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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.