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?