Response to Mary's Art:

You said that for anything to be truly rewarding, it must be sought after and constantly questioned. When I'm handed an ice cream bar simply for existing as a human, I've neither sought after this bar nor questioned it as a gift - I've absent-mindedly and ignorantly accepted and consumed the bar.

You asked "Can there ever be a point in which art ceases to grow?"

Art is forgotten regularly, and ignored even more frequently. One must ask "Is more 'new' art created (grown) than is forgotten and ignored? Is that art that is created (grown) of a comparable quality and worth to the art that is forgotten and ignored?"

Again, these are dangerously subjective questions. To whom are we asking these questions? To an artists colony or a steelworkers union?

For an artist who is stuck with one other artist on a deserted island, art will not, cannot, cease to grow. Supposing these two artists are productive sorts, they likely will do nothing but produce, produce, produce their art.

Does their incessant production of art signal a growth, or a stagnancy? Must they produce "different" art in order for the growth of art to continue?

Response to Lisa

"Do you think that the human form is in itself a form of art? Why or why not?"

I do not think that the human form is a work of art.

The human form is beautiful, that is true to most. This, however, is not because somebody designed the human body to be so (unless you count DNA as somebody). Beauty, while common in many "successful" works of art, is not a necessary condition of art. There can exist ugly art.

More relevant than the beauty example in the disproving of the human body as art is the fact that nobody consciously designed the human body. Yes, your parents may have intended to create you. Sure, maybe if you believe in God, than He intentionally created you. The fact is, no man sat down and said "This limb here, that protrusion there, this orifice over this-a-way." If we hold true that artifactuality is a requisite for Artness, then there is no way that the human body is a work of art.

Response to Skyla

"Who is your favorite artist and why do you consider him or her as such?"

What a great question!!

Music is my favorite artistic medium, so I think I'll have to pick a musician as my favorite artist. Jimi Hendrix is arguably my favorite artist (though I'm not sure who I'm arguing with :P) because of a few reasons. His innovation on the fretboard is unparalleled. Nowhere before in history have the techniques employed by him appeared, and they have yet to appear again, at least in the same way. This uniqueness (though Piper would argue this statement undoubtedly) makes him stand alone in the world of rock music.

Also extraordinary was his ability to (excuse the jargon) cut ridiculous solos and intricate riffs while singing simultaneously. Sure, I can strum a few chords, maybe run a few arpeggios, and sing along, but to play the way that man did and sing at the same time takes an almost inhuman level of musical ability.

A Piperism

Is there a way that performance art is not the most unique form of art?

I do believe that performance is the most unique variety/medium of art. This is perhaps/probably because of her philosophical wherewithall when it comes to art; if another equally as intelligent critic had argued that prose was the most unique form, I might agree with them. But! For the time being...

The thing that makes performance art the most unique in my opinion is not the spatiotemporality. This, in my opinion, is rather knitpicky - of course the event happened in a certain space in an unreproducible time. That is the nature of the world, that the same thing cannot happen twice. The most distinctive feature about performance art is the emotion on the parts of the performers. No two people will put the same energy/hutzpah/moxie/emotion into a role, and so the role is bound to be slightly different.

If an actor takes stage notes, intricate emotional ones, and another actor receives those and uses them to more accurately recreate the performance, has (s)he done a better job with the role?

Artist or Illustrator?

There is a longstanding debate amongst some members of the artworld over the art of Norman Rockwell. Rockwell provided social commentary of the American way of life with his art, often satirizing common social ills. Some claim, however, that Rockwell merely illustrated. They say that he did not create art, but merely took pictures, pieced them together on a canvas with a brush, and did not creatively express much of anything along the way.





Rockwell did a piece called "The Right to Know." In it, a moblike group of people stand before a desk. The chair of the desk is askance in a way that seems to say that a person had recently been sitting there, but left abruptly. The faces of the people are suspicious, grievous, agitated, skeptical, etc. The chair represents the government and the lack of information that it shares with its people. This piece in particular I believe was in reference to the Vietnam War.





Rockwell was clearly conveying a message here: the people of a country deserve to be informed by the country of its actions, especially when said actions result in the loss of life, compatriots or otherwise. His art is very realistic, almost photographic; he displayed great technical ability, but perhaps not abundant creative vision.





Is "The Right to Know" a work of art, or is it merely an illustration of a social theme? Must there be a level of creativity present in a painting for it to be art and not illustration?

The Right to Know

(Rockwell included himself in the painting/illustration. See if you can't find him.)

Response to Katherine's Relativity of Truth

The coherence theory of truth, as you pointed out, says that truths are feasibly true when they cohere to proven truths. There is a problem here, however.

Who is proving these truths? Are the provers of these truths biased in such a way that would invalidate the truths they are preaching? Here is an incredibly random example, but I think it applies. There is an aboriginal African tribe whose diet consists of many cruciferous vegetables. As a result, the incidence of colon and stomach cancers are listerally nonexistent. To this tribe, these cancers do not exist. They are not real.

You asked "Are there any Truths, which are universal (for all 6.8 billion humans), ignoring physical laws? How do we recognize such Truths?"

I'm going to have to say no to this. The only universally provable truths are those that apply to the physical realm, i.e. trees have roots, porcupines have quills, water is a biological necessity, etc.

My Question: The aforementioned tribe of veggie-eaters - if someone were in their midst who did have cancer of the colon, and the tribe members knew about it, how would they react? Would the cancer be real?

Response to Zach's Overanalyzation of Subgenres of Art

Does the distribution of the Dave Matthews Band live trax (or any other performing artist) diminish the experience shared by the audience and band or does it give valor and worth the the experience by proving it to have been a great performance to someone who was not present?


In a way, the experience is diminished. Part of what makes the live music experience so magical is it's ethereal nature. Why pay 150$ for a ticket to a show if that show is going to be captured and distributed? The ticketholder is in part paying for the right to be a part of that fleeting, transient experience. Maybe the ticketholder should be informed that the show is going to be recorded?

At the same time, true lovers of music vibe on the fact that the music that they love is being performed in front of them, real fingers on real keys and sticks and strings. If a musiclover truly loves music for its artistic and performance value, it'll make no difference whether the experience is recorded and distributed or not.

Is it worth the exponential difference in price to pay for front row seats to a show, when a CD could possibly be available in better sound quality, reaccessible at your leisure?

Response to Nicole's response to Katherine

Can we ever be sure of the Art-ness of an object?

This question borders on that hazy realm of subjectivity, the one that makes questions and discussions of art's artness so difficult to answer.

To be sure of the artness of an object, you must have in your mind a clear definition of what exactly constitutes a work of art. If there are necessary elements missing from an object, elements which you yourself hold to be needed in a piece of art, than you can be sure that the piece is not art.

Are there any concrete requisites, that you can think of, that would definitely designate an object as art?

Response to Aurora's it's not WHAT is art, it's WHEN...

How is Goodman contributing to the definition of art?

Goodman's preference to the asking of when compared to what seems on the surface one of semantics, and I'm sure an eloquent art theorist could argue that point to the grave.

If we do want to plumb the meaning of his theory, though, we must give him some leiway and try to think creatively. When you ask "what is art," you are referring to the object itself. "What" seems more tangible than the temporal "when." When you ask "when is art," however, the question seems to be referring to an occurance rather than an object.

This occurance is the communication of feeling that Tolstoy deemed necessary for art to be successful. Goodman is trying to lift artworks out of the banality in which ordinary objects dwell, and attach to them something extraordinary. I think in this sense, he does in fact make a contribution to the definition of art.

Is the argument just one of semantics? Are there no real differences between "what" and "when"? If so, what is your view on the difference between the two views?

Response to Mary's response to Misty

Has the evolution of art and societies over time brought art closer to reality, or has the reality of the artworks taken away the mystery of art?

I'm going to fuss about your question briefly, but that's okay, because it still serves as a wonderful prompt: the two aren't mutually exclusive... the evolution of art has in fact taken away the mystery of art. But how, you ask?

Before the advent of the automobile, traveling was an ordeal. Horses were involved, inns and stables and bandits and the like. If one wanted to travel to a museum to view a collection of art, the process involved was more expensive, more dangerous, and more time consuming.

If you are given an ice cream cone after walking 1/10th of a mile, as compared to running 2 miles, you're going to appreciate the ice cream cone much more after the run. Similarly, if you hop in your car and zip over to the Philadelphia Museum of Art at 76mph, as compared to taking a horse and buggy, you're going to arrive there at least five times as slow, and that's if you and your horse are feeling frisky.

When things are easily accessible, we as a society take them for granted; it is our nature. The fact that we can access an online gallery of Monet lessens the mystery, as you put it, turns it from a masterpiece into a novelty.

Does the fact that millions of people instead of thousands are able to access an art gallery make up for the fact that the "mystery" is gone? Quantity of experience over quality?

Response to Skyla's response to "Life Changing Art"

Is there really such thing as a bad artist or is a bad artist not actually an artist at all?

I think yes, bad artists do exist in the world.

We'll pick on an imaginary Joe named Mitch. Mitch is a fellow who fails to communicate the message he intended to be communicated in his art. You already sort of touched on this in your post (which was very well written I thought), but I disagree on one area. You said something like "If there is true meaning behind it, the observer will appreciate it." Well, Mitch here tried his little heart out to communicate the sadness of his life, but everyone who approaches his painting can't help but smile. In this case, Mitch produced the opposite emotion he was intending - thus his art is "bad." Some would argue that the fact that his art induces some type of emotional response means that it is good art. I disagree - he in fact produced the polar emotion, and so he gets negative points.

Another example is music. We'll use a real life example this time, mostly just so I can pick on a 90's boyband. N'Sync! To the best of my musical understanding, they made a mockery of important themes in life: love, friendship, et cetera. The fact that they so mangled these themes, dressed them up in chintzy colors and kitschy phrasings is Bad. It's just plain Bad. Some may appreciate their form of expression, but I for one believe the world would be a more integritous place sans N'Sync.

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?

Response top Jenna's "Knowledge v Emotion"

"Do you think it is better to possess knowledge about a work of art or to interpret it in a personal way?"

This is a tough question to answer, as it is entirely interpretive/subjective. Oh wait. So are all the other questions.

I'll assume by better you mean more moving, more aesthetic-emotion-inspiring, to the viewer of the art. If this is the case, knowledge is almost entirely irrelevant. In fact, too much knowledge can in fact be a detriment to the art process.

Suppose I was the world's foremost expert in the field of cubism and the theory of cubism. If an amateur artist came up to me and showed me his stab at cubism, chances are I would be unable to see past his foibles and appreciate his art. A layman, however, could approach the art piece with a fresh palette (hyuck hyuck), and glean all sorts of emotional communications that I missed, as I was too busy knitpicking through the mistakes.

Is it possible to approach a piece of art with a fresh palette while simultaneously in possession of knowledge in the field. Can we look past what we know and see novelty and newness again, and be inspired and moved by the freshness, even if it is amateur freshness?

Response to Zach's response to Skyla's "Self Expression"

Zach asked: What are your opinions on plastic surgery?

Plastic surgery is one of those things that has been stigmatized to hell and back by our society.

Our view, in general, is this: If you aren't born with it, don't get it! It'll be fake, and therefore, less valuable than your own natural assets.

I see plastic surgery as having little difference from tattooing. What if, for instance, Sheila got breast augmentation surgery, but denied it to everyone she met. For all intents and purposes, these new acquaintances would believe that Sheila was just a naturally busty lady. They would have no way of knowing that Sheila had the surgery, and not having this knowledge would neither positively nor negatively affect them. Perhaps Sheila's self-confidence is so significantly bolstered by the surgery that she leads a more successful life, bears more emotionally stable children, and is a kinder, more open person towards her peers? Is this still so very bad?

Plastic surgery is more invasive than tattooing, but what about cultures who file teeth to points, who split tongues into serpentine forks? What about scarification? These are all forms of self-expression, different means to the same end.

Response to Skyla's "Self Expression"

Skyla asked: Do you think the body is a blank canvass for self-expression or should people respect their natural selves and leave expression to painting, writing, sculpting and other forms of creating tangible art objects?

I think this is an issue entirely dependent on cultural setting.

If one could somehow travel back to Victorian England, it would be unheard of, obscene, even, to tattoo one's body if one were a member of the royal court. Tattooing would have been seen as unclean, heathenistic. Those most commonly tattooed in this time period were those who were members of freak shows or the like.

Tattoos in our society today have almost strictly a cosmetic or sentimental value, but historically they have been used for many other purposes. Tattoos commonly marked life achievements or landmarks: coming of age, successful big-game hunts, fertility, etc. They also were thought amongst some peoples to bring luck to their bearer. They have also been used to mark convicts or exiles, or, even more perversely, as means of identification, such as during the holocaust.

Tattoos, in all forms past and present, are a form of communication. The bearer of the tattoo has a piece of information to be shared, and this is shared via their tattoo: "love me, stay away from me, look at my originality, see my religious zeal, understand the extent of my love for another, et al."

My Question: Because of this double nature, the art and the communication, are tattoos stronger in their artness? Is the message of the tattoo irrelevant in weighing its success as a piece of art?

Response to Lisa's "David Hume and Taste"

Lisa asks: "How can there be a universal agreement on art when we all come from a different background?"

If we look back at the idea of ars poetica, and of significant form, we see that there are in fact works of art that are intrinsically more appealing than other works. There are some amongst us who are seemingly divinely endowed with the ability to combine words in such a way, or two combine shapes, lines, and colors in such a way, as to transcend the subject matter. Subject matter is usually what makes art pertinent and good in one culture and not another, but when you have achieved this near-sublime mastery of your craft, your art is culture-blind.

My question is this: Does this superart really exist? Are there really combinations of words and lines that are inherently superior to other combinations of words and lines? Is this just something that critics through the years have latched onto collectively in order to reinforce their own point of view through strength-by-numbers?

Response to Mary's "what?"

Mary asked "Can an individual's set of ethics be changed by aesthetics?"

I think the answer is unfortunately yes.

Take for example the typical high school setting. There is a super pretty girl whom everyone dotes upon and looks up to. Somebody sees her one day littering some garbage on the lawn of the school. This somebody, because of the slimness of her waist and the color of her hair, excuses the act of littering as acceptable because the pretty girl was the litterer. If perhaps the school midget, who also has a horrible case of scoliosis and rosacia, were to litter the same trash and be seen by the same somebody, the case would be unacceptable. How dare that unattractive person contribute to the worlds ugliness?!

Perhaps a handsome boy is being bullied for his feminine qualities. A typical crowd of high schoolers might see that situation as wrong, unjust. If a boy with a limp and a bad haircut were suffering the same ridicule, perhaps the same crowd of high schoolers would not have a problem with the bullying, or perhaps less of a problem.

We are shallow creatures, in general, and in this way our ethics can be affected by aesthetic properties.

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?

Response to Marek's "Should we take art seriously?"

Marek asked in a blog whether we should take art seriously.

Marek's main complaint with the analysis of art, the critical viewing of it, is that sometimes we take it too far. I gleaned from his description of the stereotypical art connoisseur that he thinks that overanalysis leads to boredom, to something other than what the art was intended to be for.

Earlier this semester I spoke of the extensive analysis that some former classmates and I suffered in a BritLit class. The object of analysis was Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. We viewed the book through a feminist lens, a psychoanalytical lens, a Marxist lens, an existential lens, and about four others besides that I've surgically removed from my brain. Before taking the class, I enjoyed the book immensely. After such thorough and extensive analyses, I found that all of the joy had been leeched from my experience of reading the book.

I took Frankenstein seriously the first time I read it. I enjoyed it the first time I read it. Possibly some works are meant to be meticulously poured over, and possibly some people are better equipped for that type of attentive analysis. I think, in summary, that art should be taken seriously, but not so seriously that you lose the expressive side of it and turn it into some type of cooking recipe or assembly manual.

response to marek's response to my response to him (-.-)

Marek asked: "Can Art be mundane? Must it be exotic and thought provoking? Can it be 'Ordinary?'"

Mundane (adj.) - Of, relating to, or typical of this world; secular.

I'm nitpicking now, but if we look at the word "mundane" denotatively, then yes; art not only can be mundane, but most of the time it must be mundane.

Religious art is outstanding when viewed in these terms. Now a new question arises - Is the "aesthetic emotion" experienced in the face of good art equivalent to something nonsecular, something divine?

In answer to the first bit, art can be mundane, I think, but it can also be nonsecular, or divine. This is one example among countless multitudes, but many of the Renaissance painters painted divine images, and were often directly employed by entities such as the Vatican.

"Must art be exotic? Thought provoking?"

Art needn't be exotic to be art. Take for example a Renoir, or a Rockwell. These two greats painted scenes from daily life, certainly not what one would consider exotic, and yet they both had incredible abilities to capture emotion, social essence, the peoples' zeitgeist.

This sort of answers the last bit, about art being "ordinary." Great art is not ordinary - it is something that most of us cannot produce. Great art, though, can depict things that are ordinary. A realist painter, Andrew Wyeth, painted a picture of a woman perched in a doorway, the sun slanting in, illuminating her face, as she gazes out into a pasture. This situation is certainly ordinary, and yet it tugs the ol' heartstrings.

So we've established that art needn't be exotic, but when it is, is it a stronger work of art? Is that just the part of us that appreciates things novel, or is there intrinsic value in the alien, the remarkable?

Response to Marek's One Art Form to Describe Another

Marek asked: why should the definition of art be specific?

Whoo. This is a big one.

I don't necessarily believe that art can be defined as something specific, and I'm not sure that I want it to be specifically definable even if it were possible, but hypothetically, art's definition should be specific so that we can classify objects as art.

If art is truly indefinable, then the acts of lacing one's shoes, of brushing one's teeth, microwaving Easy Mac, would be art. Art cannot be allowed to be mundane - there are too many people who are too invested, driven by, obsessed with, centered around, alive for art for this to be a possibility. Art cannot possibly encompass these inane acts, because then it would be impossible to appreciate art in the first place. If you eat chocolate ice cream after evey meal, you get sick of chocolate ice cream. Even if you buy really really really good ice cream one day, you will still be sick of it. Similarly, if all acts are art, then people would be desensitized to art, even if it is good art. They would think of it as ordinary, commonplace.

Art needs a definition, or people need a definition for art, because if art is truly indefinable, then many things unartistic are "art," and good art would lose it's luster.

Am I right about art losing it's luster? Would good art stand out to the viewer even if everything they did, down to buttoning their shirt, was considered "art"?

Response to Jillian's Significant or Irrelevant?

Do you think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art?

I do think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art. Tolstoy would have said that, despite the mandatory nature of an art assignment, you are still achieving that level of communication - you are still portraying a specific emotion to the public. If the public recieves that emotion, then the source of your motivation, mandated or otherwise, is irrelevant.

This question makes me think of the relationship between publishers and authors. More often than not, the publishers sets deadlines for the author. "You must have written 100 pages by this date, 200 by that date..." etc. There is a time limit, an outside prompt, involved in the creation of the author's works, but the works are still literature, still art.

Is there a direct relation between the quality of artwork if it is asked for at a certain time, in a certain way, and art that is made simply for art's sake?

Response to Zach's "Availability of Art"

Does the availability of art numb us to good art or does it end the snobbish and stuck up view of art that is only a select view can view it?

The availability of art is a double-edged sword, as is the case with almost every availability granted us homo sapiens today, where technology has flooded the masses with information to the point that we don't even process most of it; we couldn't if we tried, so voluminous is the eLibrary.

On the one hand, the fact that a person from Bombay is able to see masterfully rendered artifacts that (s)he would have never seen otherwise is a wonderful thing. The translation of great works of literature into hundreds of different languages is also wonderful. People are aesthetically "richer" in this day and age then ever before.

Or are they?

The sensory overload which every member of developed countries (,and most "undeveloped" countries as well,) deal with on a daily basis has desensitized us to great art. By this I mean that we have lost our ability to appreciate the extraordinary. When the extraordinary is accessible regularly and without effort, it becomes ordinary.

Beethoven's 4th (or 5th?) that is dubbed under every third car commercial that comes out, for instance; it was once a revered, honored piece of art, and has now been debased to the status of "jingle." This is a travesty, and one so common that it is accepted on a global scale.

Will the fact that I've seen the Eiffel Tower 800 times depicted in puzzles, posters, post cards, and legos lessen my wonder and awe when I actually see the structure in person? Probably not, but the fact that the possibility exists is a sad one.

I guess it boils down to this:

Which is more important?

A) A few people witnessing grandeur and mastery in person?
B) Many people experiencing works of art who would have otherwise not had the experience, but at the almost guarantee-able risk of a lesser aesthetic value?

Response to Jenna's "Who is an Artist?"

Jenna asked the big ol' question of "Who is an artist?"

Artist
(n) a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.

According to Miriam and Webster, whoever they were, artists are those who do the above.

This is a specific definition, but it is certainly vague in its specificity. First, we must attempt to define these "aesthetic criteria." For the sake of brevity and clarity, we will assume (in this brief blog, at least) that "art" is a thing that satisfies "aesthetic criteria," i.e. something pleasing to the senses.

This opens up not a can of worms, but rather a veritable supertanker of the vermicular buggers.

A farmer reaps a field of wheat, creating visually pleasing heaps of the stuff at intervals in the field. The symmetry is pleasant, the smell earthy and good; my senses are sated. Is this farmer an artist?

An arborist meticulously tends to his fruit trees, creating perfectly rounded, high-yielding apple machines! The trees are a sight to behold, they house birds who sing beautifully, and the apples born on their branches are delicious and nutritious. Is this arborist an artist?

It seems to me that, by the dictionary definition, art and vocation, art and occupation, art and recreation, these things are all art.

Can art be produced by a farmer or an arborist or a machinist or a blacksmith?

Craft = Art = Trade?

response to aurora's response to DKJ

question(s): was the woman singing in haiti an artist? if not, what if her singing was recorded and released?

The woman in Haiti was expressing her grief through song. Was she singing to let others know of her sorrow? Was it meant for them, for commiseration and sympathy? If we look at art as a means of communication of emotion to another person or people, then yes, the singer conveyed the emotion of distress and misery to her neighbors.

But what if she was singing only for herself? The people in proximity heard her song and recognized its emotion and beauty, but maybe the "artist" never meant for this recognition, for an audience.

Is pure self-expression art? What if the artist did not mean for any emotional communication to care, was singing for herself? Must we be singing or drawing or dancing for someone in order for our actions/creations/expressions to be "art?"

Response to Lisa's "Bell&Music"

Lisa Asked:

"When you listen to music, do you distinguish the music from the lyrics or do you tend to take the piece as a whole and judge it based on the hybridization of the music and the lyrics?"

First of all, I'd like to take a second and appreciate your punny title. Intentional or no, it's still pretty good.

Alrighty!

I believe this to be case specific. Music is a huge part of my life, and I listen to it and play it often, and so sometimes it's hard to pry the two apart. If I listen to a song that's in a genre I don't particularly like, I often separate the two. Most of today's pop music I don't much like. The lyrics are often insubstantial, and the person singing them hardly ever composed the words. This being said, the beats are certainly catchy, the tracks well-mastered, and the lyrics at least aurally appealing. In this case, I separate the words from the music in order to squeeze some type of enjoyment out of the process.

With a genre like rap, where the sound and rhythm of the rapper's voice is as much a part of the music as are the drums and bass, I often treat the voice like an instrument; that is, I don't treat the words as words, I treat them as different notes being hit by the instrument-voice. This way, even if the rapper is rapping about something chintzy like making money and pimping hos, I can still appreciate the musical quality of the genre.

Really good music, though, I treat as one sound. Jason Mraz (don't hate, appreciate), for instance, has a wonderful voice. I treat it like an instrument, but he also is a wordsmith, and so I don't have to ignore the message he's portraying. Along with his wonderful popjazz style, the whole works are absolutely eargasmic.

Hopefully this answered your question?

Phantasies

Sigmund Freud is very explicit in his interpretation of the creative process.

Freud says that all creative works stem from the yearning to reclaim the idyllic joy and comfort and security that most of us experienced as children. For instance, he says that all creativity starts with an experience. This experience reminds us, subconsciously, of a similar experience had as a child. This reminder makes us long for the feeling produced by the experience, and so we create art that seeks to satisfy this latent, precognitive urge.

He also says that daydreaming is a "continuation of and substitute for the play of childhood."

I's got some beef here.

I dabble in the arts from time to time. When I write lyrics to a song, it is usually in response to a feeling I have just felt, not one I felt 18 years ago. When I write a catchy musical hook or chord progression, it is usually a response to outside musical stimuli, mixed with my own interpretation, mixed with spontaneous riffing. I'm pretty sure the feeling of a fresh diaper didn't inspire that bluesy walking bass line.

Again, Freud was all about the backbrain, hypocognition and whathaveyou, so I may very well be blowing smoke up my own ass, but I am curious to see what you guys think. Do these acts stem from childhood experiences? Am I seeking some type of puerile respite in my creativity? What about Aditi's doodling theory? Do mindless illustrations offer us a glimpse at our unspoken, unthought yens?

Response to Aurora's QUICKBLOG!

I'm responding to the second bit of your post, the one questioning the arthood of works akin to Shel Silverstein's.

A graphic artist who spends something like 3 hours on one corner of an illustrated house, getting the shading just so, would probably rule out Shel's drawings as art. Along this same line, Lord Byron would have likely laughed in his face, had Mr. Silverstein somehow discovered the secret to time travel and brought with him "A Light In The Attic."

This being said, I believe that Silverstein's simplicity lends itself to the medium. He is writing predominantly for young people, though there is certainly a richness passed over by children that can be appreciate when read at an older age. I see Silverstein as a modern day, sardonic, witty Aesop. His poetry, if I may classify his work as such, is moralistic, and his illustrations and voice are earty, folky, and to the point.

A laudable five-minute blog, to be sure, Miss Cooper. I say yes! absolutely Shel Silverstein and his kith are artists.

If a snot came up to you and tried to disprove artists like Shel Silverstein, what would you say? What are the main points with which you would refute the snot's arguments?

Art's Malleability

we discussed on wednesday morning the possibility that artists may create art dualistic in its emotional nature. that is, the artist may have fully intended one group of people to respond with one emotion, another to respond with a different emotion, and a third to perhaps respond indifferently. does this dualistic nature conflict with art's "artness"?

tolstoy claims that art is art when it successfully communicates a felt emotion on the behalf of the artist to the viewer (-forgive me if this definition is vague or inaccurate, i attempted to summarize a brilliant mind's view of art in a sentence). if the artist intends happiness to be communicated via a picture of a romping pup, but the viewer of the art just lost a pup very much like the one in the art, is the art still art? does it depend on if the majority of the viewers feel the emotion the artist meant to be felt, or is it case specific? the art is not art to the person whose pup was lost, but is to everyone who was accurately communicated to?

what about a portrayal of a battlefield whose fight recently agated, the soldiers of which we'll say for the sake of argument hail new zealand and australia. one side clearly lost. the artist is an NZer. is it still art to the aussies?

i postulate that, as long as the artist created the piece feeling SOME type of emotion, and the viewer perceives the art with SOME type of emotion attached, then the piece is art.

then again, i don't exactly get riled up looking at a flower vase, but the sculptor certainly poured intention and emotion both into the piece. hmm...

Response to Aditi's "purpose"

When you're subconcious creates (mindless doodling, etc) is this art? The obvious answer would be yes, but think about it. Is doodling really "art" by the definition we concluded? Is it just boredom? And is boredom something that adds intention to our doodles?

Very tricky question, Aditi. If we are prescribing to the intentionality theory of art, then no, because there is no intention behind mindless doodling other than to distract you from a boring lecturer, an inane film clip, an monotonous bus ride, et cetera.

What if somebody sees your mindless doodle, though, and is moved to tears? Clearly some emotion was transmitted, despite the fact that your half of the transmission may have been unintentional.

Boredom does not add intention to our doodles. If you really wanna be picky, there is SOME intention behind your doodles, as you intended to take up time and space, to occupy your face for 10 minutes. So, maybe how you deal with boredom is intentional? Whichever the answer, you did not intend to create art, you intended to kill time. I think that means no, doodling is not art, at least insofar as we have defined art.

Jackson Pollock unintentionally discovered the method of painting for which he was most famous for. Jimi Hendrix undoubtedly acid-riffed at least one, and most likely several, of his most famous songs, and drug-induced riffing is comparable to boredom-induced doodling.

Curiouser and curiouser.

response to aurora's response to shawna's "utopian society"

"where would art fit in a utopian society?"

in a utopian society, there is no dissent, no unhappiness, no societal "rust" in the "gears."

i myself am an artist, as i'm sure many of you are. i happen to be a musician, which is the least frowned-upon form or artistic expression in Plato's republic, but still, my craft would be hindered. i can say for certain that if i were repressed in my craft, i would absolutely speak out. marx and engels, in their communist manifesto, stated as a need of our species the opportunity to express ourselves artistically, among other things. if we are denied these needs, things get hairy.

inherently, we are a creative species, and if those among us who have that need to create are denied the opportunity to do so, i absolutely think there would be some type of artistic revolution, unless there existed some type of widely available, socially acceptable tranquilizer, such as soma in aldous huxley's "brave new world."

in george orwell's "the time machine," society physically splits into two different classes - by this, i mean they physiologically evolve into two different races. the above ground race is a brainless, androgynous species that subsists on fruit, mystically supplied goods, orgiastic sexual encounters, and population control. the below-grounders are hideous, industrial, and predatory on the previously mentioned above-grounders.

without one of these aforementioned systems of existence (chemical dependence, population control, et cetera) i propose that plato's republic would fail. there are simply too many artists.

can you think of a way whereby artists would not be driven insane, other than the scenarios i've offered above? is it even a feasible possibility? what is it exactly that plato despises about artistic expression? whether you believe in jesus or darwin, we are copies of some greater form (dna or jesus himself). why is it so wrong for us, facsimilies ourselves, to use and embrace imitations in our daily lives?

response to misty's so, you got a line on some paper...

you asked: if society views an object as art, does it make that object art?

i think yes and no. society as a whole will never, ever agree unanimously on anything, discounting perhaps that food and sex and water and sleep are good. because of this, part of society could view something as art, and then it would be art to them - there will ALWAYS be those dissenters who'll squabble and moan, thus excluding the possibility for art to be art because society views it as such.

yes: we discussed intention of the behalf of both the artist and the art observer. if you prescribe to this theory, then yes, art is any-freaking-thing that either the artist or the art observer deems "art."

no: again, you'll never get all hands up on any issue. someone could crumple a piece of paper up and then drizzle it with chocolate syrup and a maraschino cherry and stick it on top of a traffic cone and call it ice cream. i'd call that a piece of trash and a waste of a good maraschino, but the artist would definitely defy that view.

tricky question, but thought provoking.

if you can get MOST of a room, a town, a city, a country, to agree that a work is in fact a work of art, then is it art? is it an issue of majority, or simply of one observer agreeing with the artist? is that agreement even necessary? is the artist's intent enough alone?

response to aurora on time and art

the ed hopper exhibit you saw sounds enthralling - i think the fact that he could paint as well as temporate is a pretty astonishing feat.

i think your take on impressionism is interesting. the impression obviously differs with the impressionist; a vase of orchids will look different to each viewer, and each viewer also has different skills and modes, so between these two differences there exists a whole range of possibilities, which probably one of the contributing factors as to how the impressionist movement was able to thrive the way it did.

other forms absolutely capture time. hopper's piece probably is an anomaly amongst the visual arts in that he was able to implement the passing of time in the art itself, if i interpreted correctly. music captures time via the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus structure, or whatever structure the musician chooses. the repetition acts sort of as an artistic stopwatch or something? dance, though, does it the best, out of the mediums that you listed. you can watch the direction of the movement, compare it with the last 10 seconds of dance, and watch the forms progress/digress/disappear/appear.

is there another format that more purely captures the passage of time? literature? the pyramids?! frank lloyd wright played with light and the sun's path through heaven in his architecture, you should definitely check it out.

The Tree!

So.
When a tree falls in a forest...
You all know where this is going.
According to our (humanity's) greatest minds, sound is a phenomenon that occurs when vibrations (sound waves) enter our ear canal and essentially jiggle around our earparts. SO!
Without the human ear involved in this equation, sound, by it's denotative definition, is absent.

I'm going to focus blindly and specifically on this particular question, that is, whether a felled tree makes a sound upon hitting the earth if nobody is around to hear it. Through the correspondent theory of truth, sound waves are sound waves, no? We know that sound waves equal sound. Despite the fact that a given Joe's earparts are not in fact jiggling, the catalyzing factor (the sound waves) are still present. So, does the potentiality for sound being created mean that the sound exists?

What if Joe's earparts aren't jiggled, but Notwood Porcupine's are shaking off the map! Is a sound still created? A coherentist would say that yes, porcupines have ears. They have earparts. Soundwaves+earparts=sound. BUT HOW DO WE REALLY KNOW? Without inhabiting a porcupines consciousness with our own, there is no way to prove this.

I'm not sure I'm cohering to anything at this point, but by all means, DKJ and classmates, ridicule/comment/complain to your heart's content.

Regards!
Ty