Response to Blog- Bad art?

This is a response to Julia's blog in which she asks In your own opinion, what qualifies as “good” or “bad” art, and how does this compare to what others perceive as “good” or “bad” art?

As stated before I do not think that there is such thing as bad or good art. I believe whatever an artists does is there work and their work should be respected. I, however, have works of art that I do not understand or do not fit my taste, but I wouldn't call it bad art because that would be ignorant of me. Let's take the art of music. I would listen to anything that moves me in the right way. Country, pop, rhythm and blues, gospel (anything!except heavy metal). It isn't my position to say what is good or bad because one I am no expert in the arts and two it is a reflection of a feeling that the artist has. I do not listen to heavy metal or consider it my taste because I am not a loud person who likes loud music. I also am not a person who likes negativity or has had that much of a bad life. So I can't relate so therefore it isn't in my taste. I think people's tastes/ aesthetic feeling allows them to connect with a work of art and this is when the line between good and bad becomes visible. This is when people get confused and use terminology that isn't right. Instead of saying that a particular work of art isn't of their taste people say I hate it or this is bad. I think people can say that things aren't in their taste while still appreciating the work of art because it was made by someone and reflects their emotions. So to me and in my opinion there is no good or bad art.

Question: Can you say that you appreciate a work of art even though it isn't in your taste?

Art and Philosophy -The Conclusion

This will be my last blog for Art and Philosophy course. Actually, this is my second to last because after this blog I will do the last "In response to blog." I usually blog a week in advance for the next week, hence this concludes blogging for this course.

I must say that I am appreciative of the knowledge that I have gained through this course. I cannot say that we have gotten to the goal of defining exactly what art is; we have, however, listed and delved into conditions that are necessary for things to be noted as art. I must say that there are many theories that I disagree with, numerous theories that have made me think harder than I have ever thought before and then those theories that I agree with. I agree with theorists like Weiz and Piper when they pose the notions that they do. Theorists like Plato I must say that I am in the contrary about. Art is special, it is magical and it is a medium in which we communicate through. Art is a way to expiate our emotions and is necessary in society. If there was no art I think certain things would go unnoticed, certain emotions would go unexpressed. Without art there would be no escape from reality and we would just be miserable creatures. I myself, though not an artist, respect art and do sometimes escape my stressful life through the art of others. I liked this class and respect the notions of my peers and professor and will ever respect the beauty of the arts. With that said:

What did you receive from this class? Did your notions of art remain the same or change?

Response to Blog- Thanksgiving Ad

Response to Professor Johnson's blog. One thing I hate is when people try and force their views on me or others. It really pissed me off when I watched the commercial posted on professor Johnson's blog because they are taking a tradition and bashing it because of the view certain people hold. It is a person's choice whether or not they want to be vegan. If people want to eat meat fine, but don't go as far as saying what was said on the commercial. To be honest I do not blame NBC not to show it. It isn't a subtle commercial, it is really explicit. A lot of people want to say that the reason they won't show it is because people are hiding from the truth or don't want to hear what is really happening, but that isn't true. Everything, the way people live their lives, the morals they hold, the things they do, is all a result of choice and opinion and it is really wrong for another person to tell someone that what they do is wrong or bash it in anyway.

This can be connected to art. If I view something a particular way or hold a certain view about art or categories of art, let me hold them. Don't try and force your views on me, it isn't right! Don't tell me I don't know what art is due to hat I hold as art or what I don't. It is wrong and people just need to accept people for who they are and not trying to change them.

Question: What do you think of someone who forces their view on you?

Art Quotes

Every artist dips his brush in his own soul, and paints his own nature into his pictures. ~Henry Ward Beecher

Art is the only way to run away without leaving home. ~Twyla Tharp

I like these two quotes because they are very profound and the ways I view art as. I believe art is a medium and a function of some sort. As the second one implies, art is the only way to escape. The other day I was bored tired and frustrated; these are not good combinations. So I decided to write a poem and when I was done, WOW!! I felt better. It was an escape for me. A way for me to be taken away into another world even though I didn't leave my seat. I see this happen to other people. I know someone who loves to draw and paint. One day as she was drawing, I passed her and had a full conversation with her, or so I thought. When I finished talking to her she had just finished drawing and that's when she turned to me and said, "Hi Michelle, Just getting in?" I realized that though her physical presence was there she wasn't emotionally and mentally there. She was immersed in her work which took her to some place far better than she really was.

The first quote does indicate another view of mine that I hold about art. Art reflects the artist. Art always reflects the artist's mental state, emotional state relationship state, it always reflect SOMETHING about the artist. The artist has to have a drive and reason for doing something. This is why the artist paints his nature, his soul, his life on the pallet. The work of art is always reflecting something about the artists and that is why I agree with the quote. So with that said my question is posed below.

My question is: What do you think artists,past and present, would say about the theories of art?

Response to Blog- Popular

This is a response to Fay Bartow's blog in which she asks What art will become legendary in the future and what art will fade in popularity? I like this question because it illuminates the short attention span of humans. It is interesting to see how fast people get bored with things. Today I was speaking with a professor about a documentary I made and he was giving me constructive criticism. HE said "Michelle try and put some images throughout your program because the attention span of humans is 8 seconds long and then they get bored and stop paying attention." So I think this is interesting that this topic was brought up.

I feel that there is no particular art that can be deemed as legendary or any that will fade just because of the complexity of humans. People discover and experience things for the first time even though it may have been around for a while. For example, I just ate fluff for the first time in my life last month. To my knowledge fluff has been around for a long time, but I just got a chance to experience it. To me I am now eating fluff in excess because this is something that is new to me and something that I enjoy. In about two weeks I will be annoyed by fluff and for me it will fade into the background and then reappear in my life some three months later. I know art isn't like fluff but I am just trying to get across a point. I feel like the way people work is that they discover something then they take it in excess then they get tired of it and then they miss it so once again they take it in excess and on and on and on. So to answer the question I really don't think that there are any types of artwork that will fade or be deemed as legendary due to this condition that humans have and because basically everything humans do is based on taste and opinion.
Can you relate to this? In other words have you ever had something (or maybe even someone) that you experienced (or met) for the first time, had it in excess then go t tiered of it then missed it then had it in excess again and on and on?

Master of the Artworld

The more I think about Danto's Artworld theory the more I go back and forth as to whether or not I agree with it. At times I understand and commend the concept, but then at other times I find myself criticizing it. Lets take a look at both sides of the argument that I have conflicting views of.

I find myself being critical of the concept for the fact that no one could be a complete master at things, especially art. Art theory is an ever changing topic. It changes based on a new form, category, expression, property etc. So no one could know everything about art due to it being so ambiguous. I then find myself on the other side of the spectrum when I am needed to be more logical. Like I said before no one can know everything about anything. It is natural, life is ever changing. But, Danto never exactly did imply that a member of the artworld has t know down to every single detail of things. He said that they should know the subject and the history behind it. When we look at doctors, lawyers, teachers and any profession out there, they are members of the artoworld in the institution that they work in, however they get by by just knowing the basics and by constantly being informed about the changes in their subject.

I believe that what Danto was trying to get across is that we at least need a background. A person who has never seen opera before and attended their first one can't be a critic of opera. They don't know the components of opera, nor do they know what to base it off of. Up to a point we are all members of an artworld. For example, I am being taught how to make films/documentaries/movies. Up to a point I am a member of the artworld of the communications institution because I have basic knowledge of how the topic functions. It does depend on how you look at Danto's claim and how you process it.

My question is, Are their hierarchies in the artworld? Up to a certain point I know things about a particular topic, but I am being taught by someone who knows more than me; some one ho has been in the the artworld longer and know more history behind it as is the same with his teacher before him. So contemplate that question and blog if you'd like.

Response to Blog- Weiz

This is a response to Shelby G.'s blog in which she poses the question:" What do you think about Weitz's view that there are no necessary and sufficient attributes of art, but you can recognize it when you see it? ...That, *this*, *this*, *this*, and 'similar things' are art? Is this a satisfactory explanation for you?"

I must say that I understand the stance that Weiz takes. Especially after giving the example of games. There are many type of games and many ways to play games making each game different from the other. However, though this is true, there is a linking characteristic that each of them has that enables them to go under the category game. If I say to you I like games, hundreds of types of things that share a particular characteristic under the category of game floods your mind. The statement I say to you is less general than the statement I like to do things, but more general than the statement I love to play card games. It starts out as I big bubble I feel (what Weiz is trying to get to us); first there is the subject of hobbies and attached to hobbies are millions of things people can do as a hobby, one being games. Then in the bubble of games you have the hundreds of different types of games and in their separate bubbles, card games for example, you would have poker, go fish, uno, bullsh**, etc. So to understand this in terms of art, I feel Weiz does a great job of getting his point across. He makes sense and for this to be a theory I feel that is satisfactory. With that said,
Would there ever be an end to art theory?