Art has not always been what we think it is today. An object regarded as Art today may not have been perceived as such when it was first made, nor was the person who made it necessarily regarded as an artist. Both the notion of "art" and the idea of the "artist" are relatively modern terms. What makes some works of art better than others? How can you tell good art from bad art? Is there really such a thing? Should art be pleasing to the eye? Can art be ugly? Why would an artist make an ugly work of art? Should artists imitate what they see? In what ways does art represent the world?
15 comments:
I appreciate the fact that for our unit on art, you changed the picture on your website from a picture of the Egyptian Pyramids to a portrait of you, evidently done in the French impressionist style.
Art is a very complex concept to teach. As a matter of fact, it cannot be taught, everyone must discover art of their own accord. Only pieces of art can be taught. Art history, drawing, pottery, music, literature, drama and painting, these are the gratuitous aspects of art. The love; and at the risk of sounding ridiculous, I would say that all art has sprouted like a flower from the rich, fertile topsoil of Human and universal emotion and love.
The Art that I am talking about should untouchable and un-teachable aspect of art, the maybe divine aspect of art, lies within each human being. This aspect is the imagination and flow of creative life force gushing through minds, souls, and bodies and transferred, translated, transmitted and transformed into what we call Art. Art is not merely a painting on a wall to look at and analyze (or deconstruct). Art is not even a way of life, as some may say. Art is an essence of the ethereal plane. You can learn how to draw, but to turn your sketches and drawings into “Art” requires a dedication and outpouring of emotion rivaling only that which is seen with not even be called Art. Art is a word we have come to associate with anything that is created by people who classify themselves or are classified by others as “Artists”. In my view, there is only one kind of real artist:
“I am an artist, but an artist of the purest kind. I am a poet without poems, a painter without paintings, a musician without notes. I scorn ready made art, the banal result of vulgar effort. My life is my work, the consequences of which are my masterpiece.”
As Amauta has stated, art cannot be defined. I agree, especially when in terms of art’s history. The documentary we began watching in class was an interesting way to investigate how art gives a clue to the history of the human brain and race. The points that the film made were very intriguing and the theories made sense too. However, one thing the makers of the film did not realize is that by forcing such a radical opinion onto the viewer they go against the cause of art. Art is liberal and it cannot be bounded by any boundaries. The reason art exists is unknown. In fact it will never be known because art is a spontaneous idea that arises in the mind, no fossils or scientific tests can provide evidence for artistic creations. Humans began to create but the reason for it will forever remain secret.
In modern times, art has played the same role as it did in the time of cavemen but its presence has grown in scale. People do not only create art to express themselves and to keep a log of history but art has become a major source of income. Art’s economic strength is at incredible levels. Although having self-expression bring one income is great, some have abused this idea. Many “artists” have made artwork strictly for the purpose of making money. If such a trend continues, over generations people’s mentality will change and the true essence and reason of art will be lost along with culture and eventually part of humanity.
The fact that art is indefinable, as one can tell from the comments written so far, is widely accepted. As I am sure, this idea will be stated again as it has before. Thus, there is no further use in me restating it, so I have chosen to focus on one style of art. This art is music. In my opinion, music is the supreme art; it takes skill and involves all of the human senses. If one focuses on music strongly enough they will not only be able to hear it but will see it performed, feel its rhythm, and smell and taste the instruments and the sounds they make. Also, music is possibly one of the most fun and active arts. Another aspect of music, that makes it important, is its cultural presence. Almost every culture in the world has a style of music tied to it. Whether its vocal folk songs or drum rhythms each culture has a music that represents it. Music also provides peoples with entertainment and a way to relax, plus income for the musicians. Every now and then, a certain cultures music becomes popular and well-known; soon the entire world is listening and making that style of music. Although the same can happen to any type of art, it does not happen nearly as often or on the same scale as with music. In conclusion, music has an immeasurable impact on the people of the world and without it life would be equally unimaginable.
In my third and final installation, I would like to discuss how art has directly influenced me and how it has helped shape my life. Referring back to my previous comment about music, I am a musician. Until the beginning of this year, I was a very dedicated trumpet player at school. I played in numerous school bands throughout middle/high school and did a good amount of gigs. However, this year a group of friends and I decided to take our music to the next level. Together we formed a reggae band called “No Artificial Ingredients.” What at first was just a hobby soon (by luck and chance encounter) grew into something more serious. After being noticed by a man that calls himself our “manager” we began doing shows and earning money. In fact, things have gotten to the point where we are now recording and producing our own original songs. Although it is mostly fun and interesting, playing and writing music with the band is still actually work and it has become a big part of my life. Through our music we teach and entertain people, while at the same time making new friends and fans. On top of that, the experiences and situations that have come about because of the band are memorable. On the other hand, it is arguable, whether I take my music seriously or whether I am just finding something fun to take up my time. However, there is no arguing that being in the band and playing music makes me who I am.
Throughout history, art has evolved from being abstract to imitating reality. Abstract art is said to be conveyed based on one’s attitude and mood. Yet, most abstract art does not seem to represent reality. The reason why human images did not represent reality and were exaggerated was because humans respond to unrealistic images more than realistic. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that artists that did create realistic images created “bad” art. Art is a way for people to express themselves, yet sometimes, the type of art that they favor may not be appreciated. To have an appreciation of art means that one has specific types of art that they do and do not favor. Since art evolved throughout history, the appreciation for different types of art, such as realistic, changed. Egyptians began to create human images that were normal and not as exaggerated. Yet, they did create paintings that displayed the clearest angle of each individual body part. Egyptians believed to have a desire to preserve this art style because the style reflected their need of unity and formality. In order for their images to be preserved, they decided to create formal statues and sculptures that were based on their culture and beliefs. In modern society, people have their own opinion and an appreciation of abstract and realistic art, which is why no one can be considered to be creating “bad” art or not being an artist. There are many ways that art can represent the world because representation can be conveyed in art based on the mood and temperament of a specific artist or on observation and depiction of people and reality, without exaggeration. Art is created in order to express and represent one’s feelings or represent reality and life, yet to consider an artwork “ugly” or “bad” or consider someone to not be an artist is impossible.
There is no definition of Art because art is everything. Art is made by the world; it could be crystal structures in caves, or the flower on a Baobab tree, or even lightning. When captured on film these things all are considered art, whether the art in used in a documentary, or put on exhibit at the National Gallery of Art. I think that anything that has to do with life is Art. There was a time when they had found object art, also known as readymade art, where all they did was put a urinal on a wall and it would be called art. Marcel Duchamp is a great example of this in his work “the fountain” which is, as I described, a urinal on a wall. Also people have made landscapes or nature drawings that are meant to imitate the natural world.
There is no way to tell good art from bad art. It is all preference if you like abstract or maybe you like “trompe l'oeil”. One can say that the art of one may be better because of technique. But in art, is there really a set technique that all must follow? Transcendentalism has a principle that states you are the answers to your own questions. So if you believe art should be aesthetically pleasing than that is your answer, or maybe art is only meant to be portraits or landscapes then there is your answer. If you believe the art is ugly then you have your answer but I am sure that someone else who has seen the same work truly likes it.
As someone once said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it would seem that the same applies to art.
There is a group of artist that define art as doing what you can do to your fullest capability. They make simple art it is built on the ideals of simplicity. A good example in the Vietnam Memorial which is black marble with engraved names. But the simplicity is what people liked about the memorial after it was built. I think that this new ideal of simplicity is the future of art. We always show in the future curves and smooth surfaces all clean. This ideal of the future must have been brought up because people find curves and smooth and clean surfaces aesthetically pleasing.
This is a weird concept because in life objects tend to be circular. This can be seen in the solar system where all the planets are circular shapes which in cause by gravity and the want of substances to be in their simplest energy state. You can also on earth see spheres in dew drops that form the spherical shape because of molecular forces and surface tension, thus making it use less energy. I think that the modern ideals of the future are based on the unconscious human wanting to be in this state of less energy. Because truly which is easier to look at a rainbow or a black circle?
In my opinion, art is defined as anything that stimulates us emotionally. Art can be anything that moves us so that we are so overcome with emotions difficult to explain. Art can be anything from, writings to dance. When says “art” today, people immediately think of “The Arts.” I think “the arts” are probably the best way to give some sort of idea to what art is. Art is not just was one sees on canvas, carved from marble, or in the museums; it can also be the graffiti one sees while riding the train home . Art is everywhere. Really, there is no way to deem one piece of art work better than the other. One may be more aesthetically pleasing than another, but how does that justify saying is it better? The beauty of art lies in the one who is “judging” it. I use the word “judging’ loosely because whenever some looks at a work of art, they are giving their personal judging of it. They determine how the artwork makes them feel, whether or not it pleases them, what the artist could have done, what the artist was trying to convey, etc. Because every individual is different, their perception and how they view art is different. What is magnificent for one person may be mediocre or horrible for another. When deeming artwork, how one chooses goes back to the saying, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
I think art should be pleasing to eye. I think that when artists go about creating their masterpieces, they are subconsciously thinking of what the audience will like. However, I do not think they make their choices to please the audiences and I do not think it should be so. I believe that if an artist creates artwork solely on what he/she thinks the audience will want to see, they are not really creating art. They are not really expressing anything, they are just creating “art” for the sake of pleasing others. I think art can be ugly in relation to the artist trying to hard. It goes back to an artist trying to please the crowd. If the artist tries to hard, chances are the crowd will not accept the artwork. It can be seen as too different and therefore ugly, not worthy of recognition. I don’t think artists try to make their art ugly, I think they strive too much for perfection. Artists should not imitate exactly what they see. However, I think it is a compliment for one artist to use some part of another artist’s style. Also, I think the audience likes to be able to pick up one techniques of one artist in someone else work.
Art represents the world in so many ways. Artists depict nature in their work all the time. In ballets, the dancers will dance to Spring. Some artists, specifically focus on nature and the natural world. I think the art that we see is a clear representation of the world around us.
There is a whole other side of art that we have not taken into account. This is computer animation. Computer animation in so common in our daily lives that we for get about it. Whenever you are watch an action movie there is usually computer animation to illustrate the other moves or techniques that humans are not able to do. But you may over look this because it looks so realistic to are taken back. Computer animation also can be just blue screening when you watch the weather every morning and you see the news casters standing in front of a moving map this is due to a computer graphics.
Also we have not taken into account of the non-tangible art, which is music. Now we all have stated it is all preferences if the music is good or bad. Or that all you can say is music is media that is received through the sense of hearing. Which leaves this open to the sounds of a waterfall or, Beethoven’s 5th symphony or even, the sound of someone walking. Music is not limited to notes but could be anything as in the Oscars with the sound effect choir in which they made sounds such as rain falling, and wind blowing to create a surreal experience. These all could be considered an art form.
Everyone had very wonderful things to say regarding the universality of Art, and the spirituality involved in it. Someone wise once said that we all only express half of what we are able to at any given time, either due to shame, or fear. If we were ever able to uncork the vast recesses of our mind and soul, we would unleash upon the world a wave of beauty. I love that saying, because it provides hope for all artists, to be able to finally tap into the well of creativity trapped inside them and let the waters of art rush through.
The only person i would disagree with is Alex. He writes that "music is the supreme art". I would argue that Art supersedes notes and melodies. And while Alex may be very connected to Music, being himself a musician, I would not encourage artistic partisanship, as it only blocks the passageways of human interaction and cooperation, thus blocking real Art from becoming tangible.
As a closing to this discussion, I would like to provide, not a conclusion, but a question. Is a belief in something higher than reality, a weight to success? In other words, is believing in Art as a divine inspiration sprung freshly from the inner and ethereal embodiments we call souls a ridiculous quixotic idea? Or, is it a much needed solace for those who are so innundated in reality, with bills and homework and grades and numbers. Do these people need Art as a career, or as a spiritual connection with others? What would people appreciate more: The very real prospect of money flowing in, or the very subtle feeling that you are accompanied by a true human, whose love and compassion is felt, not monetarily or physically, but emotionally and spiritually? This is the clashing of forces and oppositions that are tearing me at this moment. I know not, in which way I can best be of service to the world and my family and friends.
I do not believe in Art as social capital or a way to distinguish between various social classes. I believe, I hope and I pray that Art is more than that. I put my hopes into something non-tangible, non-physical, non-sensical. Other people have done the same, and I love them for it, because it is so human.
In response to Amauta’s question, I would say that people today create art as a means of escape and expression. I think to these people, art is some sort of spiritual connection. I disagree completely with Alex on the idea of music being the supreme art. I think that art is a good way to express one’s feelings and it is a good way to escape; but I do not believe it’s the supreme art form. Again, I think it’s up to an individual to determine what the supreme art form. For example, Alex believes the ideal art form is Music and Kelsey might say it is poetry; but to me the supreme art form is dance. And to piggyback off of what Alyssa said about good art and bad art. It all depends on who sis viewing it. However I do believe there is some standard that the world has adopted to determine what art is. When you think about it, not everything that every human has ever created is in an exhibit or on display. I do not believe that museums will allow any and everything to be submitted for display. I can’t tell you what the standard is, but I truly believe there is some standard that people go by. What if people never appreciated Monet? What if Da Vinci was frowned upon for decades to come? What if there were(what we would consider now lesser artists, hanging in the Philips Collection instead of Renoir?
Art has evolved throughout the years and is still constantly changing. Even though many people have their own opinion of what art means, it is still considered a way for artists to express themselves. Unfortunately, many people may not like a specific art piece, yet it cannot be specified as being “ugly” or “pretty.” People have their own way of interpreting it and finding significance in the art that they are analyzing and observing. The way many people observe art also depends on their temperament and their viewpoint of life. One might suffer from losing a loved one or by being involved in a tragic event and they may interpret an art piece as somber and depressing. In fact, many artists created their most famous work in their most depressing state, yet one cannot conclude that it is not appealing or is “ugly.” Yet, in contrast to suffering from depression, a person can live a happy and tranquil lifestyle. There are different meanings and interpretations in a specific art work, which cannot all be found by one person. One can discover some of the meanings by analyzing the painting techniques and the different colors that are used, which can also reflect the artist’s emotions. After they have analyzed the numerous techniques, they can discover the significance of the art work by paying attention to their own emotions and how they feel when they view a specific piece. Artists not only want to express their feelings through their art, they also want to allow people to interpret and analyze their work in their own way.
Throughout history, art has represented the world and the numerous characteristics and behaviors of society. There have been many events that have negatively and positively affected the world, such as the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001. After the bombings of the World Trade Center buildings, many people expressed themselves through art in a variety of ways. Many people created works of art, such as statues and paintings, which expressed the feelings that they had after the event and their sadness over their lost family members. Art is the best way to display one’s emotions because one can express them in any method they feel is necessary. Weather it is through sculpture or watercolors, art can help a person cope with their emotions and feelings. Since it represents the world, many people can view art as being therapeutic because it can help them be at peace with themselves and have a peaceful state of mind. Art not only helps viewers cope with their emotions, it also helps artists express themselves because it can be a form of escape. I agree with the idea that art can involve a spiritual connection because there are many depictions of religious figures and texts. For example, their have been many art pieces that have depicted Jesus Christ as being different skin tones and nationalities. The variety of representations of Christ represents the beliefs and values of a specific society. Different cultures have different images of historical figures in history, which relates to the beliefs and morals of a specific nation.
To go more in depth with Mr.Igoudjil’s question on whether art can be beautiful or ugly, it is a matter of opinion. The only way I can think of explaining this is by saying, art can be beautiful and ugly at the same time. As an example, think of Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher when the narrator first comes upon the house. He explains his emotion upon seeing the house as one of complete sadness but of a sorrow so profound it is beautiful. That is how I imagine art being both ugly and beautiful. I know when I went to the National Portrait Gallery two weeks ago, I saw paintings with subjects that I thought were absolutely hideous; but at the same time, the artist’s use of color made the painting so beautiful. That is my best attempt at explaining how I think art can be both beautiful and ugly. I guess another way to look at whether or not art can be beautiful and ugly is by saying there is some standard which is set. I think if someone were to paint a graphic scene in history, with extreme detail we would notice the artist’s eye for the little things but we would all say that the work is too explicit to be viewed by the public. Imagine walking into an art gallery and eyeing a piece that depicts an airplane crash and you see people with shrapnel piercing their body. What would your reaction to that be? I know I would be disgusted yet intrigued; horrified but at the same time truly impressed with the artist’s mastery of his trade.
Post a Comment