I don't know if I can do this. I've been thinking about it since we talked about it on Monday, and I'm really not sure I can define art. I realize I have another option, but I had already written a paragraph about how I define art prior to our class discussion. It seems reasonably true, but I'm worried it's too inclusive. I'm also worried that there are gaping holes in the logic that I can't or don't want to see. So I read my paragraph and think about modifying it, taking into consideration what we came up with on Monday, but I'm a little short on space, and anyway, I don't see anywhere in my paragraph that I could open up to more thoughts/information.
Question: Even if we have some of the pieces, some of the components that we can pretty much definitively say belong to art, is it better to just resist defining art?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
To define or not to define art
...That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the possibility of radical inclusion or exclusion, or to take arms against the impulse to define such a slippery topic...
I'm trying to make up my mind. I'd like to be able to say that I know exactly what art is now, but despite being better-informed, I feel that I'm not much more sure about the definition of art than I was when this class started. My opinions haven't actually changed very much.
Where do they differ? How have my thoughts about what makes art "art" evolved? For one thing, I'm less inclined to bring value judgments into a definition. Regardless of the level of mastery involved in creating a work, I can look at it and say whether or not it is art (whether or not I'm correct is another matter entirely). I do feel, even though I am still not entirely assured of my abilities to define art, that I have a better basis for judging a work. Now, when I look at a painting, I might think about childhood wishes being expressed, or intentionality, or even significant form. My thoughts on the definition of art lean more toward the mechanics of the craft, I suppose.
Do you choose to define art? How much of a choice is it?
Title/first paragraph paraphrased from Hamlet, Act III, Scene I.
I'm trying to make up my mind. I'd like to be able to say that I know exactly what art is now, but despite being better-informed, I feel that I'm not much more sure about the definition of art than I was when this class started. My opinions haven't actually changed very much.
Where do they differ? How have my thoughts about what makes art "art" evolved? For one thing, I'm less inclined to bring value judgments into a definition. Regardless of the level of mastery involved in creating a work, I can look at it and say whether or not it is art (whether or not I'm correct is another matter entirely). I do feel, even though I am still not entirely assured of my abilities to define art, that I have a better basis for judging a work. Now, when I look at a painting, I might think about childhood wishes being expressed, or intentionality, or even significant form. My thoughts on the definition of art lean more toward the mechanics of the craft, I suppose.
Do you choose to define art? How much of a choice is it?
Title/first paragraph paraphrased from Hamlet, Act III, Scene I.
What are we saying?
During the rehearsal process for The Taming of the Shrew, we were thinking a lot about the text and how we wanted to present it. Generally speaking, we played up the humor to the fullest extent, and tried to make our characters come across in what we were saying. Particular difficulties arose when we reached Kate's ending monologue. The director had a vision for the end of the show that was not explicitly supported by the text, but we went ahead with it anyway. Of the people I heard from after the shows, a few people understood the somewhat less simple ending we were trying to present, and a few were a bit angry because they did not understand. I can't, and don't, blame them.
This situation, however, puts me in mind of Collingwood's statement about art existing only in the imagination. The end result of the art was not what the cast presented onstage, because the process didn't stop there. The end result was in the minds of the director, the actors, and the audience. Depending on the person, the words sounded slightly different, the actions meant something slightly different. That was where the work of art was.
I am content to accept this, but I have to wonder: how well can we gauge the success of a work of art if it really exists in the mind?
This situation, however, puts me in mind of Collingwood's statement about art existing only in the imagination. The end result of the art was not what the cast presented onstage, because the process didn't stop there. The end result was in the minds of the director, the actors, and the audience. Depending on the person, the words sounded slightly different, the actions meant something slightly different. That was where the work of art was.
I am content to accept this, but I have to wonder: how well can we gauge the success of a work of art if it really exists in the mind?
Response to Andrea
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.
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.
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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)