27 September 2009

In response to Shelby's Question::

My unrelated question: In class on Wednesday, we talked about how humans are inclined to look for representation in things (clouds, a Pollack painting, etc.), even when there is no intended representation. Why would an artist want not to represent something, and do you think an artist would intentionally not represent something, knowing/hoping that the observers would make their own representations?

I believe that an artist wouldn't want to exactly represent something so that the viewer has something to look at and something to think about. If your painting of a river looks like any old river, how does that evoke thought or emotion beyond the norm? How does that make you special or unique as an artist? Of course, you might be the best river painter ever, but if it's boring, not many people will enjoy it very much or will remember it beyond the gallery.
It would make sense that some artists would intentionally not create anything of complete and sure substance. With artists like Pollack, it must be entertaining to know that no one actually knows what you painted, but it sparks hours of conversation and enjoyment in wondering what you, the artist, actually meant. Also, this allows for the viewer to see what they want in art. Just like with lyrics, you can shape the meaning to represent you, even if it is the exact opposite of what the original lyricist meant. Representation allows for people to make art their own, regardless of its actual meaning.

25 September 2009

is influence inevitable?

Plato's theory is that art is an imitation of an imitation, which is obviously flawed. However, imitation is a word that has negative connotations, along with like "copying". When we were kids, "hey! he's copying me!" was never good. So, therefore, the word "influenced" is easier to swallow when discussing art. Which leads to the question, is any art truly original these days? Just like in the days of Plato, there are outside influences surrounding anyone and everyone. Nowadays, I'm sure outside influence plays even a bigger role. We are constantly bombarded with outside things that are inevitably going to influence any art, but art should still not be considered an imitation of anything, unless it is striving to be. Every art piece has something different, something original, that means it is not a complete imitation.

Also, how did Plato even think that art could be devoid of emotion? Even that pipe in the painting evokes some sort of emotion, even if it is just laughter. Plato had the belief that the more emotion that is in the art, the farther from the truth is. My question is if that's true, the more something evokes emotion, the farther from the truth it becomes?

20 September 2009

In response to Fay's blog: What Makes Art Appealing?

In Fay's blog from 9/19, Fay wrote, "In my opinion, creation and communication is a part of our humanity. Our need to express ourselves cannot always be construed in words."

I agree in Fay's view of what makes art appealing to us as a race. Although we have poems and lyrics and other creative ways to express oneself by using words, sometimes what you need to express cannot be in words. The same goes for me and instrumental music. My favorite band lately is Explosions in the Sky, who specialize in strictly instrumental music that speaks to me more than songs that have lyrics do.

A few years ago I wouldn't have considered myself an art fan, but 3 years ago my mom bought a new house. She is a big fan of all art, from Monet to modern. My mom believes that a beautiful painting can be just what you need to make a house a home, and envoke that comfy feeling of "home" into a house, which is just what she did to our house.

And since we attend school in such an artsy area, I have visited the Clark and Moca, and numerous other museums and galleries with my mom, and my appreciation level has risen considerably.

Art is something that we need as a race in order to explain ourselves and make life that much less complicated. A painting may come out complicated because of what the artist is feeling, but if someone who's feeling mixed up sees it, it just may help.

My friend is majoring in art therapy at Simmons, and I believe in it wholeheartedly. Art therapy is a mental health profession that uses the process of creating art in order to improve and enhance someones physical, mental and emotional well being. Art therapists believe that using art to express yourself helps people resolve internal conflicts and problems, reduce stress, even raise self esteem.

So not only is art nice to look at, it can help you mentally! In this day and age, it should be hard to find someone who doesn't appreciate some sort of art in any form.

The First A&P Post: What is art?

That main question, what is art? that we are addressing in this course is so huge and so broad, I know we won't be able to answer it, or even come close to figuring it out. However, the questions that have been raised off of this one main question have created interesting things for us to think about as a class.

The very first thing I thought of while discussing what is considered art was that who am I to judge? If someone is extremely proud of what they have created, and using the intentionality thesis, they intended it as art, it is art. Who am I to say that it is not worthy? The art world has an air of elitism, which is one of the main reasons I like the Intentionality Thesis, despite its faults. IT gives credit to those working as artists, for hobby or career, regardless of what they create, and regardless of what other people think. With IT, art has central purpose in the world as a legitimate profession.

However, this leads to a whole other question. How far do you go in considering something art? The funny aspect of this question is the art piece, Fountain, or rather, the urinal that is now considered one of the best modern pieces of our time, up there with Picasso's Guernica. Marcel Duchamp cleary was just trying to push the limits of art, and created a modern masterpiece by doing so.

Considering both aspects, from allowing every little scribble, or urinal, to be considered art or being an art snob and sticking your nose up in regards to what you include, both have their faults, and both open up a whole slew of questions that I actually enjoy debating. I never thought of myself as very artsy because I have zero artistic talent, but people can be artsy without talent, and this class is opening my eyes to a whiole realm of things I never considered.

13 September 2009

art and philosophy, fall 2009 :]

This blog will now be used for art and philosophy, no longer for the nature of human nature :]