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?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
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?
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.
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.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
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?
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?
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?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
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?
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?
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?
Monday, November 2, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
