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?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, May 7, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
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?
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?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
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?
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?
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?
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?
Monday, May 3, 2010
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?
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)