response to Skyla

Skyla posed a fun question, "Who is your favorite artist and why do you consider him or her as such?"

Well as some of you already found out in class, the italian score composer Ennio Morricone is my favorite artist. He has written the score for almost 500 films and has a very distinctly creative and beautiful style. He can drive you to the edge of your seat with scores like those from "the Untouchables" and "Investigation of a citizen above suspicion" to completely pull-on-your-heart-strings themes like those from "the mission", "Malena" and "the legend of 1900" to completely definitive of genre themes like "the good, the bad, and the ugly". I am a huge lover of films and making films is what i would like to do with my life, so the music in films is extremely important to me because in combination of the angles and various shots on a work, the music directs the audience to how they should be feeling at a particular moment. And for a particular composer to evoke ALL of those emotions in the viewer is somewhat rare. Also, composing for films is different than just ordinary orchestral composing because the whole mood is dependant on it, even if the audience isnt thinking about it. Morricone does not have too much gusto, like Poledoris, and is not too commercial and mass produced like Horner or Zimmer. It has a quality thats just slips unnoticed into your emotions and you are overcome with it. But i am gushing, I could talk about it all day. Score composing is a unique hybrid and is another thing which demonstrates my point of the ever growing definition of art.

So my question is, is there an artform that is a combination of all of the forms of art that we know? (Film is the closest thing i can think of)

Response to lisa

Lisa raised a good question pertaining to human bodies, "Do you think that the human form it in itself a form of art? Why or why not?"

and my response is...... (drumroll please)...... ABSOLUTELY!
I think that the human form really is. People are beautiful beings, be they remarkable athletes or average persons, every shape is unique and wonderful just for the fact that it is the form of US! and we are creative beings! I believe it can also be examined in the same sense of some artworks, in the sense that, we all have those bodies which are our favorites, perhaps the ones we aspire to be like, but we also have a collective idea of what a good form is, and even that is CONSTANTLY CHANGING like art. Also, it being a form of art, it is copied over and over again in paintings which glorify it.

SO my question right now is, why would the human form not be considered art?

Art:

So today, i would like to go into a little more detail about the way i view defining art. To start off, i would like to say for that anything that can truly be rewarding, it must be sought after and constantly questioned, and there are some things in the world that take some people an entire lifetime to achieve. Like inner peace, happiness, art, etc. But we are convinced that before we can truly appreciate any of these things, they must first be defined. But sometimes we need to change our way of thinking. Throughout this course and examining various viewpoints on the definition of art, i have concluded that art is ambiguously indefinable. When examining art, there are many factors that need to be taken into account, the quality of the work, the communication to the viewer, the intention of the artist, the interpretation, the emotion, the form, the symbols, the presentation etc. But all of these things are continually changing as we examine art. So we really need to look at the nature of art. Art is (arguably) something which is created by humans. And as humans, we are constantly growing and changing and adapting and innovating. Our concept of art is also subject to this nature because of the course of history. It is changing as it is examined. But it is not switching from definition to definition. It is expanding. it is growing. It grows as long as we grow and is constantly changing as a result of our natures, new types of artforms, new artists and critics, new everything, as well as recognition for the old.

So my question for right now is, will there be a point in which art ceases to grow?

Response to misty

So misty had a very interesting question in regards to plastic surgery, "Do you think society will reach a point when it becomes completely passive? (passive in general, like is there a point where we will have done so much that it just doesn't surprise people anymore?)"

ABSOLUTELY!!!! I think society will reach that point with pretty much everything. Why? Because of the diminishing marginal utility of it. Everything has it, art, food, sex, drugs, shopping, whatever. The first time it is experienced, it is a special thing. But then as we continue, the value of the experience becomes less and less simply becuase it has already happened. And so after some point, we either lose interest in it altogether, or we begin to need more of it to still regain that original feeling. (very good example for vices) Or we can change our conception of it, like with art, to keep it interesting and enthralling. And so with plastic surgery, there are those who are addicted to it becuase it made them feel good and they want it to continue to do so. But there will be a point that is reached when they no longer can, or there is an intervention. Plastic surgery is a tricky subject becuase it is a modification of the individual. And on an individual basis, they must be pleased with themselves. But the process will make itself void by the repetition. And then if more people do it, of course it will cease to surprise people. Just like kissing in movies. (yes tangent) At first it was indecent to show a kiss longer than 2 seconds on the screen, and now we have actors undressing each other and going the whole nine yards, and it does not surprise anyone anymore. And this exposure has made us numb.

So my question for right now is, has the evolution of art and societies over time brought art closer to reality, or has the reality of the artworks taken away the mystery of art?

Dickie and Institutions

Now, I am not going to go on a tangent about favoritism or anything, but I actually am willing to admit that I in fact, like how Dickie makes the artworld into an institution. But at the same time, I really hate it, because he changes the definition of what an institution is in order for it to fit the description of art as we know it. The artworld is made up of its members. And who are its members? Anyone who sees themselves as a member. WHATTTT? Seriously guys, i think you can all understand my frustration when looking for an answer and then the one they give is basically another question. it reminds me of my mother... Now this idea of institutions is one we have had for a long time. Minority in power and a majority who follow rules, all of which involved in some common theme, like prison, or asylums, or... marriage? And if it had just stayed there, this concept of the artworld would bemore graspable becuase of an outline. People in the artworld decide what is art and who is an artist, and the others agree or follow. But everyone can be a member and if everyone is a member, there is no selectivity. And so those in power cannot be determined, yet we recognise them as such. It seems that the more we ask about art, the more questions we get as answers.

So my question for right now is, is the artworld really an institution in the true sense, or is is a community?