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?

The Art of our Ancestors.

"Our ancestors must have also grown of just pointing and getting excited looks on their faces. They wanted to communicate in more specific ways. So next in the process was the drawing of pictures. Whether people had great artistic talent or not, the learned that they could send a precise message with a more precise meaning by sketching drawings on the ground or on the cave walls." - Taken from Positive Words, Powerful Results by Hal Urban.
OK so as usual I was reading a book for my power of words class, and I was excited to come across this sentence. All this time we were talking about art being a medium in which emotions are communicated, however the sentences above say otherwise. In the book it talks about the origin of language and that the first type of language that there was, was body language. Before verbal language our ancestors use to point and grunt at things. They use to get their messages across with facial expression and gestures. As time went on,however, they realized that things could be more sufficient by drawing. Art started so far back, however, it seems that we don't give the art our ancestors much credit and I don't know if we should. Art to them was more than sacred it was the easiest and most meaningful way to get across information. Today critics treat art as a physical thing, however to our ancestors it was a vital way of life. It was the factor between life and death, between getting food and starving etc. I saw that we shouldn't give ancestral art credit just because of the way we treat art today. We pick at it trying to decipher it not accepting it for what it is; unlike our ancestors who accepted it for what it was, a communication tool. Art is a big part of why we have language today, however we don't understand that. We don't look at road signs as a particular kind of art just because of the theories out there, however they would be considered art to our ancestors. They created art, the Egyptians expanded on it and then words and vocabulary was created. Why can't we look at art the way our ancestors looked at it as a communication device (not only emotional communication, but communication of ideas)? Why must we impose these requirements for art? Why can't anything that communicate an idea be considered art?

Response to Blog- Necessary Connection

Response to Pro. Johnson Blog.
Recently in my Power of Words class I have studied the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which is Latin for followed after therefore caused by fallacy. Many of us believe this and are subjected to be fooled by it. Just because event b followed event a then event a must have caused event b. This is why superstitions arise, one day someone broke a mirror and there lives were miserable for seven years, therefore breaking a mirror means that seven years of bad luck will follow.
In his blog, Pro. Johnson introduces a quote by Hume which illustrates this same concept. Hume doesn't believe that things are connected just because they follow each other. He says that "all events seem entirely loose and never separate" this part makes me question theories of art. We have been studying what art is and basically all theorists have been trying to connect it to something. Art is connected to emotion, it is connected to life, it is connected to nature. I think it is human nature to try and see the connection between things. It is this constant looking for the cause of something, constant searching for why things happen, and therefore when things happen close together, to soothe our curiosity we have to say that event A caused event B which made event C happen. So this idea that things are separate and that previous events don't cause present ones to happen is a really profound and hard thing to accept. So my question is, what would Hume say about art and connecting it to something else such as feeling or nature?

A Way of Life.

"Art is not a thing, It is a way." This is a quote by Elbert Hubbard but it is a view held by many. There are those that think art is a physical thing, that it is objective and has no true essence beyond the senses. However, there are those like me, who believe art is something more than what is seen or what can physically be held. Art isn't a painting on a wall in a museum. It isn't placed on a stage for entertainment, and it isn't just a piece of marble sculpted into the likeness of something. Art is deeper, it is a feeling. It is an emotion that is unexplained, unknown until felt, and as we have studied before it is something indescribable.

Have you ever seen a dancer dance? A sculptor sculpt? Even a mathematician do math? Have you seen the look on their face the concentration the feeling illuminating from their very being? It is a nonverbal experience that if tried to be verbalized wouldn't even get across have of the experience. I believe that for some art is a way of life. Think of something you really really love, wouldn't you say it is apart of you? My religion and my faith is something I hold dear to me, something that I would never part with under any circumstances regardless of some slip ups and mishaps I may have. To me that is my art , that is my way of life, that is my indescribable feeling. To the musician music is their way of life, to the doctor saving lives is their way of life. So, what is your way of life? What is your art?

Response to Blog- Language and Art

This is a response to Stphanie Carone's blog. With a world devoid of art, would language have developed? Wow! This question is just wow. The depth of this question is inconceivable. I don' think there is a right or wrong answer to this, the answer can just be on the basis of opinion (maybe a class should be based off of this also). I believe that in order to answer this, one must answer the question can language be looked at as a form of art? (as Stephanie implied) I believe that language is an art and however it is a particular type of art. I feel like art can be divided into two main categories, communicative verbal art and communicative aesthetic (non-verbal) art. With the communicative verbal form this deals with higher order cognition. Talking through words is when this art is used, when we want to communicate to others an idea of how we feel or what logic we hold. Notice that I said idea, because due to levels of abstraction you can't really communicate verbally how you feel to a person, verbally you communicate a summation of how you feel and this is how language can be deemed as an art. On the other hand, we have the art we have been talking about in class dance, poetry, music, painting, sculpting, etc. Through this form of nonverbal communicating we communicate not on the cognitive level but on an emotional level, from the heart. (Although many say I love you with all my heart is the wrong expression and I love you with all my brain is the right one). There lies the difference in the two forms I believe art is broken into.
Now to answer the question, I believe that language began with characters and drawings. Language began on the non-verbal level and was placed into the latter category of art that I explained. However, as time evolved and as humans decided that they needed complexity in their lives they put sounds to the characters of art, and then developed words, and then phrases, then sentence structure then paragraphs then Boom! we have verbal language. So I believe my answer to the question will be no. Without art, there would be no language. My question to you may seem trivial but it is interesting, Do you think that primitive art was better or is contemporary more appealing? Is simplicity better?

My incite on a quote about art.

I came across this quote which I found to be really interesting. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "In art the hand can never execute anything higher than the heart can inspire." I believe this is true. I believe this because when it comes to art, it comes not from the outside world, nor from the mind, but it comes from the emotions, the heart. Yea! Sure art is inspired from what we see from the outside world and it does consist of processing on the cognitive level, but unless your emotions are truly in tune with what you are creating then what is the sense of creating? If the enjoyment isn't in what you are creating and you are just doing because you have to or you feel like you have to, then I feel like even though that still may be art, that is cheating. Think about it like this, if you have a rock and you love the rock with all that you have, wouldn't you care for it, tend to it never leave it? This is because you love and care about it with your all and you invest time in it because you want to. No lets think about it in this perspective, you are given a rock and are told to care for it, even though you don't want to you do it anyway, however you do it with little effort, with little enthusiasm and without devoting as much time and care into it as you would if you truly wanted to. The rock is art and you the caregiver are the artist and unless you care about the thing you are doing and truly do it from the heart it won't mean much. In art your hands, your feet, your body, what ever medium you use to create your work of art it can never be higher than what your heart wants it to be , because art is where the heart is. So with that said, what does the quote above by Emerson mean to you?

Response to blog: Experience

This is a response to Gloria's blog. She asks does one really need a life-changing experience to figure out that nothing is as you thought? Can it not come by simply paying attention and learning?
Humans are complex beings, we see someone slip and fall in front of us, however we take the same path thinking that we are immune to the same fate. A person has the choice of paying attention and learning from their environment and the people around them, however humans have the "That can't happen to me attitude," or "How will I know if I don't try, everyone is different" complex. I feel though this isn't a bad thing because if you don't take risks and try things then you would end up no where in life and just living a life of regret and boredom, it can have a negative effect also. I do believe that life isn't the same for everyone, but with some things, obvious things I feel we should pay attention and not try to have a "Life changing experience" with certain things. However, pertaining to art I feel that if one artists paints something and it isn't deemed successful in the eyes of the public, that another artist should paint the same thing, because when this artist paints (and taking into consideration that no two art works are the same) he may be successful (or not). This also brings up wanting something so bad that you would do anything to get it. You see something and though it has been something that other people have tried to get but failed in getting, you yourself want to try, just for the fact of saying "I tried, I failed, but now I know." By trying something or going through something one gets an unspoken satisfaction and unspoken sense of ease because they aren't haunted by the thoughts of thinking maybe they could have succeed. Just sitting on the sidelines and watching gets a person nowhere. I think that from not learning from experience, is why we have so many successful artists today. That is why we have so many inventions and so many things available to us, because a person didn't just sit and say "Hey this couldn't happen so I won't even try." Even if hings didn't happen as they thought they tried and failed which makes room for more trial and error which will eventually lead to success.
While doing research for another class I came across the phrase, "Mother Natures Paintbrush." What do you think this means?

Art as undefinable

I must say that after reading Weiz I can be content with the rest of the theories we discuss in class. After reading his chapter, I now share his view about art theory. As stated before, I hated art theory because I always thought what gave someone the right to say if your work of art doesn't consist of this then it isn't a work of art. Theories that we visited before implied that art is only art when it had a particular component raised by the theorist, however what Weiz presents is the best argument yet. He basically implies that trying to define art through theory is pointless, and it is. He doesn't reject art theory all together but just puts out there that art is too broad to define. I will always hold my view that anything can be art. If the person who made it deems it as art then it is art. I feel the observer does play a role in it, but who cares how critical of the work of art they are, if the artist who made the piece is happy with it then they can label it any way they want to.

I am happy to have read the theory presented by wise, because it is something i truly believe. Art cannot be truly defined. Art I believe is art and can be found anywhere if we have the eye and heart to appreciate it. Instead of following this strict rubric (theory) of trying to say what art really is. As Weiz said, don't try to answer the question what is art, but answer what are the concepts of art.

With that said I turn to my question. Today we talked about Dewey and nature and animals being conscious in creating art. Do you believe that animals create art intentionally? For example when listening to a birds song are they conscious of the beauty of the sound they are given off? Is it really song or is it just them talking to each other?

Response to Blog- Art

In her blog Shelby posted Clive Bell writes that "A good critic may be able to make me see in a picture that had left me cold things that I had overlooked, till at last, receiving the emotion, I recognise it as a work of art. ...But it is useless for a critic to tell me that something is a work of art; he must make me feel it for myself" (119). Do you agree with this?

To be honest I do agree with this for a variety of reasons. The main reason being you can't tell a person to like something or how to feel about something and expect it to just happen. The person has to like it because they like and not because they are expected to. An example of this could take us back to childhood. As a child I am sure that your parents, primarily your mothers, expected you to eat vegetables. They expected you to like it and eat it all the time, hey they liked it, and it was good for you . Just because they liked it and expected us to like it doesn't mean we did, right? (We just pretended to eat it and chucked it off our plate when they weren't looking). For the sake of art, a person can point things out to me about that particular piece which I may have overlooked and then ALAS! I am aware of something that I wasn't aware of before and end up liking the work of art.
It is like enjoying poetry or an abstract movie for the first time, you don't understand the components of it and/or the purpose so you hate the piece presented before you. However, it isn't until someone who is knowledgeable of the work or who understands the work explains it to you pointing things out that your opinion may change(or it may not). A person wouldn't be effective in saying "like this movie, it is good and insightful or like the poem it is seriously profound." If I am not feeling these things, it cannot be forced on me. There is a difference between being helpful in pointing things out and being obnoxious in trying to force me to like something. With that said my question is, what is theory and why does it exist?

Art to Me

We have gone through all these theories and I never really gave thought as to what I personally think of art. I have given opinions here and there, but I was sitting here thinking about what I should talk about in this blog and I decided to write how art has affected my life.
I am not a big poetry writer (although I use to be) or a music writer ( although I have attempted) but art has been my escape every since I was little. Art has been a big part of my life, having a rough time growing up and an even harder time now, it has been my one of my many means of sanity. Whether it be listening to something on the radio, or reading an inspirational poem, or even looking at a funny picture, art has aided me through really bad times and good times too. I love art and the beauty that it posses and I say beauty because I do believe art is beautiful because of the power that it holds. The power that it has to aid in healing a broken heart or soothing a troubled mind is beautiful. I think the definitions of beauty that we have looked at before are too shallow. I am not talking about what is physically pleasing, I am talking about beauty that is deeper than that, an aesthetic beauty if that makes sense. A beauty that is indescribable based on what art can actually do and not what is seen. People say words are powerful, however I believe that art is powerful. Sometimes I believe art can create life and prevent a life from being destroyed. It is so funny, art is so important yet we take it for granted. We aren't conscious anymore as to just how great it is because we just encounter it everyday that until we really need it we are oblivious to its effect on us. So I want to know, seriously all theory aside, what is art to you?

Response to Blog- The Message

This is a response to Christine Pavo's question, Is it necessary for one to understand the message of artwork?. Though this may be a contrary belief to the theories of art we looked at (and the theories we are going to look at) I believe that all art does have a message, but it isn't one single message. I think the purpose of art is to communicate the feelings of an artist and generally when you are communicating you are trying to get something across (a certain message) even if it is on the non-verbal level.
I think the problem with many people is that they forget that not everyone is the same. Many of the theories we have looked at are very inclusive and objective, looking at art at this one thing that needs to convey this one thing!! This isn't so, nothing in life is like this, nothing in life portrays something that will be deemed the same to everyone. A work of art to person A conveys a total opposite message to person B. To me the chords in the song portray a sad melody and to you it may portray a sarcastically happy melody. One work of art - two different views. We get a message out of the song, but based on our experience, our mental and emotional state at the moment and recent events, the message is a totally different one. When we think about message I believe we can say that a message is just the understanding we get from observing something/ being told something etc. So it is impossible not to get a message from a work of art, however it isn't necessary to feel the same. :-)
My question is if art didn't exist, could life still go on?

Beauty

This word has been popping up in the majority of the chapters we have been reading, so I decided to think about this word a little more in depth. Beauty I feel is a word that has many definitions and can be used to described many different things. A sunset can be beautiful, a melody could be beautiful, we call people beautiful everyday, and whenever I bake or cook sometimes I feel the end result is "too beautiful to eat." Websters dictionary describes beauty as "the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit." This is the underlying universal foundation of beauty. What I mean by universal meaning is that we could all agree that when we find something beautiful as humans a particular emotion goes through us. No matter who we are, how old we are, what nationality, sex, orientation, religion, etc, when we find something that is pleasing to us or when something stirs our mind and spirit in pleasurable way we deem and label that thing as beautiful. The concept of beauty that is different is when we try to answer the question WHAT is beautiful and when we try to define in WHAT sense is something beautiful and HOW can we deem something as beautiful. That is when the topic of taste comes in and taste is the subject that differs from person to person. The sensation of beauty is inclusive, however the definition is exclusive from person to person.
I do believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that beauty is in the mind of the definer. Everyone has their own concept and characteristics for beauty. In Bells case he calls beauty "combination of lines and colors that provoke aesthetic emotion." In early times beauty was looked at as a pure spiritual thing. As time progresses beauty is becoming more objective and physiological. I don't think there should really be an argument as to what makes something beautiful or what doesn't because we all have our own individual concepts as to what makes things beautiful. There is no one truth to beauty, instead there are many. With that said, my question is why do we feel the need to place a label on art? Why not just let art exist and whatever people deem as art let it then be called art and what certain people don't deem as art then let not be art?

Response to Blog- Expression of Art

I am responding to Shelby's blog in which she asks would feelings perhaps be best expressed through both art and words?

Studying general semantics you learn of something called the structural differential, which is the way humans supposedly abstract information from the many things we experience. This process of abstraction is done on a non-verbal level and a verbal level. As we go down the structural differential the less things are being abstracted and more things are getting filtered out. For example, we experience pain on the non-verbal level and therefore when it comes time to get across how painful the pain was we could only do so much. We can describe the pain and compare it to something , but we can't get across the actual painfulness of the pain. Where am I going with this? Well, Art is a form of non-verbal communication and it exists (I believe) as a medium for artists to get across feelings that they can't get across on a verbal level. Have you ever had a situation where something happened to someone and just by their reaction alone you could feel exactly what they were feeling. For example, when you see someone laughing and happy you being all smiley and happy or when you see someone sad and crying inside your heart falls and you become sad. That is non-verbal communication. That is more effective than saying I am sad or I am happy. I feel like words are just there and don't get across the main point. Yea we need words for everyday life, but in order to express the unsaid we need art. I feel feelings are only best expressed through art/action. I can say I love you but my actions say otherwise. On the verbal level I can say I am disgusted with you and I hate you but on the non-verbal level my actions say otherwise. Art is a complex thing, however I do believe it is the best means in which we can communicate our feelings. With that said my question is, when viewing art does our current emotional/mental state have an impact on how we view a work of art and how we interpret it at a particular moment?

Judged

I must say that it is interesting how classes intertwine. I am taking advanced TV and production and we are suppose to read this book about developing story ideas. In this particular book it talks about art a lot (mainly because story telling is an art). In the book it states, "It [art] is a way to share with others the patterns, meanings, and simply what is. Art sets out to explain, question, or celebrate what we feel most deeply, what we yearn for or protest against, so that making it is rooted in our most abiding preoccupation. It moves from inside you outward toward the universal, and along the way you change and grow-which is about as therapeutic as it gets. The artistic process is about rejecting and improving what you're making until you feel like you have finally gotten to the real McCoy."

Reading this I found it actually summed up a bit what we have been talking in class. Art is, as we learned from Tolstoy, a form of communication. It is a form of showing what is from the eye/mind of the person creating a masterpiece. Art is about what is felt and whether we try to make a statement or even question the thing we are portraying. I feel like art is mostly a question though, especially modern art. It is a sort of "What if?" You know what if there were people that had one big nose and no eyes. What if boats flied in the air and planes sailed on water. What if there were no such things as words and only our bodily movements can do the communicating. I just feel art is a way (as stated above) to question what is.I also like from the statement above is that it alludes to the fact that art is a personal thing. It moves from the inside out and only the artist could perfect it until it only satisfied them. One thing that always pissed me off is when teachers told me what to right what not to write, how to write etc. My writing to me is MY WORK! I feel like I should express myself the way I feel necessary and deem fit. If it satisfies me then what does it matter if it doesn't satisfy anyone else. So that does bring me to my question. If art is a personal thing how can a grade or review be given about it? Basically, if art is something that reflects the artist why and how is it judged?

Response to Blog: Beliefs

This is a response to Natasha's post on beliefs. She asks Where do our beliefs come from? Where did Plato’s beliefs about art stem from? Did he have a life changing experience with a bad piece of art one day and thus condemn it? What drives people to convince themselves that what they believe is true SHOULD be true for everyone?
I think that everyone believes something. Looking at religion, I believe in God and I know that some people don't believe . However, your not believing in something is holding a belief. A person who doesn't believe in God, holds the belief that there is no God, Confused? Good. I think that beliefs are apart of who we are. We cannot be absent of beliefs, we must believe in things in order to do or day to day tasks (i.e. some people believe it isn't OK to shower everyday so they don't. Some people believe that it is important to brush your teeth after every meal, so they do.) Beliefs shape our behaviors and who we are. Anyone absent of a belief is absent of life.
In regards to Plato, I feel his belief in art stemmed from his unwavering belief in logic. He is more about reason, and doesn't like the idea that art doesn't use reason. Art is based on "infecting" people and playing on their emotions. So from his strong belief in logic, he rejects art because it simply isn't reasonable or logical. I do not know enough about Plato's history, however I do believe his teacher (i think it was Socrates) held the same belief and therefore that belief got instilled in him. That is one thing I forgot to mention above. The environment you grow up in and what is instilled with you does affect what beliefs you hold up to a point. When you become absent from that particular environment, and start to shape your own belief from what you yourself have researched or experienced that could be said to be an additional influence to how you act about things and what values you hold.
One thing I do not do with my Christianity is force people. I would talk about God and Jesus to people and ask them if they believe and go from there. I think only close-minded people try to force things onto others because they haven't grasped the idea that EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. People find it hard to accept people as they are sometimes, and constantly believe that their view is "the right view." I don't agree with these people, but hey what are you going to do? OK so with that said, my question is, How would Tolstoy view an artist who does create work with true feeling, however he also has the idea in his head that he wants to entertain the audience as well as get a paycheck? Is wanting to make a living through art wrong in Tolstoy's eyes?

The Art of Communication

I must say that Tolstoy brings up interesting points when it comes to what he deems as art. He makes many points as to what art is and as to what art is not, one idea that he brings up is, "....think that art..is so highly dangerous in its capacity for infecting people against their will, that mankind would lose far less if all art were banished, than if every kind of art were tolerated." This is basically an argument against Plato who believes that all art should be banished because it stirs up emotion. I like his notion here because it is true. Many people underestimate the power of art and the "powers" that it has. Art has the power to make people smile, make people forget about things, and just escape the real world for a little while. Do you know how many nights I spent listening to music (which I consider art), or reading an inspirational poem because it makes me feel better and encourages me? Without this I feel like society wouldn't be able to function and just crumble. Art is also an escape into logic an reason. There are some kinds of art (especially poems) that gets the gears in my head turning and make think about things in prospective. I feel like art is a special way for people not only to show their talent, but to communicate their feelings. We can communicate our thoughts to words, so why are feelings so different. Yea I can say o boy I am sad today or O YEAH!! I AM SO HAPPY, but words only go so far. Living on the verbal level we aren't able to fully get across how we really feel, So in order to truly share our happiness with others, to truly share our experience with others, we should be able to have a medium ( a non-verbal medium) in which we can fully create how we feel and "infect" others with that feeling. IT is like playing telephone, but instead of talking we place our "words" and "feelings" into a project and then get it across to others. So as I said before I do believe what Tolstoy was getting at, when he said what he said is highly commendable. With that said, What do you think the formula for Tolstoy's view of art would be and why?

Answer to Fay Bartow's Blog

In this blog the question that was posed was, what makes art so appealing. This is an interesting question because many types of questions can arise from the premise of this one question. What does make art have the draw that it does on people? Why do people feel the need to create art? Why do we contribute a whole building to art and pay money just to walk around as critics saying what we dislike and like? There are many questions that can arise from this one simple one.
First I mainly believe that people create art because it is a means of expression. It is an outlet for them to let out whatever fears, troubles, anger, happiness etc that they cannot communicate to others. Some people just aren't talkative people, or just don't like sharing things with others, or they just don't know how to communicate well beyond a certain point. This is where art comes in for them. They put their feelings into what they paint, write, draw, compose etc. They portray what they are feeling through art!
I feel like people are drawn to art because it is interesting to see the different ways people express themselves. It is interesting to try and guess what the artist was feeling, what they were thinking, and what they were trying to communicate. I have paid money to get into a museum because I feel art opens a new window to a world not frequently visited. Art is a break from the norm and defies boundaries and goes against what people are use to which I think is OK to do. The bottom line, I think art is appealing because it opens doors and windows that aren't always open. It is the line between creativity and the real world. With this said my question is, Can art create a communication barrier between people? If art is the only way someone knows how to communicate can art be dubbed as a communication inhibitor?

Imitation of Imitation

OK so after reading chapter 1, I have come to the conclusion that Plato was a really interesting person that had a lot of interesting thoughts. He is the classic example of being close minded and too set in his ways. The way he dismisses art and just rejects it, without really giving it a chance can be viewed as ignorant. He speaks of art being an imitation of an imitation, and that there is no place in society for such things. Supposedly artists know nothing about the topic/object they are writing/painting about and are therefore imitators and deceivers. I understand that it is good to be logical and it is convenient to have things that you can touch and measure, however things cannot always be dubbed with reason. There needs to be a break from reason and an appeal to the emotions, just because it is the human thing to do. Plato explains that there are two parts to the soul, the logical part and the weak part which is the part that appeals to emotion and gets influenced by art. According to Plato the painter destroys the "rational." So God forbid I enjoy a work of art, and am moved by a piece of poetry, I could be looked at as ignorant, easily fooled and irrational according to Plato? I love looking at works of art and guessing what emotion was felt by the painter as he painted. I don't care that he didn't study the thing he painted or that he knows squat from where it came from. I love to see what goes on in another person's head and I don't care what Plato says, once a painter paints their version of a bed, a desk , or a chair; it automatically becomes their work of art; their original. I think Plato was the ignorant one just because he was closed minded to the arts. Is it wrong to want to escape reality for a while through art? Does everything have to rely on logic/reason?

Answer to Blog - William Trial

This is a response to William Trial's blog. He raises a similar question to mine and one that we are supposedly going to find out in this course, which is What makes art, art? Like I mentioned in class and in my previous blog I deep down with everything I have believe it is all about taste and knowledge of the subject. One thing I have to ask, and I pray that the professor won't fail me for (just kidding) is what is the point of philosophy? We try to study art in its artness, music in its musicness and religion in its diviness, but when it boils down to reality, we are never going to know everything bout a particular subject and I feel that is what philosophers are trying to do. I have a Power of Words class and in it I am reading this book called "How to develop your thinking ability?" I read a chapter the other day, called Only God Knows All (which I believe is true.) In the chapter it says, "The people who make the most adequate verbal maps are those who are thoroughly aware of the incompleteness of their knowledge." It is preposterous to try and find out everything about something and that is what I feel like this subject is trying to do. I am in no way bashing the subject, but to answer the question what is art and what makes art, art can be called impossible. TO evaluate the means of which people have tried to get to this answer would be a more acceptable notion. Like I said before, I do believe what someone deems as art should be looked at as so even if someone else disagrees. I do believe we will become more knowledgeable about theories, but to answer these questions (attempt to answer these questions) can be compared to running around in a circle; you are back where you started. SO with this said, how may we answer these questions (what is art, what makes art) if they are unanswerable?

Intro to the Nature of Art!

Reading the introduction to "The Nature of Art" I found the topic to be interesting and am entering this course with a positive outlook. The introduction of the book tackles the many views that will be discussed in the book pertaining to art. The questions being answered will be what is art? What makes art art? and How can we judge whether a piece of work can be labeled art. Looking at the introduction is interesting just to see the many views that are raised and the many good and interesting theories that are brought up. For one, the intentionality theory. A piece of work can be referred to as art as long the "artist" intended it to be art. This mean a work of art cannot happen by accident or through improvisation. The piece should be a planned intended piece of work. I do not know how I feel about this theory and as we discussed in class there are many holes in it. This theory is inclusive but then can't one say that art itself is exclusive..ahhh. The way I feel about art is that we must be well understood and knowledgeable about it in order to pass judgement; and since there is no way to fully understand something, I believe it all relies on taste then. You like what you like, I like what I like. You think that piece of crap is art and I don't it is as simple as that. However, we are human and as we know the nature of humans are far from simple. We must have an explanation for everything....we NEED an explanation for everything. We have to ask questions because we are never satisfied. There seems to be a need to pick at everything and try to break it down to every last nook and cranny, (Ever heard curiosity killed the cat?) In this case curiosity makes philosophers go crazy!! So in regards to art let me ask you this, Can we truly answer the question what is art?