should be. That broadened my horizon and scope of my understanding of art. Because, before considering the museum idea, i thought that all things in museums were considered great works of art. But there is indeed much else that is considered art that cannot be found in a museum because it exists in nature, or even in the person's intent to pursue the perfection of whatever it is that they are doing, then that can be considered a type of art i believe. But then it kind of turns art into something that is not special or exclusive, becuase it is sooooo radically inclusive. Dewey believed everything could be considered art. And that bothers me.... just a tiny bit. Its kind of like saying that everything is special, therefore nothing is. I do agree that art is soemthing that can be attainable though, i just dont believe that Dewey found a perfect balance between them. Was Dewey just this impossible optimist who just appreciated everything? we all know someone like that. I like to consider myself to be passionate about many things, but being that appreciative of everything as art might be exhausting at times. Well i guess it works as long as the art is prefigured.

So my question for now is, are there other aspects of aesthetic life, or ordinary life, that are prefigured?

This is a response to Shawna's question, "Do you think that it is possible for someone to be consistent in their feelings towards a particular piece of art though?"

Well this is a bit tricky, becuase i cannot speak for all of mankind on my behalf. But i think there is an ambiguous yes and no in that answer. I believe that a person can have a consistent feeling for a particular piece of art. That once seeing it or thinking if it, it will always convey that emotion to them. Like for example, someone may look at Thomas Gainsborough's "the Blue Boy" and always like it.
However, do not be fooled, world. For people will always change and learn and grow. And while an individual's feelings toward a piece of artwork may be consistent, the knowledge that they accumulate and their increased level of understanding will make it possible for them to appreciate that work more, or in some cases, change their opinion. But if their opinion is unchanged, and their emotion is the same, and they have just become more enlightened on the matter, i think that would be consistent.

So my question for right now is, does Bell think that people will have a consistent emotion upon looking at the same piece of art as a whole?

language????

Alright so right now i would like to elaborate on a thought and question that was brought up during class this week concerning Bell's idea of specific form. He held onto this basic belief that artworks consisted of this specific form, of their structure, brushstrokes, lines, shapes etc., and their content was a trivial thing compared to the aesthetic emotion brought forth through specific form. So the concern involved the concept of writing and literature. Because words are all so symbolic, their form is something that is not as important as their content and meaning. I think that, even though Bell did not specify or clarify his views on literature, i think that he would try to apply his belief to the structure in which the work was written. Each author has a different style of writing. Some are very florid and descriptive and sensual like Tolkien and Wolfe, but then there are other authors whose style is direct, to the point, and consisting of action, like Hemingway. You could tell these writers to describe their experience at dinner, and every writer would go about it differently, with their word choice and their syntax and the structure and formation of their sentences. I think Bell would describe the significant form of literature varying like this, like the different styles of artists. Where the content does not couldnt, but the form does. So it is subjective/dependant on the creator. But this is not flawless for literature because words mean so much and are so musical when put together in certain ways.

So my question for now is, would Bell completely disregard the content of a work of literature, focusing only on the structure and form and sound of the words?