Andrea Whitney asked: "Why do we insist on trying to say art is good or bad?"
Well, I think as with anything, we want to try to uphold standards. It is the same with food. If you're hungry (and in college), a McDonald's burger or Kraft Mac & Cheese can serve as a meal. It might not even taste unpleasant. But neither compares in taste or nutrition to, say, a salad and home-cooked chili. The former two are indeed food, and depending on your definition, may or may not be bad. They are, however, pretty much at the other end of the spectrum from the latter two. This is a personal judgment of quality. As food feeds our bodies, art can feed our minds, and we should be able to recognize good art and bad art, even if others don't agree with our opinions on the matter. Just because something qualifies as art, doesn't mean we should stop thinking about and questioning its quality.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
"Yesterday it was a six million dollar work of art, today it's a piece of junk!"
-Bones
Yes, I have been watching Bones, and I am currently watching an episode in which a body was found in a crushed car sculpture (constructed by putting the car through a compactor). The scientists are temporarily forbidden from taking the sculpture apart to examine the remains, on the grounds that the sculpture is "an historic piece of art." I found this interesting, considering the nature of this class. This episode also raises the question of what qualifies an object as art. The director of the studio in which the other, similarly constructed car sculptures are displayed requested the injunction; she is a "member of the artworld" and therefore "qualified" to confer the status of art on an object. In this case, the intention of the artist, the director, and the people who came to see the artist's sculptures determined that the "sculptures" were indeed art. Apart from being an episode of a crime show, this was also a commentary on what makes art, art.
-Bones
Yes, I have been watching Bones, and I am currently watching an episode in which a body was found in a crushed car sculpture (constructed by putting the car through a compactor). The scientists are temporarily forbidden from taking the sculpture apart to examine the remains, on the grounds that the sculpture is "an historic piece of art." I found this interesting, considering the nature of this class. This episode also raises the question of what qualifies an object as art. The director of the studio in which the other, similarly constructed car sculptures are displayed requested the injunction; she is a "member of the artworld" and therefore "qualified" to confer the status of art on an object. In this case, the intention of the artist, the director, and the people who came to see the artist's sculptures determined that the "sculptures" were indeed art. Apart from being an episode of a crime show, this was also a commentary on what makes art, art.
Enigma
My freshman year, I went to the welcome fair and got one of those free trucker caps. I chose the word "Enigma" to be airbrushed on the front. Whenever I wore it, there was always someone who would point to my hat and say "That's so me." At first I got annoyed--why couldn't I just wear my hat in peace? But I suppose it is natural for people to want others to know that there is more to them than meets the eye. It also ties into Adrian Piper's writing and our class discussion today. Piper believes that performance art is more unique and valuable than other art forms because it is the only art form that actively involves people, who are each mysterious and unique individuals. There will always be another layer to the art that observers cannot see, because there is always another layer to people that no one can see.
Does this not apply to other art forms as well? Why or why not?
Does this not apply to other art forms as well? Why or why not?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Theatre is...
The director of the play I was in told us something that I thought was interesting/important to this class. Before our last show, she said "Theatre is the only living, breathing art form." This is getting specific--performance of any kind really falls under this umbrella. But I think that that's true. You can set down a painting or a poem and it's still art, whether or not you're doing anything with it. You can compose a symphony, or write a play, and it will be there as long as the paper it is printed on is not destroyed. But acting and playing an instrument require your breath, your body, your mind. These are forms of art that cannot live on their own--they need someone to actively participate.
Are there other art forms that could be described as "living" or "breathing?"
Are there other art forms that could be described as "living" or "breathing?"
Answer to Brycen's Question
Brycen asked: "If art has such a deep meaning, how can some people look at a painting and know exactly what it is trying to convey?"
My first reaction is, do they really know, or do they just think they do? It might seem perfectly clear to someone what a painting or other work of art signifies, but they might just be projecting their own feelings and experiences onto the work. On the other hand, they might recognize the symbols being used by the artist and actually understand the work. Of course, the exact wording of the question changes the answer. I'm not sure it's possible to know exactly what the artist was trying to convey unless the observer knows the artist and what he or she was thinking at the time the art was created.
My first reaction is, do they really know, or do they just think they do? It might seem perfectly clear to someone what a painting or other work of art signifies, but they might just be projecting their own feelings and experiences onto the work. On the other hand, they might recognize the symbols being used by the artist and actually understand the work. Of course, the exact wording of the question changes the answer. I'm not sure it's possible to know exactly what the artist was trying to convey unless the observer knows the artist and what he or she was thinking at the time the art was created.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Response to Gina: Journey or Final Destination?
Gina asked, "Is art about the journey more than the final destination?" I think the answer to this depends on who is being asked.
Ask the actor, and she will say that it is about both, but more about the journey. She works for weeks/months delving into the depths of a character's psyche, reading and rereading the play, picking apart her character's lines, determining her motivations, exploring nuances of tone and gesture. Ask the choreographer, and he will give a similar answer. Every movement he invents or selects is carefully chosen to express a song, theme, story or emotion. Ask the author and she will tell you about the revision process. Ask the director and he may tell you about the scenes on the cutting room floor. Ask the visual artist and she will talk about all of the initial ideas that led to her masterpiece. The process is often carried out with an end result in mind, but the process itself is the important part.
Ask the observer, and he will tell you that the final destination, the finished product, is the only thing of importance that he can see.
None of them are wrong (though I might be).
Ask the actor, and she will say that it is about both, but more about the journey. She works for weeks/months delving into the depths of a character's psyche, reading and rereading the play, picking apart her character's lines, determining her motivations, exploring nuances of tone and gesture. Ask the choreographer, and he will give a similar answer. Every movement he invents or selects is carefully chosen to express a song, theme, story or emotion. Ask the author and she will tell you about the revision process. Ask the director and he may tell you about the scenes on the cutting room floor. Ask the visual artist and she will talk about all of the initial ideas that led to her masterpiece. The process is often carried out with an end result in mind, but the process itself is the important part.
Ask the observer, and he will tell you that the final destination, the finished product, is the only thing of importance that he can see.
None of them are wrong (though I might be).
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Response to Samantha: Limits of Perception
In her last blog entry, Samantha Chase asks several intriguing questions.
"Does every piece of art have the ability to elicit many perceptions based on the viewer?"
I would say yes. Whether a piece of art is classical or modern and abstract, there are aspects and hints that can mean different things to different people. Whether or not the artist intended to elicit these various perceptions in her audience doesn't matter; people are individuals who think subjectively as well as objectively and it is entirely possible for us to arrive at different conclusions regarding part or all of a piece of art.
"Can art encompass multiple qualities, some of which can only be seen by the 'educated,' 'experienced,' or perceptually aware?"
Again, I think the answer is yes, depending on how complex the artist intended the end result to be, as well as what was going on the artist's life/mind at the time the art was being produced. In the case of intended complexity, there can be symbolism that is seen and recognized by the general public as well as the elite. More complex symbolism may be more likely to be interpreted correctly by the educated. In the case of unintended qualities in a piece of art, these may be recognized by anyone who relates to the artist's state of mind or is going through a situation similar to the one in which the artist was involved.
"Is the is of artistic identification a set point? Or is it what it is to who is experiencing it?"
I would say that it is a set point; that's what we're trying to get at in this class, isn't it? A set definition of art, a way to say, "That, regardless of whether or not I like it or what I perceive in it, is art?" But I think there will always be ways of interpreting or looking at a piece of art, other than the one accepted by "the artworld."
Which brings me to a question of my own: Who makes up the artworld?
"Does every piece of art have the ability to elicit many perceptions based on the viewer?"
I would say yes. Whether a piece of art is classical or modern and abstract, there are aspects and hints that can mean different things to different people. Whether or not the artist intended to elicit these various perceptions in her audience doesn't matter; people are individuals who think subjectively as well as objectively and it is entirely possible for us to arrive at different conclusions regarding part or all of a piece of art.
"Can art encompass multiple qualities, some of which can only be seen by the 'educated,' 'experienced,' or perceptually aware?"
Again, I think the answer is yes, depending on how complex the artist intended the end result to be, as well as what was going on the artist's life/mind at the time the art was being produced. In the case of intended complexity, there can be symbolism that is seen and recognized by the general public as well as the elite. More complex symbolism may be more likely to be interpreted correctly by the educated. In the case of unintended qualities in a piece of art, these may be recognized by anyone who relates to the artist's state of mind or is going through a situation similar to the one in which the artist was involved.
"Is the is of artistic identification a set point? Or is it what it is to who is experiencing it?"
I would say that it is a set point; that's what we're trying to get at in this class, isn't it? A set definition of art, a way to say, "That, regardless of whether or not I like it or what I perceive in it, is art?" But I think there will always be ways of interpreting or looking at a piece of art, other than the one accepted by "the artworld."
Which brings me to a question of my own: Who makes up the artworld?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)