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?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
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?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Response to Aurora's response to DJK
question: what are other consequences of not having a set definition for art?
the consequences? or potential benefits?
in any case, here's what would change:
for one thing allows us to not be narrow-minded in what we consider art. this allows us to take creative liberties. in the field of art, it allows us to be more well-rounded. science and math play huge roles in design, and in the same way many other subjects flow over and overlap with others.
do you find that a definition of art changes the way we view aesthetics by very much? or very little?
the consequences? or potential benefits?
in any case, here's what would change:
for one thing allows us to not be narrow-minded in what we consider art. this allows us to take creative liberties. in the field of art, it allows us to be more well-rounded. science and math play huge roles in design, and in the same way many other subjects flow over and overlap with others.
do you find that a definition of art changes the way we view aesthetics by very much? or very little?
Response to Zach's Response
Question: Is there another way of looking at this more optimistically and is the possibility of art dying out like a fad in the future plausible?
I think there are two groups that this question is applicable too. I know the world isn't divided into two different groups, but we can safely say that there are those who take time to smell the roses, and those that don't.
The first group enjoys thinking through things, and taking time to think. The second are those that enjoy the movement of things without stopping to wonder.
To the first group perhaps, technology would not crush or overshadow art. Those who are sincerely interested, would use technology to seek out art, and not do away with it. With the second group, art has a very high possibility of dying out, because it is not on their highest level of importance-- not a priority amongst facebook, twitter, etc.
Question: If art ceases to exist, what do you think will be the first thing the human race will lose?
I think there are two groups that this question is applicable too. I know the world isn't divided into two different groups, but we can safely say that there are those who take time to smell the roses, and those that don't.
The first group enjoys thinking through things, and taking time to think. The second are those that enjoy the movement of things without stopping to wonder.
To the first group perhaps, technology would not crush or overshadow art. Those who are sincerely interested, would use technology to seek out art, and not do away with it. With the second group, art has a very high possibility of dying out, because it is not on their highest level of importance-- not a priority amongst facebook, twitter, etc.
Question: If art ceases to exist, what do you think will be the first thing the human race will lose?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Is This Art?
While scrolling through the newest iPhone Applications (there really is an app for everything), I came across this. Apparently our iPhones have solved the dilemna that we have been endlessly pondering in class: What is art and what isn't?
The description of the app:
"The Is This Art? iPhone application is a new tool designed for people who have questions about the artistic integrity of their surroundings. Using your iPhone's camera and a complex, revolutionary algorithm, we now have the ability to instantly provide users with an authoritative declaration of artistic importance."
Basically you take a picture, and your iPhone gives you a kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek response, such as
I can't find Waldo, therefore THIS IS ART.
My mother would think this is crap, therefore THIS IS ART.
Obviously, the application is a kind of joke, but not really. I like it because, the responses while they do not have any intellectual value theyb remind us that we are constantly prodding the boundaries of art, testing creative limits, and widening the area of what is considered art. Take music for example--what is considered music during the 60's was not well accepted by those that loved the music of the 50's.
I thought that the application was neat, because it allows us to take a closer look--a second glance, at what we are surrounded by.
Question: Do you think that technological advances have helped make the art world less elitist? Has it helped furthered the arts? Caused our society to pay mor attention to it? Or has it overshadowed it/demoralized it?
Oh and heres the link, incase anyone wanted to check it out: http://isthisart.org/
The description of the app:
"The Is This Art? iPhone application is a new tool designed for people who have questions about the artistic integrity of their surroundings. Using your iPhone's camera and a complex, revolutionary algorithm, we now have the ability to instantly provide users with an authoritative declaration of artistic importance."
Basically you take a picture, and your iPhone gives you a kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek response, such as
I can't find Waldo, therefore THIS IS ART.
My mother would think this is crap, therefore THIS IS ART.
Obviously, the application is a kind of joke, but not really. I like it because, the responses while they do not have any intellectual value theyb remind us that we are constantly prodding the boundaries of art, testing creative limits, and widening the area of what is considered art. Take music for example--what is considered music during the 60's was not well accepted by those that loved the music of the 50's.
I thought that the application was neat, because it allows us to take a closer look--a second glance, at what we are surrounded by.
Question: Do you think that technological advances have helped make the art world less elitist? Has it helped furthered the arts? Caused our society to pay mor attention to it? Or has it overshadowed it/demoralized it?
Oh and heres the link, incase anyone wanted to check it out: http://isthisart.org/
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Response to Katherine
Do people benefit from reading art reviews from critics who may have different tastes than themselves?
Yes, I believe people do benefit from reaedin these art reviews. The way Hume seemed to describe characsteristics of critics sounded more like process than anything. A critic is someone who intinctually feels something but is able to observe, strip it down, look at from different points of view-subjectively and objectively, etc. This takes practice. If a person wants to be able to do this, they must be sensitive to understanding different tastes, whether or not they find them agreeable.
Yes, I believe people do benefit from reaedin these art reviews. The way Hume seemed to describe characsteristics of critics sounded more like process than anything. A critic is someone who intinctually feels something but is able to observe, strip it down, look at from different points of view-subjectively and objectively, etc. This takes practice. If a person wants to be able to do this, they must be sensitive to understanding different tastes, whether or not they find them agreeable.
Born an artist?
I read an article today that discussed art in preschools, and how it is taught today. It had interviewed a woman that ran an community art school. She noticed a decreased attendance in her children's art classes. When asked why, she explained that she felt a number of parents didn't feel that enrolling their child in art classes was worth anything if there was no finished product in the end. If the art that they came up with resembled anything learnt outside the school, it meant they were not learning anything.
We are all born with the same ability to create, to express ourselves through some medium. My question is this: In a society where so much emphasis is put on success and failure, are we trading in our instinctual urge to create for a finished product?
We are all born with the same ability to create, to express ourselves through some medium. My question is this: In a society where so much emphasis is put on success and failure, are we trading in our instinctual urge to create for a finished product?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)