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?