Something Old, Something New

In class, we discussed Aristotle, and had to question the application of his theories to modern day art. A large point that questioned was a question that can be applied to many older theories. Back then,art consisted mainly of literature, music, performance art, sculpture and paintings; usually of historical or mythological scenes. Today we have so many extensions of that. We have graphic design, fashion design, web design, and dozens of other new fields of art. Many of these new categories don't fit into the old definitions of art. My main question was about art's functionality. Back then, there was no such thing as commercail advertising. The most you would get was a sign in a marketplace with prices for products, and even that was a stretch. Art was meant to be purely aestetically pleasing, to enjoy and be enjoyed, which is why it was so heavily criticized by people like Plato. Now we can look at a broadway poster and appreciate it for it's aestetic value, but it's main purpose is to sell us something. Can art, by the old rules, have a function other than being aesthetically pleasing, or must we tweak the old rules to fit new fields such as graphic design for advertising? 

All The World's A Stage

"All the world's a stage and all the men and women are merely players"- William Shakespeare

Human emotions, they dictate almost every aspect of our lives. They are what help us make judgements, and in my opinion, they are a fundamental basis for art, because 95% of the time, art conveys emotions. Therefore, we realize that human emotions are what makes performance art so unique. Without the emotions of actors or singers on a stage, we would be robotic. Even if the performance was flawless in every technical detail, without emotions, it would seem withdrawn, dry and almost mechanic. Emotions are what make each performance somewhat unique, and what helps make performance art a form of art.
My question then, is what would art be like if everything was mechanically perfect? Would we still be able to call it art?

Eulogy for and Artist

I would like to discuss the passing of a true artist. The point of this class is to try and define art. I knew a great man, and artist, who shouldn't be forgotten. His name was Jacques Billard and he was my grandfather. He was born in France, where at the age of fourteen he was apprenticed at a bakery in Paris. He learned the art of baking, and soon became and accomplished pastry chef. When he came to the United States in the early sixties, he worked in New York City at such places as Maxwell's Plum, Tavern on the Green and Drake Hotel before he opened his own store called La Petite Auberge. He was an artist because of the didication he had for his craft, the time and effort he put into it, the ateention to detail he paid, and the sheer joy his baking brought to others. He was able to constuct vases filled with roses, made only of sugar that he would work by hand at extreme temperatures untill the sugar becam like glass. This is a lost technique in modern times, as it was extremely difficult to use. He once wove a basket out of sugar and filled it with tiny roses and butterflies. He was a master of classic french recipies and popular american desserts. His passion for the culinary arts and his love for food will never be forgotten by those who tasted the pure joy his cooking gave to others. Jacques and his talent won't soon be forgotten.

A Time to Reflect

We go through life so mechanically we rarely take the time to stop and appreciate the simple things that we take for granted. Then, like and earthquake, our lives can be so suddenly upturned, and the things we used to take for granted are gone. It's only when we lose something dear to us that we realize how precious it was. Death has a funny way of making us see all the beautiful things life has to offer, and even if only for a moment, we can cherish everything that we still have before we fall back into our routine of ignorance and self-absorption. Every flower that is in a funeral bouquet, every photo that is on display acts as a reminder of the beauty of life. One may even go so far as to say it is Nature's art; life. Many great thinkers have tried to decipher the mysteries of death. I think it's nature's wake-up call for all of us. We need to stop our meaningless daily tasks and take the time to reflect on everything we have to be gratefull for, because in a second it could all be gone, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

On the tip of my tongue....

I hate when you know what something is, but you just can't seem to find the words to describe what you want to say. It's like the words are on the tip of your tongue, but you can make sense of them. This lack of articulation is one of many theories on why art is indefinable. Weitz doesn't try to define art, like many other philosophers do, because he states that art is too broad a subject for us to put into words without excluding something. "There is an exception to every rule," My french teacher used to say. I believe this rings true when we try to define art. There are always exceptions, things that we consider art that don't quite fit into the general categories we give them. We can break down types of art into categories and subcategories, which we can then define, but wa can't seem to find a deffinition for art as a whole. Art is this ever moving, ever growing, ever changing form of expression that will continue to flow in a circling spiral. We can't define something, unless we constantly adapt our definiton of it. My question then becomes, if art had evloved, and humans have evolved, was there ever a point where art was a simple form, perhaps in the early years of mankind, when art was used solely for religous purposes, that we could have defined art, before it began to evolve?

Response to Griffin Thayer's Question

Is there a difference between 'sinful' art and 'evil' art?

I think that that's an opinion, how sinful something in depends on the viewers personal beliefs. As for evil art, how do we define if something is truely evil? I thing that rt is a representation, and has light and dark in it. I'm not realy sure where you draw the line on if something is sinful, like I said, I think it depends on the person who is looking at the art. Many people find the Harry Potter Series sinful, where as most people view it as a creative childrens series.

Response to Duncan Baxter's Question

Should criticism be treated as a profession, or as a hobby?

Criticism is ultimately an opinion that the critic formulates from their judgement of the thing they are critiquing. Anyone can and often are critics. Therefore, I think criticism should be a hobby, not a profession, because it's a subjective career choice. If anyone can state their opinion, what makes on person more able to criticize a work than someone else?

Ring any Bells?

In class this week, we discussed Clive Bell and his theories on art. I had a bit of difficulty understanding Bell's concepts, like, how he prefers a more simplified form of art, namely a cubism. His theory states that the less representation of physical objects, the less attention to detail, the better, because those things distract us from "aesthetic emotion" or this sort of divine feeling that comes from stripping away the layers of complicated form to reveal greater understanding an appreciation. I found this very reminiscent of Plato's theory that art is an imitation of an imitation. On thing I didn't understand is, how far do we take that theory? If we took it to an extreme, then we would ultimately end up with a blank canvas, wouldn't we? If we stripped away all physical representation of physical objects, what's left?

Response to Katie Sparagna's question

I think that that is exactly what has happened to society, we have been programmed by our specific cultural upbringing to associate colors with certain feelings, which is why we find it so strange when cultures other than our own differ from us. For example, we associate black with death, sadness, sorrow and darkness. All negative things. Therefore, we wear black to funerals and consider it disrespectful to do otherwise. In other cultures, people wear white to funerals because they consider death a happy and celebratory event where the spirit has been freed from it's material, earthly body and moved on to a higher plane of existence. Therefore, they wear white to celebrate. My question is, what happens when a person with acute color-blindness sees a color? My friend is color-blind, he sees colors, but not the proper ones. He sees blue and red as the same, so what emotions would he draw, since we generally associate blue as calming and red as passionate and energetic?

Criticism

When discussing Tolstoy in class, we came across the issue of the role of the critic in Tolstoy's theorem. We came to the conclusion that the stereotypical critic usually acts as a hinderance on artists, because they criticize without giving any constructive input, and therefore, critics merely bash the self esteem of the artist who put all his or her emotion into their peice to convey a certain message.I feel that the definition of a critic should include giving constructive advice on how to better convey the message in the piece. That is after all the point of art, is to convey an emotional meaning in a visual way, according to Tolstoy.

Response to Sarah LaBaire's Question

 If we were as calculating, rational, and unfeeling as Plato wishes us to be, what would civilization look like? What would life be in this world?

When I think of a world without human emotions, I think of a scifi show in which the human brain was removed, had all human emotions removed and was placed into a robot body. They were supposed to be perfect, incapable of human error because they didn't have emotions to cloud their judgement, but it made them inhuman. With the very thing that made them human gone, they considered themselves better than humans, and sought to destroy all who were deemed inferior. They had not pity or remorse for their actions, and in the end, they miscalculated, and ended up destroying each other. Human emotions influence of desicions, in order for us to be calculative, we need emotions, or we'll be nothing more than computers. The same gut feeling that helps us make desicions is the spark that fuels creativity in ideas.

Plato wouldn't like Play-dough

The title of this post was inspired by a comment made by my ten year old sister made when I was telling her about Plato. She asked if Plato invented Play-dough, and I told her no, he would probably disapprove of play-dough, because it is used by children to sculpt their versions of real life people and object, in other words, an imitation of an imitation.

While I initially disagreed with Plato's views on art as an imitation, and of no real significance, I was out of context. I didn't undertand the mindset of Plato's time. They believed that there was a world of ideas, a world of 'forms' which were the most perfect forms, created by the gods. Then these ideas, these forms, are given shape by craftsmen, and loose some of their perfection. So reproducing these objects as art is only taking them further away from the world of forms, and further away from perfection. Once I understood this, I could understand why Plato seemed so down on art. It was like making a photocopy of a picture in a book, and then making a photocopy of the photocopy. The resolution will be far withdrawn from the original picture.

My questionis, do we in today's society hold art to a higher standard, and consider it more infulential, or do our school's budget cuts on art programs stand as a symbol to our view on the importance of art?
.

Response to Katie Sparagna's question.

Is the intention of the artist  to  evoke a specific reaction to their art more important then their intention to create a piece of art itself?

I think that they are equally important. Yes it is important for the artist to intend for his art to be recieved a certain way, but it is just as important how people recieve it. The artist may intend for a peice to put forth one message, but people may come up with an entierly different meaning for the work. If the people  viewing the work comprehend the same message the artist intended, the piece is considered a sucess and usually deeply moving and symbolic. If people doint get what the artist was implying, it does't make the piece not art, it just makes it pooly executed art. I think the most important concept is what the people get out of it. Besides, the artists intention to evoke a specific reaction should be synonomus with their intention to create the piece. If they are sepate, then the artist isn't creating art in a natural, creative way, but rather a forced, logical way, which looses alot of the spirit and honesty that goes into making art.

Class discussion about intentionality of art.

In class, several things came up that got me thinking. One thing that I found very interesting was the issue of natural art vs natural beauty. Before the discussion, I would have argued that there is such a thing as natural art, which spawns from natural beauty. But a good point was made. If we consider that intentionality plays a role in defineing art, then there can't be such a thing as natural art, because a person didn't intend for nature to look a certain way, it simply does so naturally. It only becomes art if it's image is intentionally captured through a medium, like photography or painting.
We also discussed how large a role intentionality plays in defineing art. I will be the first to honestly admit, this confused me. I mean, I couldn't understand how anyone could even try to define art. It's just art, a wonderful, broad subject that just is. Everyone has there own mindset about art, but it's near impossible to put to words.
With all this talk about art and deeper meanings making my head spin, I start to wonder, if intentionality is only one factor that makes up what art is, what else is there that makes something art?