While writing my last post it occured to me that artwork geared toward children is sometimes forgotten by the artworld.
Children's literature, movies, music, poetry-- some of it I enjoy more than most adult artwork.
But can we compare the two?
Can we compare the poetry of Shel Silverstein with the poetry of TS Eliot?
Is there a imaginary line drawn between artwork for children and for adults? And can we measure them by the same standards?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Response to Tyler's Response to Skyla
Question: Is N'Sync bad art? Does their popularity, however fleeting, warrant the title of "good art?"If Susie got Mitch's message, and Susie alone, did Mitch succeed as an artist?
N*sync never sought to be considered "good art." Their music was not geared to 30 something intellectuals. but 12 year old teeny boppers. The message of their songs were not in the lyrics, or the musical quality of the songs. The message was in the package, in the overly-repetitive "catchy" melodies, and flashy sweatsuits.
And the message wasn't much of a message anyways.
Except that it entertained.
So if the message was just that. To entertain 12 year olds.
Does that make it art?
Does that make it good art, because it did very succesfully so, entertain the tweens of the 90's?
I dont know? There is a difference between an entertainer and an artist. And N'Sync, definately fits more comfortably into the first category.
N'Sync, were very good entertainers. But the artistic quality of their works go unappreciated by most members of the artworld, because their audience was not the artworld. It was the world of entertainment.
Question:
What do you think? If an artist's purpose is to entertain, does that make him or her an artist or an entertainer?
N*sync never sought to be considered "good art." Their music was not geared to 30 something intellectuals. but 12 year old teeny boppers. The message of their songs were not in the lyrics, or the musical quality of the songs. The message was in the package, in the overly-repetitive "catchy" melodies, and flashy sweatsuits.
And the message wasn't much of a message anyways.
Except that it entertained.
So if the message was just that. To entertain 12 year olds.
Does that make it art?
Does that make it good art, because it did very succesfully so, entertain the tweens of the 90's?
I dont know? There is a difference between an entertainer and an artist. And N'Sync, definately fits more comfortably into the first category.
N'Sync, were very good entertainers. But the artistic quality of their works go unappreciated by most members of the artworld, because their audience was not the artworld. It was the world of entertainment.
Question:
What do you think? If an artist's purpose is to entertain, does that make him or her an artist or an entertainer?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Response to Aurora's IS THERE NO GOOD IN THE WORLD?
question: "i'm trying to learn how to teach in a way that will lead our youth toward more ethical lifestyles through the themes and messages of literature. how does art and philosophy collide in a way that can change the future?"
philosophy, to me, seems to be simply put, is the study of problems--problems that come with existence on this earth.
everyone in life has some kind of philosophy that generally guides them, whether they consciously know it or not.
art is expression. it has the ability to affect, persuade, change, and enlighten an audience. it is a mechanism in which we put out our own philosophy's and truths about life into the universe.
these subjects go hand in hand, and could play potential huge roles in changing the future. infact, they have changed our futures, and contributed greatly to our history.
i would go as far as to say that it is the writers, and artists, and musicians that have brought on the change in the world we experience.
question: do you think that art can exist without philosophy? vice versa?
philosophy, to me, seems to be simply put, is the study of problems--problems that come with existence on this earth.
everyone in life has some kind of philosophy that generally guides them, whether they consciously know it or not.
art is expression. it has the ability to affect, persuade, change, and enlighten an audience. it is a mechanism in which we put out our own philosophy's and truths about life into the universe.
these subjects go hand in hand, and could play potential huge roles in changing the future. infact, they have changed our futures, and contributed greatly to our history.
i would go as far as to say that it is the writers, and artists, and musicians that have brought on the change in the world we experience.
question: do you think that art can exist without philosophy? vice versa?
The Ever Changing World of Art
The world is contantly changing it's face, and with each generation a new form and style of art is born. Keeping up with this ever changing world, while maintaining appreciation for old style art and new styles, is an incredible feat. One has to analyze why a particular generation favored a particular style of art, and deem whether their perception of it was rational. This is the goal of an art critic--forming a rational basis for what is good and what isn't.
During the time period of Impressionist paintings, many art critics of the time dissmissed their works, while now their works are put on a pedestal. Academic painters once glorified, are now lost in time.
One observation is that art seems to be as fickle as fashion.
My question is this: In an ever changing world, is art always subjective to the time? Does it come and go like a trend?
During the time period of Impressionist paintings, many art critics of the time dissmissed their works, while now their works are put on a pedestal. Academic painters once glorified, are now lost in time.
One observation is that art seems to be as fickle as fashion.
My question is this: In an ever changing world, is art always subjective to the time? Does it come and go like a trend?
Response to Lisa Diamond's Post About Danto
Question: "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"
Saying that someone who has studied art's history has an "eye" for art causes art to become a subject for only the elite. However, that's not to say that studying art history is not beneficial. Learning about an artwork's history provides a new, different and seperate perspective--the keyword here being seperate, as in seperate from having an "eye" for art. But I'll get to that in a second.
Someone who know's the artwork's history, can better undesrtand the mind frame of the artist--perhaps what time period it is depicting, how it related to world events at the time, the culture that influenced the paitning, and the style of painting. This does not mean they can accurately judge whether a painting is worthy of being called art. It just means that one can deduce where and how the artwork came to be.
Having an eye for art, refers to art critiscm, which is distinguised from art history. Art critiscm is more concered with the aesthetic value of an artwork.
Having knowledge in art history may be beneficial to you while judging art, but having that extra knowledge, I believe, does not ensure an "eye" for the subject. Personally, I would say that in order to have an "eye" art one must have the mindset of an artist, or be one themselves.
Question: What are the guidelines for critiquing art? What makes a good critic? And do you believe that only an artist can truly judge a work of art, and sufficiently critique it?
Saying that someone who has studied art's history has an "eye" for art causes art to become a subject for only the elite. However, that's not to say that studying art history is not beneficial. Learning about an artwork's history provides a new, different and seperate perspective--the keyword here being seperate, as in seperate from having an "eye" for art. But I'll get to that in a second.
Someone who know's the artwork's history, can better undesrtand the mind frame of the artist--perhaps what time period it is depicting, how it related to world events at the time, the culture that influenced the paitning, and the style of painting. This does not mean they can accurately judge whether a painting is worthy of being called art. It just means that one can deduce where and how the artwork came to be.
Having an eye for art, refers to art critiscm, which is distinguised from art history. Art critiscm is more concered with the aesthetic value of an artwork.
Having knowledge in art history may be beneficial to you while judging art, but having that extra knowledge, I believe, does not ensure an "eye" for the subject. Personally, I would say that in order to have an "eye" art one must have the mindset of an artist, or be one themselves.
Question: What are the guidelines for critiquing art? What makes a good critic? And do you believe that only an artist can truly judge a work of art, and sufficiently critique it?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Response to Tyler's Response
"Is it necessary that our aesthetics and ethics are wedded as such? Does this play an important role in our society, such as in courtship? If we overlook our spouses bad qualities because of his strong chin or her curvy waist, isn't that natural selection at work, which is "good" for us as a species? Is it necessary?"
Aesthetics is necessary with regards to natural selection. In fact, many animals use their aesthetic qualities in order to attract mates. Take the peacock for example, who spreads it's beautiful expanse of feathers in hopes of drawing the attention of the female. Is it necessary? Well, noticing the aesthetic value of a person/object/etc.is instinctual. It's part of human nature, and nature in general. However, while we as humans are drawn to those things we find beautiful, it is not always the most important factor in choosing a mate.
Perhaps if a stranger to the pretty girl saw her litter, they may let it slide. However, people who knew her may have had a different reaction.
So yes, it is necessary. In order for one to be drawn to something, it must be aesthetically desirable to them. However, once you get past the aesthetic value of something, there are many other contributing factors. At first it may be possible to overlook someone's bad qualities because of their good nose, but eventually, they will get to you.
Like my mother always says, beauty is only skin deep.
Aesthetics is necessary with regards to natural selection. In fact, many animals use their aesthetic qualities in order to attract mates. Take the peacock for example, who spreads it's beautiful expanse of feathers in hopes of drawing the attention of the female. Is it necessary? Well, noticing the aesthetic value of a person/object/etc.is instinctual. It's part of human nature, and nature in general. However, while we as humans are drawn to those things we find beautiful, it is not always the most important factor in choosing a mate.
Perhaps if a stranger to the pretty girl saw her litter, they may let it slide. However, people who knew her may have had a different reaction.
So yes, it is necessary. In order for one to be drawn to something, it must be aesthetically desirable to them. However, once you get past the aesthetic value of something, there are many other contributing factors. At first it may be possible to overlook someone's bad qualities because of their good nose, but eventually, they will get to you.
Like my mother always says, beauty is only skin deep.
Tragedy & Art
In order create an artwork that causes emotion, I believe, one must feel the emotion strongly enough to depict it. You can for the most part, tell when an artwork was done half-heartedly because it fails miserably at it's attempt to make you feel something.
However, one thing I have always noticed with literature particularly is that most great literature stems from conflict, depression, tragedy.
We as humans, are drawn to it. It is in our nature.
Do you believe that artwork that depicts these things is most effective? Is this perhaps why there is so much of it? Do you think art can exist without tragedy?
However, one thing I have always noticed with literature particularly is that most great literature stems from conflict, depression, tragedy.
We as humans, are drawn to it. It is in our nature.
Do you believe that artwork that depicts these things is most effective? Is this perhaps why there is so much of it? Do you think art can exist without tragedy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)