Art and Philosphy

response to Skyla

2010-05-08T12:26:00.001-07:00

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

2010-05-08T12:21:00.001-07:00

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:

2010-05-08T12:08:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-02T07:41:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-02T07:27:00.000-07:00

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?

Response to Tyler

2010-04-25T16:51:00.001-07:00

So tyler brought up a really excellent question "My Question: Because of this double nature, the art and the communication, are tattoos stronger in their artness? Is the message of the tattoo irrelevant in weighing its success as a piece of art?"

Well i believe that one of the things which makes tattoos very successful is this dual nature and permenant form of expression. But the meaning, i believe, can only be very meaningfully conveyed, if the quality of the artwork is also very good. If a person has a tattoo that represents a very important time in their life, the meaning shines through when the piece of body art is actually well excecuted. If it does not look nice, it is difficult to take the meaning in question seriously and it is not as effective. Another reason that this aesthetic quality and meaning is very important is becuase people will not want to adorn their bodies with things that they do not think are pleasing. Also, a tattoo can look beautiful without being a representation of something that is dear the the wearer. So the communication of the meaning of a tattoo is very important, but if no one wants to look at it, it is not the kind of received communication that is intended.

So my question for right now is, can a tattoo also have many different subjective meanings, like a conventional piece of art?

2010-04-25T16:25:00.000-07:00

In this chapter, there was a quote which i feel examined artistic identifications very well and helped to make understanding the concept of understanding background information very effective.

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point when i saw that mountains are not mountains and waters are not waters. But now that i have got the very substance I am at rest. For it is just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. "

This quote really points out the importance of understanding, which is a main component of appreciating an artwork in some cases, but it also really stresses the fact that beautiful things need to be seen as what they are for the sake of being beautiful alone. This does arise concern and question because understanding can sometimes diminish the appreciation of the piece itself in some cases. Like, for instance, say there is a beautiful paining that I see for the first time, and then I find out, it was painted by Hitler. And that can have a great effect on the judgement of the artwork. But it does not have to do with the aesthtic quality of the art, it has to do with our moral ability to appreciate art even when circumstances prove to be less than perfect.

So in order for things to be appreciated as they truly are, we go through phases of seeing for what it is, then trying to understand them, and then once we know how to understand, we can see them for the way they are again. This reminds me of and adage "If you ever want to know what should be done with the world, ask a very old person or a very young child." it seems that we have the instinct for seeing things as they are, and then they are clouded as we go through life and are exposed to different things, especially in the artistic sense and our abilities to interpret it.

So this leads me to my question. is it really that the more you know, the less you understand?

Response to Lisa

2010-04-17T19:57:00.000-07:00

This is a response to Lisa's question, "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?"

I think that this question has a complexly simple answer. That, call I it, because there really is not one true way of determining if we all do ascribe to the universal idea of what is good or not. A lot of things can be considered universal, even if they are only culturally exclusive, and that can be a mistake which is made. Also, I think that people do have a certain "wall" of conscience which they develop as a result of our nature, to guide us internally in terms of what is good or wrong. The "goodness" of art is something that is instilled at a young age by being exposed to what has already been decided to be "good" art, and that is reenforced by our morals and beliefs. It is almost subliminal i think. And something which is subliminal can be shared by everyone without thinking. But completely shared? I do not know, that is why I say "complexly simple".

So my question right now is, is bad art easier to recognize universally than good art? Is it more or less ambiguous?

Perspective

2010-04-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

So the other day in class, whilst discussing properties of art in terms of artistic value versus aesthetic value, the idea of when art is became much more apparent. OF course Goodman believes that there is a set of criteria that must be assessed in order for a thing to be art in a particular moment, otherwise it is just partially art. But one thing that greatly interested me was the idea that the perspective of some things is experienced differently by different kinds of people. (Not that different perception is a new idea or anything experienced by individuals) But then the idea of people with Synesthasia arose in discussion and i was fascinated. When the brain processed the signals taken into the brain are processed differently in a sensual capacity. So for instance, a person could hear a sight or smell a sound (like in the popular Duran Duran song, Hungry like the Wolf), and so on. And so to cut a long story short, this reminded me of a surrealist poem that i read a number of years ago in a class, entitled "Correspondances" by Baudelaire. In the poem, he speaks of the state in which all of the senses and experiences are intermingled with one another, corresponding to each other, and creating a kind of ecstasy in the senses. And this is all from a surrealist view of the world.

SO my question right now is, is looking at the world through this particular "lens" a more fulfilling way of experiencing things through an individual's senses?

And here is the poem (in english) if any of you are interested.

Nature is a temple in which living pillars
Sometimes give voice to confused words;
Man passes there through forests of symbols
Which look at him with understanding eyes.

Like prolonged echoes mingling in the distance
In a deep and tenebrous unity,
Vast as the dark of night and as the light of day,
Perfumes, sounds, and colors correspond.

There are perfumes as cool as the flesh of children,
Sweet as oboes, green as meadows
— And others are corrupt, and rich, triumphant,

With power to expand into infinity,
Like amber and incense, musk, benzoin,
That sing the ecstasy of the soul and senses.

2010-04-11T12:10:00.001-07:00

so it jsut dawned on me. If we think something is beautiful, we want to keep it. If we dont, then we dont. That is the nature of aesthetics and ethics. 'nuff said.

response to Skyla

2010-04-11T10:53:00.000-07:00

so this is a response to Skyla's question, "If humans did not value aesthetics in their everyday lives, how different would the world look and be? Would life be more chaotic and possibly much more meaningless if no one cared about the visual aspects of life? Explain. :)"

Well i think it is kind of impossible for us as humans to not use aesthetics in our everyday lives becuase it is a part of our natures, and you know all about that. But if it were to happen, i do not think we would have ethics (as circular as that is). Because aesthetics gives us an appreciation for things. And that appreciation and love for things is what makes us develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Becuase if we appreciate our mothers, then we do not want to do anything bad to them. If something is dangerous, then we try not to do it becuase we do not want to hurt others or ourselves. I do not think life would be more chaotic, becuase look at how it is now, we have ethics anyway and things are chaotic. If we did not have aesthetics, we may not appreciate anything, going through life as a stale promontory unaware of the potential of things. we could be right where we started.

So my question to this is, do we develop more things out of a violation of these morals than the following of them?

what?

2010-04-11T10:39:00.000-07:00

Alright so in class this past week we ended up talking a lot about politics and ethics and one analogy after another in an unending discussion of american consumerism. But one thing that really caught my attention was when we were talking about ford and how when the car would explode, it cost more to replace the defective parts than the cost of human life. They actually figured out the cost of a human life. Now that right there says a little bit to my understading of ethics, becuase people are people. People are valuable. People do not have a set worth. Also, some, like Raskolnikov, would say that there are human lives which have more with than others and it is the job of those who are consious of this to get rid of the people that, in their extermination, will have the greatest positive benefit to society. So all this really boils down to the point i am making. In these senses, human life has become a commodity. And that is one of the precise things that Marx was trying to prevent as a result of capitalism. When human life is made a commodity to become efficient, then the ethical values really need to be looked at. And i think that part of the role of Aesthetics on ethics is to make some kind of scale to us which makes us compartmentalize and judge these ethics.

So my question right now is, can an individuals set of ethics be changed by aesthetics?

2010-04-04T08:06:00.000-07:00

SO this is a response to Misty's question, Are there many cases where someone spends a ton of time on a piece and it turns out awful looking?

YES. I really think there are. Well actually, since art is soooo incredibly subjective, i think it depends on the viewer and the artist themselves. I can say that from personal experience, there are pieces that i have worked on for an extended period of time, like 3 moths, and i do not like them nearly as much as a painting which took maybe 3 hours. So in these cases, it is determined by my preferences. However, i am not saying that pieces which take a long time, like years, are not all as good as if they had been made in a shorter time. Because so much maticulous care is put into them and time and blood and sweat and tears. I believe it also matters if the artist cares about what is being made. Becuase if it is something that they do not love, then it may still be great, but it does not live up to that potential that a beloved work of art may have. And the artist may think it's awful. But the audience may love it. So one really never knows. I know, thats a very unsatisfying conclusion.

My question for this is, is time relevant at all? or is there some sort of added value to the time which a piece was made in?

2010-04-04T07:54:00.000-07:00

Alright so as much as i do adore Hume, that antimony still drives me crazy and after many sleepless nights of contemplation, i have come to the conclusion that art is natural to our natures as humans. Because only something that is so natural could be the subject of such complex debate. For example, for part of the antimony, that humans all have this general agreement for what is art, and what art is considered better than others. How can we come to this conclusion, because last time i checked, humans did not have a collective mentality, so that agreement must be something which is natural to us. And that nature is shared among all humans so that we can have that general agreement. When personal taste is involved, i believe that is a subject of the individual's experiences and place in the world. So that individual has those things which they particularly enjoy, and then the other things that they agree with all others that are good.

And so that brings me over to the question of elephant paintings. Are they art? Well they are not art to the elephants because it is not in their natures to do so. But it is in our natures to look at it in an artistic fashion. ta-da!

So this brings me to my question, if creating art is in our natures, then is appreciating and loving art in it also? or is it something which needs to be conditioned and taught?

2010-03-28T11:16:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

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,

2010-03-17T10:26:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-17T10:14:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-17T09:58:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-14T18:46:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-14T18:24:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-06T13:13:00.000-08:00

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????

2010-03-06T13:01:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-28T09:52:00.001-08:00

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?

2010-02-28T09:49:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-02-28T09:40:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-27T15:22:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-21T14:58:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-19T13:02:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-14T18:39:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-14T18:21:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-07T11:53:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-05T08:59:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-01-31T19:40:00.000-08:00

alright so this entry is a response to Chelsea's question "
My question to you all is this: Do you believe that tattoos should be considered art, and would you ever get one?"

I do think that tatoos are a work of art. Tattoos are a permenant work of art, and physically express something that the wearer holds to be important, or a reminder of some time in their life. I believe that they would have to be considered a work of art, or at least aesthetically pleasing, because no one that i know would want to permenantly adorn themselves with something which was ugly and meaningless. A tattoo should be something which holds meaning for the individual. And if it something that has meaning, it should be a work of art. Because we are choosing to, in a sense, suffer by subjecting ourselves to pain, just like an artist, in some cases, suffer for their art. And there are some tattoos that are, indeed, gorgeous, which can be thought of attributing the individual to becoming their own work of art.

Would i consider getting one? Yes, I believe i would. There are so many different beautiful designs which someone could choose to imprint on their bodies. And if i were to find one that suited me, i would consider it. I hate bringing matters of religion into discussion because i risk offending people, but in the bible, i believe, types of body art are considered to be a form of violating ones body, like smoking or drinking, which is a temple which has been given to us by God. So by such determining, it is immoral and wrong. But there will always be things that are considered to be wrong which people do anyway. Authority ruling does not always make something right or wrong.

question from class

2010-01-27T13:58:00.000-08:00

Alright. So in class today we discussed correspondent truths and coherent truths. And that something is correspondantly true if it is true based on the world as it is. And coherence is true if it is true to the world as we know it to be. And something cannot be and not be at the same time. Like i can only be sitting on this chair at this second. I cannot be not sitting on it at the same time. It cannot be a chair and not a chair at the same time. But i was wondering if it were possible for a thing to be a thing and not a thing at the same time dependent on whether or not we assign it new meaning. Like say for instance, I have a book. It looks like a book, it has pages and a spine and words and reads like a book. But say i want to put my feet up and i assign the book new meaning as a foot stool. Is it still a book? It still looks like a book, but now it serves a new purpose, so is it a foot stool? Can it be both of those? Or once it serves a new purpose, dies it lose its old meaning? Just like when chelsea brought up the question today of Micheal Jackson being both black and white. He is still ethnically african american, however he appeared to be caucasian at the same time because of various alterations. So does that made him black or white? i suppose on the basis of color alone he is not both black and white. However bringing intoi account other truths he is both.

Is it possible for meaning to change the identity of an object?