Now a question I pose, can emotions be the driving factor in everything in life, from art to leisure activities?
Absolutely. Emotion drives us to do everything in life. Art would not exist without human emotion. Leisure activities cannot be brought on unless human emotion drives us to perform these activities. For the most part we do things because we want to. Even taking on an arduous task in a workplace we do because we want to, otherwise we would not be working at all. However, instinct also plays into this. Without instinct we cannot act on our emotions. Instinct is the driving force behind all emotion, but in the end emotion will play the larger role.
Do you agree with this idea?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Response to Kurt
Would applying other senses, such as touch and smell, to art increase the observer's ability to experience it?
This is an interesting question. Certainly touch and smell can add to the aesthetic pleasure of any creation. When someone takes a walk in the woods touch and smell play a huge role as well as visual. Visual pleasure is quite obviously the largest factor of visual art, however, interactive art is important. Being able to touch a piece of art will make the observer more enthusiastic about the piece and possibly easier to understand the work. A piece of art within a scented room may create a more real life experience for the observer. So yes, I would agree that other senses incorporated with visual arts will give the art more meaning and memory for the observer.
This is an interesting question. Certainly touch and smell can add to the aesthetic pleasure of any creation. When someone takes a walk in the woods touch and smell play a huge role as well as visual. Visual pleasure is quite obviously the largest factor of visual art, however, interactive art is important. Being able to touch a piece of art will make the observer more enthusiastic about the piece and possibly easier to understand the work. A piece of art within a scented room may create a more real life experience for the observer. So yes, I would agree that other senses incorporated with visual arts will give the art more meaning and memory for the observer.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Paulo Coelho -Revised
I was not specific enough while explaining how I related Coelho's work to art. In fact, I was sloppy, careless, and rushed.
Looking back and re-reading my work I do agree that love is rarely the emotion an artist feels for his or her creation. I was referring to the origins of art, rather than the emotion behind a work of art. Why does an artist paint, write, perform...? Certainly not because they dislike creating art. There are different types of love. The love we have towards the people around us should not exist in this conversation. It was never meant to, and I am sorry for this misunderstanding. The love I am speaking of is the love an artist has for art. This love is not passion because it extends far beyond the reaches of passion. The love is material and borderline obsessive. The emotion behind an art object can be derived from any emotion, but no matter an artist has a true love for what they do.
Weitz defines art as an impossible definition. I strongly agree with this on some level. No one will ever be able to agree on a definition and I often ask why people bother trying to define an impossible definition. The idea of a miracle does not exist in one's life until the miracle occurs. When this miracle occurs, wherever and however it may, we do not know how or why it happens. We only know that a miracle has taken place. In Coelho's novel human love is spoken of as a miracle. Several small miracles take place, but these miracles could never take place without love. At one point in the book it is stated that love is miracle. To me, all forms of love are miracles.
This is where I tied art and miracle together. An artist does not know why they create art. It is an unexplained love of creating. Something which is unexplained, but incredible (in a good way) I choose to put under the category of miracle. This love an artist feels towards what they do is a miracle. You do not have to agree with me, I just wanted to properly define what I should have defined before. I was not trying to define art, only the origins of art.
Looking back and re-reading my work I do agree that love is rarely the emotion an artist feels for his or her creation. I was referring to the origins of art, rather than the emotion behind a work of art. Why does an artist paint, write, perform...? Certainly not because they dislike creating art. There are different types of love. The love we have towards the people around us should not exist in this conversation. It was never meant to, and I am sorry for this misunderstanding. The love I am speaking of is the love an artist has for art. This love is not passion because it extends far beyond the reaches of passion. The love is material and borderline obsessive. The emotion behind an art object can be derived from any emotion, but no matter an artist has a true love for what they do.
Weitz defines art as an impossible definition. I strongly agree with this on some level. No one will ever be able to agree on a definition and I often ask why people bother trying to define an impossible definition. The idea of a miracle does not exist in one's life until the miracle occurs. When this miracle occurs, wherever and however it may, we do not know how or why it happens. We only know that a miracle has taken place. In Coelho's novel human love is spoken of as a miracle. Several small miracles take place, but these miracles could never take place without love. At one point in the book it is stated that love is miracle. To me, all forms of love are miracles.
This is where I tied art and miracle together. An artist does not know why they create art. It is an unexplained love of creating. Something which is unexplained, but incredible (in a good way) I choose to put under the category of miracle. This love an artist feels towards what they do is a miracle. You do not have to agree with me, I just wanted to properly define what I should have defined before. I was not trying to define art, only the origins of art.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Paulo Coelho
In Paulo Coelho's novel "By The River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept" I was moved by the captivating love story of Pilar and an unnamed character. The book is truly about opening the heart to miracle. I decided to compare one of Coelho's greatest works to art. If we open our hearts to love and miracles, then isn't that the same thing as opening our hearts to art. Art is a miracle we are touched by on a daily basis. It is nearly impossible to move through the day without seeing at least one work of art. The miracle is love. An artist creates their piece out of love, so therefore art is love and love is a miracle. Art is miracle.
Definition of Art
I choose to define art as risk.
Risk is what gets us from point A to point B. Without risk everything in life would be impossible. An artist takes a risk by daring to sketch out his or her own imagination so it will become a tangible object for all to see. We fall in love with our risks and are able to create art out of our love for risk taking. The fear of criticism virtually disappears as an artist moves through creating his or her creation without second thought. Only after creating a work of art can an artist second guess themselves and wonder, “Should I have done this?” “Perhaps this should be a more personal work of art.” The moment an artist makes any intrusion on the work of art they just completed, the original idea is lost and ruined.
Risk is what gets us from point A to point B. Without risk everything in life would be impossible. An artist takes a risk by daring to sketch out his or her own imagination so it will become a tangible object for all to see. We fall in love with our risks and are able to create art out of our love for risk taking. The fear of criticism virtually disappears as an artist moves through creating his or her creation without second thought. Only after creating a work of art can an artist second guess themselves and wonder, “Should I have done this?” “Perhaps this should be a more personal work of art.” The moment an artist makes any intrusion on the work of art they just completed, the original idea is lost and ruined.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Emotion
What is the most important part of the thought process?
I would answer this with emotion. It is emotion that sparks everything else because humans feel emotion and therefore we are motivated to act on our emotions. It is almost like a cause and effect. We feel a certain way about something, our natural instincts kick in forcing us to use prior knowledge, we then turn to our imaginations to be creative and intuitive. From this experience we grow and understand as life long learners. Without emotion we have no imagination or creativity. Knowledge will not exist because experience will not exist. We would never understand why art is so important to our lives. It is true that instinct comes prior to emotion, but without emotion would we use our instincts?
I would answer this with emotion. It is emotion that sparks everything else because humans feel emotion and therefore we are motivated to act on our emotions. It is almost like a cause and effect. We feel a certain way about something, our natural instincts kick in forcing us to use prior knowledge, we then turn to our imaginations to be creative and intuitive. From this experience we grow and understand as life long learners. Without emotion we have no imagination or creativity. Knowledge will not exist because experience will not exist. We would never understand why art is so important to our lives. It is true that instinct comes prior to emotion, but without emotion would we use our instincts?
Opera
On Saturday April 30th I saw my first opera. True, I have seen operas on DVD prior to this performance, but it is nothing compared to watching the live opera. A group of incredibly lucky students and myself were chosen to go on this trip of a lifetime to the Metropolitan Opera House. This is a day I will never forget. We saw the opera "Il Trovatore" by Giuseppe Verdi that afternoon and were truly blown away by the experience. Every member of the audience felt the same way. These singers were true artists. I could feel their passion for the art form from my seat one hundred feet away. Opera is art, everyone who contributes to help these stories unfold before our eyes is an artist because they have a passion for one of humankind's most beautiful creations.
Having the opportunity to speak with the artists I noticed that they too were not only doing this because it was a job, but they are in love with what they do. Emotion poured out of their mouths as they became the roles they were given. I could sense the emotion, I even cried at the end when nearly all of the principle characters tragically died on-stage. I have never witnessed such a magnificent work of art in my entire life.
What is the most magnificent work of art you have ever seen? Why?
Having the opportunity to speak with the artists I noticed that they too were not only doing this because it was a job, but they are in love with what they do. Emotion poured out of their mouths as they became the roles they were given. I could sense the emotion, I even cried at the end when nearly all of the principle characters tragically died on-stage. I have never witnessed such a magnificent work of art in my entire life.
What is the most magnificent work of art you have ever seen? Why?
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Visual vs Perfomance
If performing arts have a special and unique quality about them, then do they dominate over visual arts? I personally believe that performing arts are indeed a higher form of art, but then we come to the question, which of the performing arts is the highest? I would say music because every human being can relate to music and music exists in every sort of culture. I can only say this from my very bias point of point as I am a performing artist and a music lover. I would personally rank art as so; music, dance, theater, and finally visual art. Then we must focus on the higher of art forms within the disciplines. Is it fair to say that the work of a composer is higher than the work of a cellist? Not at all, so to completely contradict myself there is no higher form of art. Everything in art exists on a common plain… Or does it?
Idols
Adrian Piper has a very peculiar theory about art. She believes that art is fetish, art is little more than an obsession over objects. Art is also an obsession over what a performer does. We can obsess over certain people because of what they do. My question is, do we obsess over a person's artistic actions or do we obsess over the person in general. Obsessing over someone is the same as idolizing. We seek idols so that we may have someone to live by. An idol is generally someone who does what they do extremely well, but also has a positive way of living at the same time. We often look up to our relatives and family members to idolize.
But what of artistic idols? Do they serve the same purpose or are they our idols merely because of what they do?
But what of artistic idols? Do they serve the same purpose or are they our idols merely because of what they do?
Monday, April 11, 2011
George Dickie
George Dickie is rather interesting in his views on art. It is Dickie's belief that basically anyone who wants to be a part of the art world can. A museum goer, someone who produces art (craft?) as a small hobby...anyone can become a member of the art world. Perhaps Dickie opens up these possibilities as a way of sharing art with the world. When we think about it, art is sometimes for just an artist. The art is not meant to please others, but a majority of the time art is created with the intention of having an audience. The audience is the entire world. Anyone who is willing to look or listen.
This may be true, but I cannot completely agree with Dickie. Art may be for the entire human population to view or listen to, but that does not mean that everyone who views a certain art work is a part of the art world. When we think about it the entire world is not educated in how to understand art. A three year old child looking at an abstract Mass MoCA exhibit for the first time will not understand the significance of it. Only those who are educated in the art world can be a part of the art world. This will narrow the selection down. Art IS for everyone, but only those who are willing to open their minds and learn.
Do you agree with my opinions?
This may be true, but I cannot completely agree with Dickie. Art may be for the entire human population to view or listen to, but that does not mean that everyone who views a certain art work is a part of the art world. When we think about it the entire world is not educated in how to understand art. A three year old child looking at an abstract Mass MoCA exhibit for the first time will not understand the significance of it. Only those who are educated in the art world can be a part of the art world. This will narrow the selection down. Art IS for everyone, but only those who are willing to open their minds and learn.
Do you agree with my opinions?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Do you believe that art can be willed to not be art?
This is a question which Josh asks in his blog on Goodman.
My opinion, art is art. Once something is declared a work of art by an artist then it should always be art. Definitions cannot be changed just because one person or a group of people do not consider something to be a work of art.
For instance, if someone thought John Cage's 4:33 was not art just because it does not produce sound that does not mean that it automatically is not art. Perhaps it isn't music as much as it is performing art in the eyes of viewers, but it certainly is art as declared by the artist.
My opinion, art is art. Once something is declared a work of art by an artist then it should always be art. Definitions cannot be changed just because one person or a group of people do not consider something to be a work of art.
For instance, if someone thought John Cage's 4:33 was not art just because it does not produce sound that does not mean that it automatically is not art. Perhaps it isn't music as much as it is performing art in the eyes of viewers, but it certainly is art as declared by the artist.
In Response to Christine
In Christine's blog about distraction something in particular caught my eye. She mentioned the word "frivolous". The word frivolous can define something which is overdone. If an actor overacts a monologue or a composer adds too many harmonies to a piece that could survive on less. Content is what art survives off of. Finding the correct balance is what separates a good artist from a not-so-good artist.
If an artist is distracted when creating a piece their art may not necessarily be frivolous, but on the other hand it may not have enough content. Christine also mentions that some people view Lady Gaga as "frivolous". That is certainly true, and Lady Gaga is not by any means "frivolous". People who view her as that cannot understand her art. Some artists are viewed as frivolous because the audience does not understand the need for everything the artist does.
If an artist is distracted when creating a piece their art may not necessarily be frivolous, but on the other hand it may not have enough content. Christine also mentions that some people view Lady Gaga as "frivolous". That is certainly true, and Lady Gaga is not by any means "frivolous". People who view her as that cannot understand her art. Some artists are viewed as frivolous because the audience does not understand the need for everything the artist does.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
I do not agree with what Hume says about beauty. My personal favorite work of art out of an entire museum is not necessarily the most beautiful work of art. Giving each piece the same thought and wiping out any prejudice against something on the piece which otherwise may appear as “unattractive” is the only true way to distinguish art works of quality, is something else Hume claims. I strongly agree that the only way to find the “best” work of art is to wipe out any prior prejudice against certain qualities of the piece as Hume says. I do not believe that only certain people have the ability to do this. Everyone, with the proper education and will power, is able to distinguish quality from amateur.
Any thoughts? Can anyone convince me otherwise?
Good Versus Bad
My question to everyone is, is it possible for pieces to be better than others?
My opinion: With the proper skill and training all artists are on the same level. Obviously a five year old's stick figure drawing will not match up to a painting by an artist who has been studying art for fifty years of his or her life. However, if two five year old children with the same artistic abilities both drew pictures, then one would not be any better than the other. Perhaps one child drew a piece which had flowers and the other child drew a cat. If the observer preferred cats then the observers taste would automatically favor the drawing of the cat, and it would appear as the "better" piece. It is all a matter of opinion and taste. Skill level is a completely different level all together. Skill can only exist with practice and dedication.
What are your thoughts?
My opinion: With the proper skill and training all artists are on the same level. Obviously a five year old's stick figure drawing will not match up to a painting by an artist who has been studying art for fifty years of his or her life. However, if two five year old children with the same artistic abilities both drew pictures, then one would not be any better than the other. Perhaps one child drew a piece which had flowers and the other child drew a cat. If the observer preferred cats then the observers taste would automatically favor the drawing of the cat, and it would appear as the "better" piece. It is all a matter of opinion and taste. Skill level is a completely different level all together. Skill can only exist with practice and dedication.
What are your thoughts?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Indefinable
Finally...
Finally I can agree, perhaps not completely, with a theory on what art is. Morris Weitz claims that 'the nature of art as a practice makes definition impossible'.
Why? Art is constantly evolving as a practice and until art is completely evolved we will not know how to define art. Can a practice fully evolve?
No, a practice can never completely evolve. As long as humanity is around to create and invent new, innovative art forms, art will never reach a point where nothing else exist beyond that point. Perhaps genres are more difficult to create than new mediums, but that will never stop art from evolving. As long as humanity exists, so will art.
Is art a philosophy or is philosophy an art?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Nature's Art
Can nature's art be seen as the most beautiful art in the world? This question was brought up by Josh in his last blog.
Yes, nature's art is the most beautiful "art" in the world, but I do not think it can be considered art. Waking up to see a sunrise over the mountains like I do everyday is certainly something which inspires an aesthetic emotion. Nature's art is not intended art though, and therefore, it isn't true visual art.
Nature can, however, be captured by an artist. Then and only then is it considered art. Whether it is a photographer or a musician capturing nature's art, it will always be art as long as it is intended.
For me, and many people nature is the most beautiful thing to stare at. It memorizes us with its shapes, lines, and colors. Though we must remember that art is not always beautiful.
Can art be as beautiful as nature?
Yes, nature's art is the most beautiful "art" in the world, but I do not think it can be considered art. Waking up to see a sunrise over the mountains like I do everyday is certainly something which inspires an aesthetic emotion. Nature's art is not intended art though, and therefore, it isn't true visual art.
Nature can, however, be captured by an artist. Then and only then is it considered art. Whether it is a photographer or a musician capturing nature's art, it will always be art as long as it is intended.
For me, and many people nature is the most beautiful thing to stare at. It memorizes us with its shapes, lines, and colors. Though we must remember that art is not always beautiful.
Can art be as beautiful as nature?
Monday, February 28, 2011
Animals and Art
Here is a question I found peculiar, "Can animals produce works of art?"
Of course not, I thought to myself, and I assumed that the majority of the class would agree with me on that topic. I was completely wrong. The class was torn on the topic of whether or not animals can produce art. The question in itself is ridiculous to me. How can a creature without a soul produce something which moves us in the same that a great work of art moves us?
Art needs to be created by something which has a soul. According to Dewey's beliefs art is what works. A bird builds a nest as its home because the nest will protect the bird. The nest "works". A bird uses its instincts to create something practical and livable. It does not intend for its nest to be viewed as art, even if the nest does have a certain beauty about it.
I do agree that animals can produce something aesthetically pleasing, but that does not mean it is art. If art was always what "worked" and was based off of our instincts we would not have art. We would always spend time thinking of practicality, we would build structures for our survival. Humans would be soul-less creatures. We may evolve from animals, but we are now worlds apart.
If humans were without a soul, would art exist? Do you agree or disagree with me?
Of course not, I thought to myself, and I assumed that the majority of the class would agree with me on that topic. I was completely wrong. The class was torn on the topic of whether or not animals can produce art. The question in itself is ridiculous to me. How can a creature without a soul produce something which moves us in the same that a great work of art moves us?
Art needs to be created by something which has a soul. According to Dewey's beliefs art is what works. A bird builds a nest as its home because the nest will protect the bird. The nest "works". A bird uses its instincts to create something practical and livable. It does not intend for its nest to be viewed as art, even if the nest does have a certain beauty about it.
I do agree that animals can produce something aesthetically pleasing, but that does not mean it is art. If art was always what "worked" and was based off of our instincts we would not have art. We would always spend time thinking of practicality, we would build structures for our survival. Humans would be soul-less creatures. We may evolve from animals, but we are now worlds apart.
If humans were without a soul, would art exist? Do you agree or disagree with me?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Disagreement with Clive Bell
I am almost offended that Bell has neglected to mention music and focuses purely on visual art. I believe that music has an even greater chance of producing aesthetic emotion within its listener. Music also has what Bell calls significant form, however instead of lines and colors music has patterns, dynamics, rhythms, harmonies… in order to create the aesthetic experience. This being said, I cannot agree with Bell’s interpretation. Art is far too diverse to have any similarities. I believe that yes, aesthetic emotion does exist in every work of art which is art, but every aesthetic emotion is different. By this time in our lives most of us have been exposed to the feeling of aesthetic on several occasions. These experiences happened both within the art world and outside of the art world. From personal experience and experiences described to me by others I have found that aesthetic emotion exist in different forms. Each work of art creates a new and incredible experience for the audience. After all, if the same emotion was derived from every piece, wouldn’t there only be one singular work of art known to humanity?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Response to Samantha
Could this include a return to the purity of the life of the solitary id? With just the id (as in childhood), there are no repercussions, no guilt, no inhibitions, no obligations; just ignorant bliss. Would art ( such as the literature described by Freud) then be a tool and a mean of obtaining this state of mind, purity, and ultimately happiness? Am I reading too far into this? What do YOU think?
Samantha's last question left me completely torn. During her last blog she mentions how the id is the most pure part of our being, and while I agree with her, I completely disagree. The id is the instinct which we initially act upon, it is what we are born with and what helps us to survive. Every living, breathing creature has an id. It is a state of no guilt or inhibitions, however I strongly believe it is not a state of purity. I would say our purest state lies within our super-ego, which is our conscience and steers us in the right direction by telling us right from wrong. Our id can easily lead us down the wrong path, and away from what is right. If we all acted on instinct this world would be far worse from what it already is.
I do agree that art is a tool in which leads us to a state of purity, but ultimate happiness? Art could also lead us to a state of temporary depression if we see an artwork depicting death or destruction.
I do not think you are reading too far into this, there is no such thing as "reading too far." There is always more to uncover within a piece of literature. There is always more knowledge behind what you already know.
Does the super ego truly help the artist to create?
Samantha's last question left me completely torn. During her last blog she mentions how the id is the most pure part of our being, and while I agree with her, I completely disagree. The id is the instinct which we initially act upon, it is what we are born with and what helps us to survive. Every living, breathing creature has an id. It is a state of no guilt or inhibitions, however I strongly believe it is not a state of purity. I would say our purest state lies within our super-ego, which is our conscience and steers us in the right direction by telling us right from wrong. Our id can easily lead us down the wrong path, and away from what is right. If we all acted on instinct this world would be far worse from what it already is.
I do agree that art is a tool in which leads us to a state of purity, but ultimate happiness? Art could also lead us to a state of temporary depression if we see an artwork depicting death or destruction.
I do not think you are reading too far into this, there is no such thing as "reading too far." There is always more to uncover within a piece of literature. There is always more knowledge behind what you already know.
Does the super ego truly help the artist to create?
Saturday, February 19, 2011
An Iceberg
This week in class we discussed an iceberg and how it relates to the human mind. When we see an iceberg floating in the water we can only see 10% of the iceberg. The other 90% of the iceberg is hidden underwater. However, we can see a small portion of the iceberg although it is underwater. About 15% of what the water is hiding is viewable if we look up close.
How does this relate to our minds? The part of the iceberg which is completely visible is called our conscious according to Freud. The part which is underwater, but still visible upon closer examination is our pre-conscious. The part which we cannot at all see is our unconscious. Our conscious is what is known to us and our unconscious mind is what is unknown to us. The pre-conscious is what can be accessed, but it is still difficult to access.
Artists are special in that they are able to access the unconscious unlike a normal person who can only access the unconscious through dreams. Why can only an artists do that? Can anyone who studies art do access the unconscious or do they have to be born with the ability to do so?
How does this relate to our minds? The part of the iceberg which is completely visible is called our conscious according to Freud. The part which is underwater, but still visible upon closer examination is our pre-conscious. The part which we cannot at all see is our unconscious. Our conscious is what is known to us and our unconscious mind is what is unknown to us. The pre-conscious is what can be accessed, but it is still difficult to access.
Artists are special in that they are able to access the unconscious unlike a normal person who can only access the unconscious through dreams. Why can only an artists do that? Can anyone who studies art do access the unconscious or do they have to be born with the ability to do so?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
If the artist does a "good" job and his artwork conveys a very strong emotion and message, however, the audience is unresponsive and doesn't feel this emotion, is the artwork considered a failure? This question was recently asked by Brycen on his blog.
I feel that Tolstoy lacks many details in his works which attempt to explain art. According to Tolstoy if an artist cannot successfully convey his or her emotion to the audience then the artist's creation is not art. As mentioned in my previous blog entry, I strongly disagree with Tolstoy's ideas. In history there have been several artists ahead of their times, who's work received little praise at the time and the audience seemed unresponsive to the emotion(s) the artist tried to convey. This is most likely the cause of art which does gain a response from an audience. The artist did his or her job well, however the audience most likely does not understand the art produced because the artist was brilliant enough to grasp at concepts ahead of his or her time. Someday, the art will produce a response.
I feel that Tolstoy lacks many details in his works which attempt to explain art. According to Tolstoy if an artist cannot successfully convey his or her emotion to the audience then the artist's creation is not art. As mentioned in my previous blog entry, I strongly disagree with Tolstoy's ideas. In history there have been several artists ahead of their times, who's work received little praise at the time and the audience seemed unresponsive to the emotion(s) the artist tried to convey. This is most likely the cause of art which does gain a response from an audience. The artist did his or her job well, however the audience most likely does not understand the art produced because the artist was brilliant enough to grasp at concepts ahead of his or her time. Someday, the art will produce a response.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Is Tolstoy wrong for saying something isn't art just because the viewer doesn't feel the intended emotion?
This question was recently raised by Sean in his last blog entry. I strongly believe that Tolstoy is wrong by saying something isn't art just because a viewer does not feel the emotion the artist originally intended. Work has always been mis-interpreted by the masses, but that certainly does not mean the work isn't art at all. This means that the audience has failed to recognize the meaning behind the art, not necessarily that the artist has failed to portray the correct emotion or message behind the piece. The intention for the piece will always be there, whether or not the audience can understand is a different question completely. If a piece isn't understood by an audience or individual it doesn't mean that the creativity and passion were not put into a work of art.
For centuries literature and works of art were misinterpreted by viewers and readers alike. Many artist intended certain themes, however readers or viewers found other themes as well. For instance, Earnest Hemingway intended his novel "The Old Man and the Sea" to be just a story and nothing more. He did not intend any sort of themes which readers have since found within its pages.
What is art which doesn't have any intended emotion?
This question was recently raised by Sean in his last blog entry. I strongly believe that Tolstoy is wrong by saying something isn't art just because a viewer does not feel the emotion the artist originally intended. Work has always been mis-interpreted by the masses, but that certainly does not mean the work isn't art at all. This means that the audience has failed to recognize the meaning behind the art, not necessarily that the artist has failed to portray the correct emotion or message behind the piece. The intention for the piece will always be there, whether or not the audience can understand is a different question completely. If a piece isn't understood by an audience or individual it doesn't mean that the creativity and passion were not put into a work of art.
For centuries literature and works of art were misinterpreted by viewers and readers alike. Many artist intended certain themes, however readers or viewers found other themes as well. For instance, Earnest Hemingway intended his novel "The Old Man and the Sea" to be just a story and nothing more. He did not intend any sort of themes which readers have since found within its pages.
What is art which doesn't have any intended emotion?
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Imitation or Interpretation?
One question raised by Chelsea was "Is art truly imitation or is it truly the artist's interpretation?"
According to Plato art is truly an imitation, however I strongly disagree with this. I believe that art is all based off of artist's interpretation. Saying that art is imitation is almost like saying that art is false and deceitful. True, some art may be meant to deceive, but for the most part art is a mirror of truth. Or the interpretation may fall somewhere in between, it all depends on what the original interpretation which the artists creates. An artist's interpretation will give the art more meaning then what Plato describes as an 'imitation of an imitation' or a false interpretation of nature. The interpretation can show viewers what art truly is to the artists.
What is art without imagination?
According to Plato art is truly an imitation, however I strongly disagree with this. I believe that art is all based off of artist's interpretation. Saying that art is imitation is almost like saying that art is false and deceitful. True, some art may be meant to deceive, but for the most part art is a mirror of truth. Or the interpretation may fall somewhere in between, it all depends on what the original interpretation which the artists creates. An artist's interpretation will give the art more meaning then what Plato describes as an 'imitation of an imitation' or a false interpretation of nature. The interpretation can show viewers what art truly is to the artists.
What is art without imagination?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
In Response to Kim's Question
If something is reproduced or even created by a machine would it be considered art?
In Kim's latest blog she raises this question. True, the art which is most prized in our society is the original art work. It is that way for a reason. When we look at a reproduced painting we aren't as impressed as we would be when looking at the original piece of art work in a museum. However, it is still art. Someone put in the thought and hard work or reproducing a piece so that we could admire and appreciate the art from our homes. Many will not have the opportunity to ever see the art up close. Even art created by a machine is still art, someone intended the art to be reproduced by the machine for the enjoyment of the public. If it wasn't for reproduced art many of us would never have the opportunity to see and appreciate art.
We also must consider the softwares we have for graphic design. A machine creates the art, but is it art? Yes, someone put in the intention and creativity. We also have technology in music allowing the world to hear symphonies they might not be able to hear otherwise. Though reproduced, it was still given the proper intention and creativity to be art.
Is technology a threat to art?
In Kim's latest blog she raises this question. True, the art which is most prized in our society is the original art work. It is that way for a reason. When we look at a reproduced painting we aren't as impressed as we would be when looking at the original piece of art work in a museum. However, it is still art. Someone put in the thought and hard work or reproducing a piece so that we could admire and appreciate the art from our homes. Many will not have the opportunity to ever see the art up close. Even art created by a machine is still art, someone intended the art to be reproduced by the machine for the enjoyment of the public. If it wasn't for reproduced art many of us would never have the opportunity to see and appreciate art.
We also must consider the softwares we have for graphic design. A machine creates the art, but is it art? Yes, someone put in the intention and creativity. We also have technology in music allowing the world to hear symphonies they might not be able to hear otherwise. Though reproduced, it was still given the proper intention and creativity to be art.
Is technology a threat to art?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Intended Art
In class yesterday we discussed the importance of "Intended Art".
In the conversation the blank canvas example from the introduction to "Nature of Art" and John Cage's 4:33 (a silent piece of music) were both brought up. Many people experiencing the pieces for the first time would not defend either of the pieces as works of art because anyone could create those pieces with minimal effort. However, because an artist put the thought into creating such a piece and intended it to be art, it is art. Perhaps a blank canvas is not visual art, or a silent song is not music, but rather both pieces can be considered a form of performance art.
To me the canvas would represent the beginnings of the creative process for an artist. A piece of pure, blank and inspiring white canvas.
4:33 is quite theatrical. The conductor moves slightly, but the entire orchestra remains motionless. The entire piece continues on this way until the end of four minutes and thirty three seconds.
No matter how simple or complex the art is, it will always be art because of the intentions of the artist who created the pieces.
Can something found in nature be considered art if picked up by a human and called art?
In the conversation the blank canvas example from the introduction to "Nature of Art" and John Cage's 4:33 (a silent piece of music) were both brought up. Many people experiencing the pieces for the first time would not defend either of the pieces as works of art because anyone could create those pieces with minimal effort. However, because an artist put the thought into creating such a piece and intended it to be art, it is art. Perhaps a blank canvas is not visual art, or a silent song is not music, but rather both pieces can be considered a form of performance art.
To me the canvas would represent the beginnings of the creative process for an artist. A piece of pure, blank and inspiring white canvas.
4:33 is quite theatrical. The conductor moves slightly, but the entire orchestra remains motionless. The entire piece continues on this way until the end of four minutes and thirty three seconds.
No matter how simple or complex the art is, it will always be art because of the intentions of the artist who created the pieces.
Can something found in nature be considered art if picked up by a human and called art?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
A Definition for Philosophy
For my first blog I decided to ask friends and classmates what their personal definition of philosophy is since I have had a difficult time coming up with a definition myself.
Q: What is your personal definition of philosophy?
A1: "The art of inquiry."
A2: "I do not think it can be defined."
A3: "A belief in which one can identify with according to their own code of ethics."
A4: "A set of personal beliefs that do not involve an omniscient maker."
A5: "A specific form of beliefs or principles."
A6: "The attempt to understand the workings of the world and why we are here."
A7: "The art of searching for knowledge about how to live life to the fullest."
A8: "What isn’t philosophy?"
A9: "Thought and search for basic definition."
A10: "The rational investigation of questions about existence, knowledge and ethics." (An internet definition I found which I agree with).
As a result of asking several people how they would personally define philosophy I have been able to come up with my own conclusion. Philosophy cannot be defined in one way. Every educated individual has their own definition; the definitions may be similar in idea, but different for everyone has a different opinion. With this being said, how should we go about studying philosophy if the word itself cannot be given a solid definition?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)