This question was posed by Natalie Pozzetti.
Personally, I think that all art conveys some sort of emotion. The artist may or may not intend to instill a specific emotion in those experiencing the art, but all real art stems from emotion. Say for example that I created an abstract painting, consisting of swirling, curving lines in various shades of green. When I painted this, I was feeling refreshed, although I want to know what others get out of it. Someone looking at the painting might feel a sense of curiosity. Someone else might see hope. Although I created the painting while feeling "refreshed," I didn't necessarily want everyone who looked at the painting to feel the same way. I think it's okay to make art that is open to interpretation.
Question: What do you think about the role of religious art?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Catharsis
Tolstoy defines art as something born from an artist's recalling an emotion, which communicates that emotion to a second party. Sometimes a second party looks at/listens to/watches/etc. art in order to feel an emotion other than the one she is feeling. For example, she might watch a funny movie to cheer herself up. But sometimes, "improving" a mood by not allowing a "bad mood" to exist doesn't work. Sometimes you just need to feel whatever it is you're feeling.
I'm a big believer in catharsis, and art's role in the process. Some people might say that I like to wallow in sadness, but that's not all there is to it. People are able to feel a terrible, beautiful, wide range of emotion, so why should we try to pretend otherwise? I'm not saying I'm going to go around crying at people whenever I'm having a bad day, but if I'm sad, I want to be able to sit somewhere quiet and listen to sad music. I've heard that sad music helps someone who's feeling sad because someone (the musician) has it worse off (and maybe for some what really helps is schadenfreude), but I think that the key is the ability to relate to another human being on an emotional level.
This is a favorite song of mine (and the video is rather nice, too):
What emotion(s) do you get from it?
Video: "Samson" by Regina Spektor, from Youtube
I'm a big believer in catharsis, and art's role in the process. Some people might say that I like to wallow in sadness, but that's not all there is to it. People are able to feel a terrible, beautiful, wide range of emotion, so why should we try to pretend otherwise? I'm not saying I'm going to go around crying at people whenever I'm having a bad day, but if I'm sad, I want to be able to sit somewhere quiet and listen to sad music. I've heard that sad music helps someone who's feeling sad because someone (the musician) has it worse off (and maybe for some what really helps is schadenfreude), but I think that the key is the ability to relate to another human being on an emotional level.
This is a favorite song of mine (and the video is rather nice, too):
What emotion(s) do you get from it?
Video: "Samson" by Regina Spektor, from Youtube
Monday, February 7, 2011
Art as Propaganda
This was mentioned in our last class, and I thought it would make a good blog topic.
What goes into the making of propagandized art? What makes this:
.jpg)
like this:
and this:
Although the first poster is about enlisting in the U.S. Army, the second is about factory jobs for women, and the third is about voting for the President, these all have the same general aim: to persuade. Propaganda posters are plain-spoken because they have an agenda, and there should be no confusion as to what the artist (or whoever is in charge of the image) wants you to do.
Propaganda art has the same general style of bold images and simple color schemes. Poster #1 employs a blue-black color scheme for the main image with hints of yellow for a forboding tone in its demonization of Germany. The orange letters almost come off the page. Poster #2 makes use of primary colors and the image of a strong woman. The sentence "We Can Do It" is vague and empowering, encouraging women to take (dangerous) factory jobs. The third is obviously more modern, but it sticks to the retro style of earlier propaganda posters. The Americana theme is bold but softened by the use of ecru instead of white, modern but still sticking to the "traditional values" of the U.S. Obama's solemn face over the, again, vaguely encouraging "Change" makes it seem as though the then-candidate is looking toward a better future.
These posters are effective in achieving their goals, but are they really art?
Poster sources: http://www.gwennseemel.com/index.php/blog/comments/propaganda/
http://www.smartshanghai.com/blog/712/Propaganda_Posters_Are_Art_Again_shanghai
What goes into the making of propagandized art? What makes this:
like this:
and this:
Although the first poster is about enlisting in the U.S. Army, the second is about factory jobs for women, and the third is about voting for the President, these all have the same general aim: to persuade. Propaganda posters are plain-spoken because they have an agenda, and there should be no confusion as to what the artist (or whoever is in charge of the image) wants you to do.
Propaganda art has the same general style of bold images and simple color schemes. Poster #1 employs a blue-black color scheme for the main image with hints of yellow for a forboding tone in its demonization of Germany. The orange letters almost come off the page. Poster #2 makes use of primary colors and the image of a strong woman. The sentence "We Can Do It" is vague and empowering, encouraging women to take (dangerous) factory jobs. The third is obviously more modern, but it sticks to the retro style of earlier propaganda posters. The Americana theme is bold but softened by the use of ecru instead of white, modern but still sticking to the "traditional values" of the U.S. Obama's solemn face over the, again, vaguely encouraging "Change" makes it seem as though the then-candidate is looking toward a better future.
These posters are effective in achieving their goals, but are they really art?
Poster sources: http://www.gwennseemel.com/index.php/blog/comments/propaganda/
http://www.smartshanghai.com/blog/712/Propaganda_Posters_Are_Art_Again_shanghai
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Wheels and Other Inventions
The topic of this post comes from a question posed by Brycen Waters: "What about objects that were the first of their kind to be created, for example the wheel? How do they follow the same logic as through the Platonic metaphysics of the imitation of an imitation?"
First, by Plato's logic, everything that has ever existed, now exists, and will ever exist is an imitation of a Form. So in the Realm of Forms--or Ideas--there is the Form or essence of a wheel, a radio, a polygraph, a roller skate, a school, a tennis ball, etc. I think Plato thought of the Realm of Forms as constantly accessible, and the Forms in it were/are (for any modern-day Platonists) fair game as models of any and all new inventions.
Following this logic, assume that the Realm of Forms contains the Form of a roller skate, an invention not around in Plato's day. The inventor of the roller skate (who About.com simply gives as "an unknown Dutchman") drew on that Form and imitated it. An artist could then imitate the roller skate as it exists in the material world, resulting in an imitation of an imitation.
However, that artist might also be able to directly imitate the Form of a roller skate, which is where Plato's definition of art might not entirely hold up.
Question: Even if an artist models his creation on the Form of an object, is that creation still equal to something made for its function rather than for its form (lowercase "f")?
Info on roller skates found at: http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinventions/a/rolle_skates.htm
First, by Plato's logic, everything that has ever existed, now exists, and will ever exist is an imitation of a Form. So in the Realm of Forms--or Ideas--there is the Form or essence of a wheel, a radio, a polygraph, a roller skate, a school, a tennis ball, etc. I think Plato thought of the Realm of Forms as constantly accessible, and the Forms in it were/are (for any modern-day Platonists) fair game as models of any and all new inventions.
Following this logic, assume that the Realm of Forms contains the Form of a roller skate, an invention not around in Plato's day. The inventor of the roller skate (who About.com simply gives as "an unknown Dutchman") drew on that Form and imitated it. An artist could then imitate the roller skate as it exists in the material world, resulting in an imitation of an imitation.
However, that artist might also be able to directly imitate the Form of a roller skate, which is where Plato's definition of art might not entirely hold up.
Question: Even if an artist models his creation on the Form of an object, is that creation still equal to something made for its function rather than for its form (lowercase "f")?
Info on roller skates found at: http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinventions/a/rolle_skates.htm
Why are we on such a mission to define art?
The topic of this post comes from Andrea Whitney's blog.
There are several ways I could answer this question, not all of them entirely serious. Just to get it out of my system, a sarcastic answer: "Because we are academic snobs." And another: "Because we have nothing better to do than crush fake artists' hopes and dreams" (no, humor was not my intent, I'm just terribly immature sometimes).
Now, on the more serious side, I think we feel the need to define art in part because we are hungry for both standards and truth. So many things today are carelessly classified as art, and surely not all of it can fit into this category. Sometimes the label "art" is given as a matter of convenience. If you wanted to encompass drawings, paintings, music, poetry, and fiction (just a short list) under one label, chances are you would classify it as art. But is all of it really art? Maybe the two paintings in my previous post belong to the same category, but what about a child's stick figure drawing? What about ancient pottery created for function more than form, sitting behind glass in art museums? What about photomanipulation? Where do we draw the line between art and non-art? Shouldn't there be a line somewhere?
Even apart from having some sort of cut-off point that separates art from non-art, we want to know where that point is (at least, I do). I want this knowledge for selfish reasons: I want to be respected in the art world, I want to look like I know what I'm talking about, and I want to know for my own peace of mind. Having a question like this posed, and being unable to answer it, is maddening. I think as humans (although maybe this isn't the right class to discuss it) we want to know the truth, even if we don't always tell the truth. I think we feel the need to learn and grow and know more than we did yesterday, and this is one more thing for us to ponder.
My question: going back to an earlier point in this post, where does photomanipulation fit into art, if at all?
There are several ways I could answer this question, not all of them entirely serious. Just to get it out of my system, a sarcastic answer: "Because we are academic snobs." And another: "Because we have nothing better to do than crush fake artists' hopes and dreams" (no, humor was not my intent, I'm just terribly immature sometimes).
Now, on the more serious side, I think we feel the need to define art in part because we are hungry for both standards and truth. So many things today are carelessly classified as art, and surely not all of it can fit into this category. Sometimes the label "art" is given as a matter of convenience. If you wanted to encompass drawings, paintings, music, poetry, and fiction (just a short list) under one label, chances are you would classify it as art. But is all of it really art? Maybe the two paintings in my previous post belong to the same category, but what about a child's stick figure drawing? What about ancient pottery created for function more than form, sitting behind glass in art museums? What about photomanipulation? Where do we draw the line between art and non-art? Shouldn't there be a line somewhere?
Even apart from having some sort of cut-off point that separates art from non-art, we want to know where that point is (at least, I do). I want this knowledge for selfish reasons: I want to be respected in the art world, I want to look like I know what I'm talking about, and I want to know for my own peace of mind. Having a question like this posed, and being unable to answer it, is maddening. I think as humans (although maybe this isn't the right class to discuss it) we want to know the truth, even if we don't always tell the truth. I think we feel the need to learn and grow and know more than we did yesterday, and this is one more thing for us to ponder.
My question: going back to an earlier point in this post, where does photomanipulation fit into art, if at all?
Is art a thing of the past?
In one of the sections of the introduction to the textbook, Wartenberg asks, "Is Contemporary Art Still Art?" He goes on to quote the character Marc from the Yasmina Reza play, Art, who speaks of contemporary art's rules of "novelty" and "surprise." True, not every painting done today is in the contemporary style, which does not seem to represent anything more solid than a thought or emotion. Perhaps my title is unnecessarily sensational (sorry).
For example, look at this Caravaggio painting, The Conversion of St. Paul.
And then, this painting by Steven Stone, Marea:
The first image obviously depicts a scene, complete with three-dimensional perspective and dramatic areas of light and shadow. The second is rather abstract--colorful and comprised of shapes and lines reminiscent of a collage, but the subject is not clear. Does the Caravaggio qualify as art more so than the Steven Stone painting (or vice versa)?
This brings me to my question: What kind of role does representation play in the classification of art?
Images: http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/figures/st-paul.jpg
http://tedmikulski.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/1_front.jpg
For example, look at this Caravaggio painting, The Conversion of St. Paul.
The first image obviously depicts a scene, complete with three-dimensional perspective and dramatic areas of light and shadow. The second is rather abstract--colorful and comprised of shapes and lines reminiscent of a collage, but the subject is not clear. Does the Caravaggio qualify as art more so than the Steven Stone painting (or vice versa)?
This brings me to my question: What kind of role does representation play in the classification of art?
Images: http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/figures/st-paul.jpg
http://tedmikulski.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/1_front.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)