Response Assignment #3
Posted by kscott on February 8, 2007
DUE NEXT WEEK (February 15th): Reflecting on all of the assigned readings thus far (Plato, Bell, Tolstoy, and Winterson) and our class discussions, and write a reflection piece on this blog that describes your philosophy of art, what you believe to be art’s responsibility to society, and the viewer’s (and reviewer’s) responsibility to art. You may write in an informal or more formal manner (whatever feels most comfortable to you).
To receive credit for your response, be sure to include your first name in your post!
Make sure that you mention at least one idea or thought by each of the above authors and whether you agree/disagree and why. For example: “According to Plato, blah, blah, blah, but I strongly disagree because blah, blah, blah.”
Consider the following questions while writing your manifest (you may address all or some of these; feel free to come up with your own questions to consider):
- What, in your opinion, constitutes art? And how would you determine what is “good/bad,” useful or not? How is that similar to or different from any of the authors you read?
- What do you think is the purpose of art? Must art carry a message? Or must it be aesthetically pleasing? How is your response similar to or different from any of the authors we’ve thus far read?
- Must art do something? Explain why you answered the way/s you did. Also, note if your answers are similar to and/or different from any of our assigned readings (again, a good opportunity to reference readings).
- How do you view the relationship between art and its audience? Does art have a greater responsibility to its audience than the audience to art? Does your belief reflect any of the essays we’ve read?
- What kind of dialogue or personal experience do you have with art? How do you approach art? And what might one of the authors respond to your approach?
- What expectations do you have when going to see a play, movie, art gallery exhibit (to be informed? entertained? to engage in a personal experience? etc.). How does your typical experience with or of art coincide (or not) with any of the authors you’ve read?
- If a painting, performance, or film could speak to you about its expectations (of you as its audience), what do you think they would be?
- Do you think a piece of art stands alone (or can stand alone)? Or do you think knowing something about the artist is important and/or necessary? What do our readings thus far suggest?
** Always, always back up your thoughts with some example, quote, or explanation.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I hope beyond hope that I have not defined a relationship with art as of yet. Actually I hope I never do. I hope that my ever-changing relationship with art is never nailed down into something I can concretely describe. I believe personal situations can influence how we see art, and as long as these keep changing, so will our relationships with art.
I think we are all influenced by those individuals brave (or arrogant) enough to call themselves critics, or teachers, for that matter. Whether or not we agree with them or not, their assertions are weighed by the viewer. I agree with Clive Bell when he says, “It is useless for a critic to tell me that something is a work of art; he must make me feel it for myself.” I think the best teachers of art force students to look at something from a different perspective, and judge for themselves whether something is a work of art or not. The purpose of art is expression; perhaps self-expression, the expression of an idea, emotion, or physical object. Tolstoy says, art, like speech, “[transmits] the thoughts and experiences of men.” I do not agree with him completely, because he continues to say that art’s purpose is to cause the artist and viewer to feel the same emotions. He says the artist is compelled to create the same emotion in the viewer, this is the main purpose of art. Instead, I feel that art could be a communication with self. I don’t think all artists have an audience in mind as they create. Some just make or write things for the fun of it, or because they are compelled to do so for themselves, not realizing anyone will ever read it.
I think there is a vast importance in art. It is an outlet for emotion for many people. Art is one of the defining features of a culture. I don’t value one form of art above another; each has its place in society. There are some forms of artwork I enjoy experiencing more than others: I’d rather read a book than go to a gallery, I’d rather watch a film than listen to music. My personal favorite artistic activity is woodworking. However, I realize that these are personal choices, and I wouldn’t say one is more valuable. I do not agree with Plato that art is unimportant because it is imitative. I feel there is vast value in expression. I agree with him that art has influence over humanity, but I don’t feel like it is dangerous. I feel like the evolution of art mirrors the evolution of society. Each culture and generation carves out its own niche in the artistic world, and in this there is value.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Art to me is something that I think our society could not live without. Sure, there is such thing as starving artists, people out there that are desperately trying to make it in the art community, but cannot. Being an artist is a job just like being a lawyer, maybe even artists get paid more. Talent gets projected onto a canvas, or through a camera, just like a lawyer would use their witt and charm. In some cases an artist would even get paid better than a lawyer, which makes being an artist equally as important as being a lawyer, or doctor. Art is something that a couple might do on a friday night, like go to an art gallery, or a silent film. Economically art is a big part of the whole world, people pay money to see new and old art all the time. The process of buying/selling/ and making art is run just like any other business.
“And it is also art if a man feels or imagines to himself feelings of delight, gladness, sorrow, despair, courage, or despondency.” Tolstoy
To me, Tolstoy has more of an idea of what art is, where Plato does not. Tolstoy views art as something that people need in their lives. If real talent is given, art is supposed to give you a feeling…leave you with something. Whatever it is that one might feel that is okay. Plato thinks the exact opposite, he thinks that art is dangerous, and can harm someone if put into the wrong hands.
“Poetry, drama, music, painting, dance, all stir up our emotions. All of the arts move people powerfully. They can strongly influence our behavior, and even our character.” Plato
So Plato and Tolstoy have these apposing views about how art is good for you and bad for you. In my opinion it’s a way to give to a community, and give others inspiration. No matter what people see art as, many know that art is a part of every day life, even if it’s in the clothes a person wears, or how someones apartment is decorated. Art comes in all shapes and forms.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Must art do something? Explain why you answered the way/s you did. Also, note if your answers are similar to and/or different from any of our assigned readings (again, a good opportunity to reference readings).
Art is a beautiful thing, a means of expression that transcend our thoughts, words, or actions. Should art be forced to do something? It depends on whom you ask. Plato believes that artistic forms of any kind “ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.” (President Bush may have actually ran on that platform). Tolstoy has said that “the activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it.” This view is very rigid because Tolstoy would not deem art valid unless it produces the same response to each viewer and this response must be the same as what the artists intentions were. (Mondrian would be s.o.l. by Tolstoy’s standards.) I challenge him to find two people who take the exact same view of a sensory experience. Finally, Clive Bell, believes true art should possess “the aesthetic emotion; and if we can discover some quality common and peculiar to all the objects that provoke it, we shall have solved what I take to be the central problem of aesthetics. We shall have discovered the essential quality in a work of art, the quality that distinguishes works of art from all other classes of objects.” Of all of the authors we read, I relate most to Bell, although, I do not know if he would relate to me. Art should not be forced to do something. It should not be forced to perform or fit into a critics ideals. Art’s main function is to exist in the viewer’s eye and that is all. Now, certain kinds of art were created with the expressed intent to do something. Advertising art, for example, needs to sell to be declared effective or as having value. But this is a gentle dance between viewer and creator – will all of the theory & psychology behind advertising be able to elicit the desired response from the viewer and will the viewer be responsive to the bait or pass over it as fodder?
What kind of dialogue or personal experience do you have with art? How do you approach art? And what might one of the authors respond to your approach?
I am a graphic designer, by education and trade. I have 4 years of education experience coupled with 3 years in the field. I try approach art with no expectations or needs so I may respond to a piece with a clear head and eye. I try to not let who the artist is interfere with my response, so if it is an artist whom I have never seen or heard of, I think I respond quite quicker because I don’t have any pre-conceived notions. Tolstoy and Plato would probably faint upon hearing this because they view art with a notepad of prewritten questions and standards that the piece of art needs to meet. Bell would probably agree with me 89% of the time, but he too has a couple standards he seeks in art.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
“Modern art has become a media circus; a money driven, prize hungry extravaganza…” This quote by Jeanette Winterson more or less sums up art in our society. No longer does art do what it is supposed to do. Art exists to make us feel. Art has the power to evoke feelings. Sadness, love, anger, fear; all these emotions can be expressed by a seemingly non-living thing. Poetry according to Plato “feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up…” Art is the only thing on this planet that is not technically alive but is capable of telling us what it means to be human. Tolstoy can explain why this is so. “If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art.” Modern art no longer strives to communicate feelings or the wants and needs of humanity. Modern art only exists to be sold, used and then forgotten. Film is a prime example of an art form that only exists to be consumed, not remembered. Plato referred to art as being dangerous. This could be true. Because modern art does not strive to capture human emotion, artists of the future might only see their work as something to be sold as quickly as possible. Sure there will always be artists that will strive to capture what it means to be human in their art, but will their voice be heard?
February 15th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Any and all of the following statements are subject to change and will change with time and upon further consideration of the subject.
Art is anything manmade that provokes an aesthetic experience or conveys information or ideas in an aesthetic manner. When I say aesthetic, I mean appealing to or disturbing any of our senses- visual, olfactory, auditory, and tactile. My idea of art is a blend of many of the ideas we have read and discussed. I could agree and disagree with most of them, depending on moods, situations, etc. Art can be political, controversial, functional, or for its own sake. I agree with Bell in that art follows “unknown and mysterious laws..[ that] move us.” But what moves me and what moves you may be very different. in fact, what moves me right now may vary radically form what moved me yesterday, or a year ago.
Art may exhibit immaculate craftsmanship , or none at all. Art may be harmful, irrelevant, or dangerous. all of these depend on one’s point of view. A mother may consider an R rated movie to be a danger to her 4 year old daughter. (although she may not consider this movie to be art, but ask the people who made it, most of them probably went to art school.)it is not that certain material is inherently dangerous (although it may be) it is that taken out of context it could be. A 4 year old may not have the critical thinking tools necessary to understand that there is a difference between violence in a film and violence in real life. we all understand perfectly that pushing someone out the window in real life may have very different consequences than the ones in a movie. but a child may not. I think that this is really where Plato is coming from when he speaks of censoring art.
Art persuades and changes us, or leaves us cold. Art may be heavily censored, embraced or simply ignored by the government. I think that censorship or bans add inherent value to art, giving it meaning and importance……..these things point out to us what it is that our society fears, finds distasteful, dangerous etc.
I believe that art is always grounded in human interest and man’s activity. I do not necessarily disagree with Bell’s assertion about art carrying us out of life into ecstasy. I simply believe that our desire to be “lifted above the stream of life”(Bell), is inherently human and is perhaps even the exact thing that makes us human.
Art may be banal or enlightening, superficial or ugly, mass produced or hand crafted. I have seen wrapping paper in the Old Navy stores that produced a certain response in me that a $6,000 sculpture in a credible art gallery could not. I cannot distinguish where the line lies between “real” art and everyday objects that are simply pretty. And I don’t think that I should have to.
I believe that art is not a luxury, but is necessary to sustain human life. Art is about Beauty. (This does not mean that ugly things are necessarily excluded. they may have more Beauty in them than all the sparkly shiny things.) It is something in us that the everyday mundane world tramples on over and over. it gets buried and forgotten. perhaps the job of art is to reawaken that magic.
art can be mundane, in the sense that it is all around us and we become desensitized and simply do not see or feel. Winterson points out that we do not really look, and don’t know how.
I have already contradicted myself several times.
I don’t really know what art is.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I don’t want to ramble—I’m afraid that’s what I’ll do. I have such a broad view of art that it’s almost simple. But maybe if I ramble in an appealing way, people thousands of years from now will stumble on these words and call them art. It’s really up to them because my view of art is so based on me as a person and you as a person and Plato as a person and who So-And-So is as a person (even if So-And-So is kind of a stupid name for a person to have). Art is so arbitrary that it has been fueling arguments of what it is and isn’t since before probably recorded. I have a much easier time disagreeing with people on what they think art is than I am at defining what I think it is. Usually when I disagree with people like Plato and his view of artists being second-rate imitators, it is because they limit what art can be. Plato obviously didn’t know abstract art was going to come along and totally convolute his philosophy had had put oh so much consideration into. In the same way as Plato and as of Elena Shtern’s disclaimer to her entry, as soon as I argue what art is, it goes and changes on me. I’m not saying Plato or any of these other writers were closed minded—they were telling everyone what they truly believed art to be at that point. But I think we are beyond most of that. OK—not beyond. It’s more like we have accumulated that part of what art is into what we now know art to be as to give ourselves a much greater picture of art. We are going to keep repainting this canvas called art and who knows if it will ever truly be framed and hung on a museum wall.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I will begin this response the same way I started my latest response: the harder we try to define art in an elaborate analysis, the more limitations we put on art. In some cases, it only blurs our own definitions of art, and can possibly take some of the joy out of it. It not as though I don’t like discussing the topic, because I do and I think it’s important. So I will attempt to express my idea of art with out creating any limitation.
I touched upon a few of my philosophies in my last response. Perhaps, a creation of art wasn’t attended by someone or there isn’t a human responsible for a particular art work, it can still be considered art. I used an example a stain on the sidewalk. Somehow, it was created and a view could have an emotional response to that simple stain on the sidewalk. This might sound ridiculous, but the point I am trying to make is that art can be found in anything.
Just like art is found in a scene of mountains, a bowl of fruit, a cornfield, a well decorated room, a plate of food, a garden, the way the sunlight is peaking through the clouds, a can of soup, a naked woman….I’ll end on that one. I think you get the idea: anything.
When I was first exposed to contemporary art, some of it was too much for me (or too little actually). But I remember thinking this is not art. The more I saw it, I knew it was expanding my mind. I started to see how this art was testing the minds of all viewers, and at that point, I loved it.
That is responsibility of art; continue to push the boundaries of what people have grown numb to. It would be a contradiction if said that art or the artist had a responsibility to the viewers. Because here’s the thing with that: if an artist is merely creating art to please an audience, then they are only limiting themselves. If that is the case, I would still consider it art, but part of the emotion and intention is directed for others and not necessarily all driven by the raw desire to create art.
As far as the audience and their responsibility, I fee they just need to view art with an open mind. Like I mentioned before, everyone will not be affected or affected in the same way. Art is such a wide concept. I do not feel that viewers have the power to say that something is not art.
This would directly be in conflict with Clive Bell when he said this:
“I have no right to consider anything a work of art to which I cannot react emotionally; and I have no right to look for the essential quality in anything that I have not felt to be a work of art.”
I want to leave Plato out of this. Not because I don’t agree with him, but the more start to understand what he was saying the more I realize how much art has changes since his time. Therefore, I feel the art I’m talking about now it completely different than the art in his time.
Defining art is like trying to always have the best and fastest and super computer ever made. Ten seconds later, there is a better one. To definition of art today will not fit the art of tomorrow.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I feel that essentially art is simply one of the main ways that humans communicate. To me art is just like talking or making physical contact with someone in that you are communicating an idea or ideas. The difference between art and other forms of communication is that art is creating a message outside of yourself. For example when you talk your words go from yourself (A) to someone else (B). However with art there is another component in the equation. If your the artist (A,) you create a piece of art (B), which then communicates to the viewer (C).
I also view art as essentially something that is entertaining. Something that captures your attention and amuses you.
I don’t feel art itself has a responsibility to society, but rather that we humans do. People have a responsibility to respect not only other people but themselves as well. And if making art is something someone wants to do or express for either themselves or other people they have a responsibility to do it. If you feel like you need to create a work of art to help others or help yourself it’s your responsibility, just like everything else you do that affects the world and yourself.
I don’t think the viewer has any responsibility to art that is being presented to them. It is entirely their choice whether or not to respond or even to look at a piece of art.
Honestly I have a hard time determining the difference between good and bad art. Personally I either like great art or bad art (so bad that it is very entertaining). I despise mediocre art. This might have to do with the fact that I am a man of extremes who finds it hard to attain a balance with anything in life. Because to me as soon as I find a balance in life there is no more room for change, no more room for growth, things become static, and feel dead. You could argue that with a great film there is no more room for growth however 99% of the time a great piece of art is made with either considerable risk involved or made with rare, tremendous talent (such as with John Lennon and Paul McCartney). So a great piece of art doesn’t necessarily have room to grow but it changes the whole scale of good and bad art thus throwing the balance out of order.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Art is organic…or should be. We should look at it in 1820 and be able to correlate its meaning with concepts in 1920, 2020, ad infinitum. It has the capacity to stand as a historical text: during this year, we thought this way and it is represented in this image, rhythm, or word formation. It can stand as a statement or lack thereof. It can slap faces, paint faces, pet faces, make faces. All art is communication, whether intentional or not: it serves as a marker of cultural paradigms. It is the apotheosis of a representation of an era: if we want to see how people were thinking, we will look to the art. Or will we? “Fine” or “high” art should not be considered such because it sells for thousands. All art should be on one level, as it is not a competition of talents but a showcase of abilities. It should not represent the intellectual brainwaves of the rich but stimulate those of the general human. We have eyes and ears, hands and hearts: let us examine them.
Despite Plato’s well-thought out ideas, I feel the artist is a commentator, not an imitator. I understand Plato’s context and placement in time, but if the artist or maker of a product do not believe in God, who is it that he’s imitating? I believe artists borrow and reiterate, taking ideas and molding them. A painter must see something valuable in expressing his opinion using a certain idea, something that may have otherwise been forgotten. Let us paint this carpenter and remember him as human, not as paint applied to canvas. The painter of scenes is a painter of memories, is he not? In that sense, art is extremely personal: sharing with others what was seen by one. Though the images we create are subjective pieces, they are pieces with purpose nonetheless. It is a viewer’s duty to discover the sometimes hidden array of purposes. (Even if there are no purposes hidden, the viewer will find them.)
Art is not a generalization. We cannot say one item is a universal work of art. If the images portrayed are subjective, so is the definition gained (or not gained). Like Tolstoy mentions, there must be a union between men. However, the union seems to be different from everyone. For me, art becomes art when I finally understand it on my own terms. I have no need to define art outwards: it is more so and internal concept. If art were not so personal, it would be as gaudy as standard public bathrooms…dirtied and brushed by many feet.
On considering the nature of art, I agree with Winterson that making money is far, far from it. However, the artist who cares only about making money is still sending a message (a negative one, no doubt) and thus still creating art in its definitive sense. Perhaps this is another decision placed on the mind of the viewer: whether or not he will favor money-art or purpose-art. However, like Winterson says: “If money ceased to exist, art would continue.” Humans will find a way.
I think Plato and Bell need to sit and discuss this topic with each other. It seems that Plato takes art to a general, public form whereas Bell limits it to extremely personal (in fact, he narrows it down to an emotion: the aesthetic emotion). They must combine and find the overlapping middle: art inspires privately and communicates publicly. Like I’ve said, art carries with it a message, and the viewer must dissect and examine its letters and syllables. This discussion (mental or other) between the artist and viewer is, I believe, the most important aspect of art: using it as a tool for conversation.
In my opinion, the most successful and remarkable art is that which is used for a social purpose. Art is the prime medium of choice for “making statements,” especially those that criticize the current standards of living. In that, art is created when people are inspired to enact change. Think about it: the songs slaves used to sing (referred to as ’spirituals’) were actually messages to each other, telling when to ‘catch’ the Underground Railroad, or how to get North. Is that not art? That, to me, is far more ‘beautiful’ and ‘inspiring’ than any high-scale, up-scale, “fine art piece” sold for millions in some auction in France.
Sometimes I feel that as art is grouped into categories, it loses certain abilities. High art immediately cannot be reached by everyone. Even two sentences ago, I showed disdain for high art sold in galleries and auctions, generalizing the very pieces to be one pointless form. In a sense, ‘low art’ works the same way: just because it is aimed at a certain audience or has certain characteristics lessens the possible viewers it may attain. Art is very strange when considered alongside class status. Thus, if possible, art should be on one level. However, as long as there are wealth gaps, there will be ‘art gaps.’
February 15th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Art has constantly changed throughout the years. Artist for the most part always tried to catch the attention of the audience. they create pieces to try and express emotions and have the audience to feel that emotion. Just like Tolstoy said,” if the artist does not convey emotions then the audience will not react and therefore it is not true art. Art is not appreciated as it once used to be. For me I can understand that because I hate to say it but I feel this way also. I do not appreciate art as much as i used to just for the fact that it does not catch my attention. Since art is forever changing people never get the chance to fully appreciate on type of art because they don’t see much of it. In my life today there is one type of art that I do appreciate which is graffiti art. For one this art has many difficult techniques to master that only a few can do. If i was ever to go and see some type of show I expect to be pleased by it and enjoy it. I think that the responsibility that a viewer is to take in the art and understand what the artist is trying to convey. But in today’s world i see art as a piece of paper in a frame that is used for decoration. No one understands it or know what it means all they care about is if it goes good with the colors in their home.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Isn’t it funny how art can be so powerful that people try to control and censor it, and so funny that 2400 years ago people like Plato were trying to do the same exact thing. It doesn’t seem so bad to say, ‘don’t censor art’. As the saying goes, ‘It’s just art.’ But doesn’t everything and everyone need boundaries? Maybe that’s what’s so powerful about art, there are no boundaries and that’s why people get so afraid of it. Art is very influential, it takes the mind, body and soul to new levels. The way people try to control it comes off as if it were a drug. ‘If you’re under this age you can’t be exposed to it.’ The worst part is, yes, it is influential but, I argue that parents are more influential than anything. People get the worst habits from no one else but their parents. And the way art influences someone is in direct correlation to how they were raised.
But the question goes back to, ‘what is art?’ Is the art that’s being censored actually art? If you’re free to say what you want, why aren’t you free to create, show and see whatever art you want? Who’s to say what art is? That’s the problem, art can’t be defined because as soon as you can, it becomes a commodity. Once you can define it, you can confine it and then you can package it and sell it. An example would be sports. How much money do corporations make off of sports each year? There is a lot of money made each year off of art, but there is a difference. Art is always changing, it’s always evolving, it’s really hard to hold onto compared to something like sports and that’s one thing that makes art so exciting and alive.
I do think art has a big responsibility toward society. It’s very influential and can sway people to think and act certain ways. So maybe the right thing to say is Artists have a big responsibility. Art is very powerful, art is like a political leader that has to make decisions and has to think of the consequences of those decisions and how people are affected. An example that comes to mind involves a band that was popular in the 90’s named, MXPX. They were known to be a Christian band, though they didn’t have many lyrics that mirrored their beliefs. I always thought that they had this great opportunity/stage to present these convictions and beliefs that they held and this power to influence and express their beliefs but they never did. Now some people may say, ‘well, that’s art and it’s very influential and maybe they’d be persuading people to believe in God during a time when people aren’t calm and thinking straight and rational.’ But I ask, is that not any different from a preacher getting a crowd riled up with rhythmatic speech and backing music?
Artists can help society make changes for the good and I don’t think there is enough of that. Though I do think there is some truth when Clive Bell said, ‘To associate art with politics is always a mistake.’ Art does a great job being irrational and following emotion and instinct and a great job of being ambiguous and letting the viewer interpret what they want out of it. Incorporating politics with art seems like the exact opposite. It’s trying to persuade the viewer one way or the other and politics uses very rational thinking. So I don’t think artists should feel a forced responsibility to create change and help improve society, just to understand that they have that power.
So, has the essay question been clearly answered? Probably not. And has the definition of art been clearly explained? Definitely not. My philosophy on art is just like art it’s self, it’s always changing. I do think it’s a powerful tool to teach and improve society but I also love just the pure irrational, aesthetically pleasing side of art. Russian suprematists believed in the latter and they created some great works. I also love how art can be expressive and cathartic. No one can define what art is to everyone, it can only be defined on your own terms; what is and isn’t art according to yourself. And 2400 years from now people will still be trying to define it.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Whatever the piece may be; a painting, a sculpture, film, textile… if it doesn’t turn you on within moments of being in its presence, it’s worthless… to you. Not saying the piece itself is worthless, but in order to truly follow through with its purpose, whatever the artist’s intention may be, a piece of art should reach out and grab the viewer by the balls, creating more than just an aesthetic connection, but a true emotion connection that wouldn’t have existed if that person wouldn’t have stumbled upon it at that exact moment in time. People continually change; a painting that moved you in the past might not move you in the future. Everclear moved me in 7th grade but doesn’t do it for me now. People change, and so does the way they look at art. It’s hard to say what exactly the role of art is, but if I had to narrow it down to one word it would be communication, because no matter what happens while looking at a painting there is always an exchange, or an equally important lack of exchange. The guy staring at a Rothko thinks to himself, “Huh, I don’t know why, but these colors make me happy… maybe I’ll go home and call my grandma.” In this case, a certain aspect of the painting triggered an emotion in the man’s brain, which led him to feel a certain way. So when I say communication I don’t simply mean information, because I feel art is more complicated than that. I’m thinking about something more along the lines of energy, bottled up inside both the viewer and the art itself, waiting until the time they meet when things will connect, and where the energy the artist planted into his piece 200 years ago will harmonize with that of the viewer. Art wouldn’t be art if it wasn’t for the viewer. It would just sit there… old paint on old canvas. But the second a piece of art is comprehended, it can stretch its legs and become whatever it and viewer wants it to become. Like my mother once said after she walked in my high school girlfriend and I, it takes to two tango, which I feel is relevant when you think about the importance of the viewer when defining a piece of art. It’s the invisible in-between part that makes it art. It’s a two way street. Art + audience = artist’s intention. When lighting strikes a telephone pole, the pole sends up a “streamer” of electricity that meets the bolt on its way down. If it weren’t for the pole the lightning would have gone elsewhere. If it weren’t for the lightning the pole would have stayed the same. But if things work out and the lightning strikes the pole, they have both affected eachother. Art does this too! Do you get what I’m saying because I barely do. Art is random and invisible, but definitely a real thing, which is why it’s hard to define.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I belive that art is an everlasting emotion that is never going to have just one explanation. This makes me think back to the fist blog “What is art?” To me, art is about interpretaion. There are so many forms of art that is seen through the naked eye that no one can be the judge or the critic.” Poetry, drama,music,painting,dance, all stir up emotions.” (Plato) This statement is true that Plato has said. Each one of these elements portray different emotions , differnt meanings, and a unique way of telling a story or revealing a message to an audience. These elements can also share a common meaning, but deliver it in very different forms. I believe that is what makes art special. It iallows one to create with no limitations or guidelines. It is the one aspect of life that allows the mind to wonder. Art is life. Society creates art.Artists have inspiration from everyday life. The joy, pain,racial barriors, equality,and sponteanty bring art to life. Plato also said” All of the arts move people powerfully. They can strongly influence our behavior and even our character.” This is the purpose of art. This what is strived to acheive to an audience.
Plato and Tolstoy think different about art. That is the beauty of art. Art isn’t suppose to have everyone agreeing on the same thing. It is about having your own interpretation and being able to have your own opinions and views. An artist wants people to feel different than the way they were before they viewed something they created. It is ok to agree to disagree.I belive art is always about creativity, diversity, and style.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:40 am
This “existence” is one idiosyncratic contradiction after the next…
KUNST IST SCHIESSE ODER HEILIG!
In my opinion, whatever I may (or may not) find aesthetically pleasing is what constitutes art. How I would go about determining what is “good” or “bad”, “useful” or “useless” is dependent upon what (and how) I feel/think/et cetera – the reasons are limitless and pointless. As to whether or not it is similar or different to any of the authors covered thus far in class…I don’t care. “Evil is whatever distracts.” – F. Kafka
“Art” has both purpose and a lack of; for it to inform or carry a message it must first have a purpose; for it to be aesthetically pleasing it needs not adhere to any of stipulations previously mentioned. As to whether or not it is similar or different to any of the authors covered thus far in class…I don’t care. “Illusion is the first of all pleasures.” – O. Wilde
The relationship betwixt art and its audience is one that does not exist in a physical realm. And in regards to the concept of where to lay the blame of “responsibility”, the audience has a greater responsibility to the art than the art to its audience, after all you can not un-see something.
The dialogue I have with art is *literally* non-verbal, whereas the personal experience (for the most part) is incomprehensible to any third party and ultimately lost. The approach taken however, is exactly the one taken to this temporal existence. As to what any one of the authors might respond to my approach?…”As soon as the dirt hits the casket, it will all be forgotten.” – E. Bogosian
The expectations I might have for going to see a play, movie, et cetera is to be entertained, challenged [insert adj. here]. …Outside of the authors we have covered thus far in class, I have noticed certain similarities between the ontologies however, I really have not put much mental effort into it.
Neither painting, performance, nor film has any expectations out of its audience except that its viewer(s) be empathetic – the work in question suffers constantly whereas our suffering is momentary.
As to whether or not a piece of art can stand alone, yes. After all, you don’t need to know the whole story about anything in order to feel *something*. However, knowing something about the artist is important and necessary for the sake of attempting to comprehend their impetus(’) behind the work(s)…the proverbial “back-story”. Our readings thus far hint towards a social elitism…faux-bourgeois bullshit.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:42 am
“A work of art has no importance whatever to society. It is only important to the individual.” – Vladimir Nabokov
there you have it…