Hannah Hoch, PRETTY GIRL, 1920
Pluralistic or Noisy?
One of the arguments against art forms such as collage, installation, and performance art is that in their inclusiveness--their willingness to admit anything and everything into the space of art-- they debase or even destroy art itself. From this point of view, such forms are to art "proper" as noise is to music. Write an essay that develops this analogy, keeping in mind that one person's noise is often another person's music.
39 comments:
Pluralistic or Noisy.......I'm not going to argue, I'm going to say "LIFE" is Performance Art and regular Art no matter what you say.Our everyday tribulations that we go through is a form of art. From the very moment we wake up we have produced art. We just never realize it.The designs of the comforter, forming from a good nights rest, Pillows and sheets are wrinkled everywhere.When we step in front of the mirror and brush our teeth. The noise of the bristles grinding across our teeth , and the brush smoothly rubbing our tongue. The water running waiting for you to rinse ur mouth out. The toothpaste all over ur face.When you shower the water beads combined with soap running down your body. All perfect examples of performance art. The world we know around us is Art.People just have different ways of depicting there thoughts and imagination. One major form of performance art that we as human beings do everyday is "Sex". Bodies touching, tempetures and emotions rising. The sound and smell of it!The many positions the body gets mangaled into. The acting, what about is isnt? My opinion is that there are two types of artist in this world. You have those that are thrill seekers than those that are confined artist.A performace art piece is unpprecendanted. Its very difficult to sensor,but a good possibility of never being done before. Performance art can involve the audience with taste, smell and sounds not availble with electronic media,and not practical with conventional theater due to very low capacity audiences. Performance art is very creative. Like regular art it can be peformed or produced anywhere.Its a type of "body art" that displays the athetic prowness and the courage of an artist. So there is no argument, people or "artist" generally display there feelings in many different gestures,swipes,splashes etc. So dont hate! Just Art Appreciate.lol
Bowan,Jack. Performance Art.1993
Http://userpages.bright.net/~dapoets/performa.htm
Performance Artist
Http://theartist.org/movement/Performancce_Art.html
When thinking about art it is one of the most opinion oriented topics to ever be discussed. The art work from one artist may appear to so many as beautiful. To others, referring to the same piece of art, may be something that they would throw away in the trash! The Pollock is a good example because I heat it while others think its worth millions.
In this class we learned so much about the opinions of critics and that of non art major people. We watched as a older women found an art painting that to her was just paint thrown all over the canvas and something that she would never put in her house, and giving it to a friend who was down in the dumps, to realizing that she may indeed have an actual real life painting form an artist who had often given his paintings out for money and food. It took this lady a really long time to convince the art world that she really did have a real painting. But even the best cant tell the difference.
We also learned that different colors mean different things to people. The color red can mean love and lust but can also mean anger and blood which could lead to death. Its amazing how something known world wide can mean so many different things.
But in the end judging art work for its beauty and realness is like one person's lover is the other's enemy. You cant really say what's art and what's not because, like that old saying says, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Some consider art to be strictly paintings of landscapes or people. Others consider art to be a urinal or paint splattered on a canvas. Now days any public statement of protest or controversial performance is considered a marvelous work of art. I believe that art is a work that someone creates with his or her hands and mind. Although many people believe that art encompasses many things, I think true physical talent is required to create art.
When looking at certain performance artist and their work, I question of it’s really art or not. Marina Abramovic and Ulay did a performance in Italy that is very questionable to me and the police of Italy. This man and woman stood face to face, naked, in a narrow hall way. What was being considered is which way people would turn to go through the hall. This isn’t considered art because no actual talent was needed to do this. The performance was more of a psychological study rather than an art form. The police didn’t like the performance either and shut it down in less than two hours. Another work that I don’t consider art is The Fountain by Marcel Duchamp. Again, this work took no talent. The only reason this work is famous in my opinion, is because it stirs a huge controversy of what is and is not art. Even if it’s beautiful and monumental to society that doesn’t automatically make it a wok of art, at least not in my opinion.
Some artists have the natural ability to paint or draw beautiful works of art. I believe that people that have a natural eye for creating artworks that will last forever are true artists. Those that are doing performances as psychological tests and considering that art are degrading those who are natural artist and work diligently for what the create.
Links Used:
http://arttorrents.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
http://locus.cwrl.utexas.edu/jbrown/node/176
When, it comes to the thought of art being pluralistic or noisy…I feel art can be just about anything you want it to be. Art is wild, crazy, beautiful, profound, deep, spiritual, sensual, peaceful, moving, sometimes confusing. Some people feel they have the right to say what art is and what is not. I think of it as freedom of speech in some ways. One should feel free to call art whatever they desire. So, if that is taking a picture of urinal and signing a name to it, then so be it. Now, I’m not saying people have to agree with all forms of art. I’m simply stating do not condemn the people that have unusual taste.
I’ll be the first one to think sometimes “what in the world was this artist thinking?” For instance, performance art was something I had never seen until flipping through pages of the text book. The concept of it and some of the pictures make me stop and think, “Wow that’s odd!” But I would never voice the thought of this isn’t art because in someone’s eyes it is art.
The idea of one man’s junk is another man’s treasure comes to my mind. This thought could be used in the case pluralistic or noisy. A good example would be movie about the Jackson Pollock painting. The women in the movie Terri, was in a thrift shop and looking for a present for a friend. The painting was obviously someone’s junk and later it became Terri’s treasure.
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html
Art is pluralistic in its infinite possibilities. Often we elude to the “Arts” to include dance, theatre, music, poetry and literacy. This substantiates the diverseness of what will qualify as art. We have come to accept creativity as being the key element in determining whether an item is artistic and therefore it is impossible to restrict any object that involved even one creative thought. Thus the analogy: “unrestricted possibilities are to art as noise is to music”.
The definition of art as given in the Random House Webster’s Dictionary is: “1.the production, expression, or realm of what is beautiful. This definition would indicate that art must be linked with beauty or the realm of what is perceived as beauty. Yet, there is no universal perception to define beauty. The pluralistic world of art cannot be limited by classifying it by beauty. A variation to the analogy is: No deciding factor can determine beauty so unbeautiful objects can be classified as art just as no deciding factor can determine pleasantness so unpleasant noise can be classified as music.
The definition of art makes mention of production. Art plurality has no restrictions on production. It includes diverse and undefined methods, materials and choice of tools. It is unlimited by what can be seen in reality and includes invention, alteration, and symbolism. It can be drawn, painted, sculpted, assembled, or photographed. Thus a variation to the analogy: Since all means of creation are acceptable in producing art then anything that creates noise can be acceptable in producing music. The definition for art also makes mention of expression. Art plurality does not specify any certain means of expression, leaving this wide open to infinite possibilities. Art expression, therefore, can be visual, verbal, physical, musical, or literal. A varied analogy could be: If it is has been expressed then it can be called art just as if a sound has been heard then it can be called music. This would leave both art and music open to just about anything; which I think is a realistic statement about both.
Everything I have said so far supports the all-encompassing plurality of art. I think that is in fairness. Of course, I form my own opinion on every art piece I encounter. Some, I find to be a complete waste of my time.
As I look at art, the qualities that I use to critique are beauty, composition, creativity, and interest. I enjoy art that makes me ask questions, makes me think, provides me with a meaning, or makes me marvel at its mastery. The art that I enjoy most is tangible and doesn’t require an explanation in order for me to understand it. It does not reach so far into abstract thought and philosophy that it seems senseless.
I readily accept as fact that true artists are extreme unique individuals. I have had this belief for most of my life. Whether it be painters, musicians, actors, writers, or even scientists; those that are outstanding are distinct from the norm. Their brains work differently than most everyone else and give them special abilities to think “outside the box”. I admire those that are so gifted and I enjoy examining their creations.
I enjoy artwork when it fits within a category that I can classify as art.
On the other hand, some “art” seems to me to be so ridiculous in its goal to induce thought that I easily disqualify it. The performance art of Marina Abramovic ,Imponderabilia and The House with the Ocean View are good examples of this. Although she is displaying outrageous ideas that could only emit from an extremely unique individual; her performance will only be understood by others whose brains function similarly or are possibly on strong drugs. She does indeed have a concept which she wishes to convey but I am unable to make any sense of it. Thus, I cannot include her artworks in my category of "art that I like".
I also have little appreciation (probably none also) for the performance art of Allan Kaprow, Household. This production was so bizarre that I suspect the artist was flying on LSD. I am amazed that any sane and sober person might consider this to be “art”. In the textbook, a conclusion was given to suggest that the outcome of this artistic experiment pointed to suppressed violent tendencies between the genders. Since the production had been choreographed, I can’t believe the reactions indicated anything real except that the participants were probably having a good time. If the purpose of the production was just to depict “strange fun”, I would be more accepting…but please don’t ask me to take it seriously.
I thought that I might rule out all performance art from my personal categorization but I realize that I pick and choose what I like. I have an appreciation for the Goat Island Performers who convey abstract ideas into their performance, How Dear to Me the Hour When Daylight Dies. Made up of improvisations, dance, symbolism, and many parts linked to form a coherent connection; the artists’ successfully convey their intended message. I view their production as being creative and artistic.
To sum this all up: I like lots of different types of art. An artist’s creativity and skill, I will always enjoy, as well as trying to interpret the artist’s intended meaning. Like all people, I will form an opinion towards any artwork. My opinion will not be the same as everyone else’s since everyone views things differently. I accept this and realize that for this reason, art cannot be discriminated. This is why there is art plurality. Is it noisy? Yes. Because it demands its chance to be heard.
Upon, entering art appreciation class I had no interest or conception of art. Now after six weeks of class, I have a high regard for what I consider is art, but I still have no interest. Thus, with my lack of knowledge I will provide an example of noise and art.
First, noise in my opinion is anything I don’t understand. For instance, Yoko Ono produced Grapefruit: A Book of Instructions and Drawings in 1964. Specifically, Ono’s book is an example of conceptual art. In addition, conceptual art is art in which concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns according to, Wikipedia. Furthermore, books, such as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire require the reader to utilize the imagination too. As a result, can all books be classified as art?
On the other hand, the Pieta (a sculpture depicting the body of Jesus on the lap of his mother Mary after the crucifixion) created by Michelangelo is art. I am fascinated that such beautiful precision began as a formless stone. I consider the Pieta art; moreover, a revelation of human creativity.
In short, I am perplexed on the subject of noise and/or art. I don’t know?! Art is truly a matter of opinion and no one should judge otherwise. Therefore, I find relief in artists, such as Marcel Duchamp who have a sense of humor and lack the pretentious attitude that has succumb art. Art is anything and everything that provides intellectual pleasure-even if it is a separated calf preserved in formaldehyde.
Image:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743201108/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4811440-1503053#reader-link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michelangelo%27s_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hirst-Love-Of-God.jpg
One dictionary defines art as “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” By thinking of art in this way, art can be considered art because of mere opinion; it is up to interpretation. But where is the line drawn that distinguishes art from being just another ordinary piece that someone decides to call “art”. This is where the phrase “such forms are to art "proper" as noise is to music” comes from.
Looking at “art” such as Marcel Duchamp’s Mona Lisa (L.H.O.O.Q.), I begin to wonder who would actually interpret this as art. Marcel Duchamp did not paint his own version of the Mona Lisa nor did he try to paint it exactly the same as Leonardo da Vinci did. Although he would have been merely copying another man’s creative genius, I would still consider this art based on the fact that it would have never looked exactly the same as Leonardo’s. No two paintings can be exactly identical. The fact that he merely made a photo copy of Leonardo’s work and drew a mustache on it shows his laziness and lack of creativity. This piece is my definition of noise in the art world.
Another one of his pieces called “The Fountain” is a store bought urinal turned upside down which he then signed with his fictitious name. The urinal was not altered in any way nor was it assembled together with something else to make it a new, unique art piece. This was not his own hand-made, urinal sculpture formed to look like a fountain. This was another object out of a factory that he signed his name on and called it his. This is forgery not art. If a musician was to take a song and simply add in a bell chime at the end, he would be sued for copy right infringement. How is this any different? This again is artistic noise not music.
Art is up to creative interpretation but simply seeing an ordinary object as something else and calling it new art is not enough. How do we not know that the original artist did not want it to serve many different purposes? How do we not know that the original inventor of the urinal did not also see it as a fountain and so he created it in that likeness? Art should represent a vision the artist had for something new and extraordinary. It should be something that comes from their soul and is brought to life once completed.
http://arthist.binghamton.edu/duchamp/LHOOQ.html
http://locus.cwrl.utexas.edu/jbrown/files/Marcel%20Duchamp.jpg
Upon entering this class, I had never heard of “Performance Art,” or “Installation Art” before. Only after I had done some research online and listened to the lectures in class did I start to realize exactly what performance art and installation art is. My view on installation art is pretty much indifferent. I believe that all of the installation arts that I have seen can definitely be considered art. There seems to be just as much work put into some of the installation pieces as there is put into sculptures or paintings. Depending on the scale of a piece of art, it could take days, hours months, or even years to complete. One things is certain though: unless the artist completely stole another person’s idea, there is thought, creativity, and effort that is put into creating a piece of art whether it be installation, collage, performance, or otherwise. Here is an example of the controversy that a piece of art can cause even in this day and age when it seems that we have heard and seen just about everything. “In 2004 the Italian sculptor Maurizio Cattelan hung three plastic dolls of children from Milan's oldest tree.
Shortly after being officially "open", the exhibition came to a sudden end: Franco De Benedetto, a Milenese man, decided to cut the children off. He cut two ropes, but swayed and fell when cutting the third one. He was injured and taken to hospital.
Cattelan graciously didn't press charges, but the city of Milan did. And won. De Benedetto will be spending three months in prison for destroying a work of art. Mind you, it took them nearly two years to establish this was indeed a work of art, as that was the prosecution's main argument.” (http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/cattelan/11.jpg)
It seems to me, that if everyone were just aloud to perceive what they wanted to perceive different creative works as being art or not, then nobody would have anything to talk about. Everyone just wants to argue. I have come to appreciate the smallest things as being art, and the grandest objects as well. My mind has definitely been opened since being in this class.
Chad McCoy
Art Appreciation
Ms. Rachel Hoffman
06 August 2008
I believe that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and to live in America means to have the right to express that opinion however a person feels fit. I have my own opinions on performance art, installation art and collage. Basically, if I see a person performing a piece of art, whether it be a stage play, a reenactment, or any other kind of dramatic work, I will have to be the judge of whether or not I think it is art. I do not believe that anything can really be classified as anything until the perception of the viewer kicks in. For example, in Imponderabilia, from the text on pg. 329, one might view this performance art as an act of lewd and obscene behavior; however, another might view it as a deep and thoughtful pondering of the attitudes of individuals who are placed in an uncomfortable situation. The latter would be conceived as art, but the former would be discarded as trash. The police even had to stop the exhibit, so we know how they felt about it. I can personally appreciate the thought behind the performance piece so I would consider it art, and perhaps even a form of philosophy .
When it comes to installation art, it also seems to require a lot of thought and creativity to produce some of the installations we have seen in class. Kara Walker’s Insurrection! was an installation that required careful planning and placement of the cutouts. I also liked the detail involved in shaping the figures that were used. The projections were also very creative. I think in this day and age, there have been so many ideas that have been thought up in the past, that many artists today are trying to produce fresh works of art that society is not used to. That to me is the highest form of art, when someone can produce original ideas and free thinking.
Insurrection : A World of Art, pg. 322
Imponderabilia: A World of Art, pg 329
What should be allowed to be considered art and who should be the one to allow it? Does the allowance of art forms such as installation, collage, and performance art debase or even destroy the art as we all are used to?
Art is created by artists with ideas. Most think of art in the traditional fashion; sculptures, paintings, photographic pictures and even the performing arts such as dance and theatre. Just because the art form is not what most first think of as art does not mean it is not considered art by others.
Art, in my opinion is definitely subject to interpretation. Art interpretation does not only belong to the artists, (or even to the critics, that many times can make or break the art piece). For the art to be considered, appreciated, or accepted, the art must be experienced. One can experience the art by using sight, touch, hearing and so on. This is where the non traditional art works such as performance art and installation art fit in the art category. I am not drawn to non traditional art forms that I would consider more of a scientific experiment than art. An example of this is Marina Abramovic and Ulay, Imponderabilia. I am very open to performance art or installation art that have costumes, pictures, bright colors or something that leaves me some sort of feeling that I just experienced something that somewhat resembles the traditional art that I am used to.
All art, whatever style it is, should be allowed to be considered an art form. Art is in the eye of the beholder, or the one that experiences it. Just because we may not appreciate the art does not mean everyone else must share our opinion. I do not feel that these non traditional art forms destroy the art as I know it; I just don’t care for it.
Michele Yglesias
Sources used
http://www.curatorforoneday.nl/code.php?id=1660
When it comes to art, I believe it truly comes in many forms. However, it can be viewed upon in many ways as well. In our class we have been able to observe many forms of art, and in the process, grown to appreciate each works’ uniqueness. We sometimes find ourselves questioning if some of the works are or should be considered a form of art. One such example is performance art, and many may argue it is not a form of art, but then again is it?
Performance art is art in which the actions of an individual or a group at a particular place and in a particular time constitute the work. It can happen anywhere, at any time, or for any length of time. Performance art can be any situation that involves time, space, the performer's body and a relationship between performer and audience (Wikipedia, Par. 1). Performance art began to be identified in the 1960’s, and one of its innovators was Allan Kaprow, who, in the late 1950’s came up with the term Happenings, which he defined as “assemblages of events performed or perceived in more than one time and place…A Happening..is art but seems closer to life (Sayre, 327).” With that being said, I believe almost any unique talent that we as human beings perform is in fact a form of art.
One example I would like to include is evident on the streets of many major metropolitan cities, say for example New York, San Francisco, Paris, Rome, etc. Many may consider the individuals who do wacky performances as a Statue of Liberty, a street music performance, or even a naked cowboy as being an annoyance, however we should consider the fact that these people actually spend the time to create an art for a period of time, and at certain places with the most exposure. Therefore, who are we to judge what is good art or simply a nuisance? Does the performance have to be on Broadway for it to be considered a work of art? The movie “Who the !@#$ is Jackson Pollock” was a great example in my opinion. Even with all the scientific proof, the work of art was not accepted since it was not record of where it came from through the art community. Other examples include the Naked Cowboy. Not that I condone the behavior, and find it ridiculous, who am I to say he is just a nuisance. I pay a lot of money to see such shows as Zumanity, a Cirque Du Soleil show in Vegas, which is a performance art that is in essence in the nude. So why is one more acceptable than the other?
In essence, I believe we all have creativity in all of us. How we decide to display it is for each individual to decide. However, there should in fact be a time and place for everything, especially when it comes to nudity, but regarding all other performance art done in “the streets” if you want to enjoy it, go for it, and even tip them. If you are not interested, just keep walking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art
Sayre, Henry M., A World of Art. Fifth Edition
What is art? This question has infinite answers. It something of a riddle that can never be truly solved. It is a question that will survive as long as mankind has the ability to think and reason for itself. The statement made by our professor is “what one finds pluralistic the other finds noisy.” This is just as true as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But my opinion on art is one that follows.
A man or woman can be an artist in anything. I think art can range from the classic forms of art thought of in the art world, to the way athletes use their skill, to the way cooks prepare a meal, to the way a leader influences his subjects. I think art is something that expresses oneself in other means. Something that requires finesse always appeals to me as art.
I have to admit however that some of the things we have seen in class have made me think twice about considering them as art. For example Jackson Pollock and his famous paintings. When I first saw them I thought they were horrible. I really didn’t like anything about them. They looked like scribbles that any two ear old could do. But as I began to see more of them they grew on me. There is some sense of beauty in them as there is a sense of beauty in nature. Simple and elegant. On the contrary some things I have to say are completely garbage.
A urinal cannot be considered art in my opinion. Simple as that. Whether or not I think some forms of art are just completely ridiculous or irrelevant will not stop some other misled human being into believing that it is. I Really cannot believe some of the things that artist pass off as art. But how can I say anything if I have already confessed that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Someone may really find a urinal very enlightening on a spiritual level. You never know.
What is Art? “Art is the conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of aesthetic objects”.(1) With that in mind, I think that if the creator of a piece of work has put in their time, creativity, and imagination into that piece of work they are creating it should be considered art and pluralistic. A piece that does not use creativity and imagination I think is what should be considered noisy.
Paintings I think are pluralistic, because they are created using your imagination, whether they are abstract or realistic. In abstract paintings, I think you use more imagination than in realistic paintings. The reason being is that it takes a lot to imagination to come up with images and put them on canvas. Although, you still need imagination to capture the images and make them look real in realistic paintings.
People argue that Jackson Pollock’s color splatters were not art, but merely just him throwing paint on a canvas. I disagree, according to the movie we saw in class, he put in a lot of thought into the colors he used and the way the colors were arranged on the canvas. He did not just merely splatter the paint on the canvas. The colors he picked out and the way he arranged them on the canvas was brilliant and pluralistic. Here are some links to some of my favorite works by him:
1.
http://kimandjason.com/blog/images/pollock.jpg
2.
http://www.veniceword.com/imm/pollock.jpg
3.
http://www.soho-art.com/shopinfo/uploads/1094187358_small-image_jpolscentsm.jpg
4.
http://www.soho-art.com/popup.htm?http://www.soho-art.com/shopinfo/uploads/1085540992_large-image_jpoln03lg.jpg
5.
http://www.soho-art.com/popup.htm?http://www.soho-art.com/shopinfo/uploads/1092000460_large-image_jpthedeeplh.jpg
Sculptures I definitely think are pluralistic. The detail that goes into making a sculpture takes talent and creativity. To be able to put such detail in a sculpture where you can even see the veins in the subject, is the work of a true artist. Even if it is a piece of ceramic, that you paint. You still need talent to paint the ceramic and creativity to select the colors you will use. Here is an example of a great sculpture:
http://www.mastincrosbie.com/photo-album/hawaii2001-images/sculptures-clay.jpg
Furthermore, the piece “The Fountain” by Marcel Duchamp, I think is noisy. There was no imagination used to create this piece, just an everyday urinal. Even Duchamp knew it was not art. He even used the name R. Mutt to hide his involvement with the piece, when it was presented in 1917 for exhibition. Originally the piece was hidden from the public during the exhibition, it was not until it was discovered that Duchamp was the artist, that the piece was considered art. (2) Here is a link to Duchamp “The Fountain”: http://www.yoursdaily.com/var/yoursdaily/storage/images/media/images/arts/marcel_duchamp_s_fountain_1917/12187-1-eng-GB/marcel_duchamp_s_fountain_1917_large.jpg
Installation and performance Art I feel can go either way; it can be pluralistic or noisy. I feel it is noisy when it involves acting. If it does not involve an actor or actors, but an artist or artists and there is no acting involved think it is pluralistic. Here is a performance art I like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mm/306736050/
Pictures and picture taking I also think can go either way. Only a very talent person can take a picture and capture something on film that makes the viewer feel invested in the picture. Here are some of my favorites:
1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulwhite53/529367434/
2. http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/various/landscapes_csg043_sparks_lake(oregon).jpg
On the other hand when you take a painting like “The Mona Lisa” put a mustache on her as did Duchamp and make it into a picture that is just noisy. To take a master piece like “The Mona Lisa” and put a mustache on her is not just noisy, but insulting. Here is a view of that picture:
http://g.pwn.pl/f/img/2i/d31i0005.jpg
In conclusion Art can be a wonderful thing to explore. When an artist puts his or her heart and soul into the work, even a novice can and will enjoy it. However, when an artist just throws things together, just for the purpose of calling it art, that artist should no longer be allowed to call him or herself an artist.
Reference
(1)
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
Art according to The American Heritage Dictionary-human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
Since childhood, my idea of art always involved either paint, paper, crayons, scissors, glue, paste and various other tools. The result was either a painting, drawing, carving, or molding. It was a product that wasn't there before, which was created because of someone's ideas and expressions.
It wasn't until my adulthood and my daughter started to dance, to me, at first, it was a sport like soccer or swimming. Then eventually, I learned that she was involved in the performing arts, also in her piano playing too. Now my idea of art had broaden. Dance and music may not involve the use of art supplies, but it does produce an idea or expression.
I never thought about photography as being an art form because something was already present. The camera just copied it on paper. Photography is a way to show an event, or to inform, or to remember, but art...I don't think so. Then I saw in the text book, A World of Art, fig.370 and fig.371. The photographer, O'Sullivan, showed through his photo a two dimensional surface that represents formal plays of line and texture. Alfred Stieglitz successfully transformed the three-dimensional space of the picture into a two-dimensional design of large flat, black and white shapes. Did both photographers have the talent to snap a picture at the right time or was it art?
Animation is art, such as in fig.386 because each segment had to be drawn to show a sequel of events or a story . It is not like a movie where the people and places are already there and its just a matter of filming them.
Poetry is art. It is word art. The words in poetry are carefully chosen to rhyme or have a rhythm. Poetry expresses. Poetry produces emotions and mental pictures within.
Collages could be considered art depending on how it is done. My final collage project on an American ritual, in my opinion, was not art. I used photos and displayed them in a pretty way. But, my daughter painted her collage to represent an American ritual. Her collage was art.
When I look at fig.421 and fig.407 as representations of assemblage, I do view them as art. In fig. 421, David Hammons takes different materials and puts them together to create a transformation that expresses the American slave’s African heritage. When I look at fig.423, I think of how this is a hideous and non-art display of assemblage, almost like a joke, something to be used at a Halloween party.
The figures chosen in the text book to represent installation give me mixed emotions as to whether this is art of not. Figures 428 and 429, to me, are cool and exciting forms of art with great imagination and creativity. But, figures 430, 431 and 432 tend to represent photography and film making. Figure 433, to me, is a representation of science. So, depending on what is shown to exhibit installation my opinion varies.
In the lecture about Marcel Duchamp’s urinals, I was grossed out as how anyone could think this was any kind of art form. If he wasn’t an already famous and established artist, the urinals probably would not of been popular. He just had the ability to convince people to see urinals in a way that he called art.
In closing, I would like to say that I appreciate the art of paintings and drawings. These art forms are representations of a genius gifted talent. No matter how old the paintings and drawings may become, they never lose their magical appeal. Theater and dance, the performing arts, are also a gifted talent, but they include the physical aspect of art. Performing arts are an enjoyable way to be entertained and awed.
Noise or Pluralistic?……..remember the sayings, “ one man’s junk is another man’s treasure” and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” Its all a matter of opinion and that is what is so fascinating about the unique world that we call art!
References used: The American Heritage Dictionary
A World of Art
Who has the right to say what is “right” or what is “wrong.” What is “noise” or what is “music”. Just because one person or a group of people say something is wrong does not mean that it is. This holds true for art as well. Everything is art, if there is someone who classifies it as art. Art is the energy or emotion that someone feels when the looking at something, whether that “something” be a oil painting by Vincent van Gogh or a photograph of a toilet by some “no name person.”
People are extremely diverse. We all have our own stories. The experiences that define who we are as people are never the same in two individuals. Even when two people grow up together, having many of the same experiences, they are still different in many ways. So how can you expect everyone to agree on what should be classified as art. Even if the definition in the dictionary classifies art as only, paintings, drawing, and music composition, people who are photographers or performing artist will still view their work as art. So why do so many insist on such a narrow definition.
Some insist on this narrow close minded definition because they claim that without doing so “art’ will be debased or destroyed. How can you destroy “art”? Art is what you think it is and no one can change what you think. You might be able to destroy art by burning it or ripping it to shreds, but the thought can never be destroyed.
Not everyone has to agree on art, but I do believe that everyone should be open minded to the possibilities of what art can be.
-Jennifer Bentson
“Art is in the eye of the beholder”
What is art? So many people have a different opinion on what art is and is not. To me art is a subject that is very controversial, such as, politics or even religion. For this reason I’m not going to argue a certain point of view because I’m not sure if there even is a right and a wrong. I am simply going to give my opinion on what I believe art is, what’s noisy and what’s pluralistic.
To me art is a quality production, and expressions of ones personality. Art can be anything anyone decides it is. For example the fountain done by Marcel Duchamp is simply a urinal that he turned upside down and wrote R. Mutt 1917 on the side. No one thought this was art until Duchamp told them he and R. Mutt were one in the same. In my opinion people only believed the fountain was art when they found out it was one of Duchamp’s creations, and I don’t care who’s creation this was I cant see how a urinal can be art.
That brings me to my next opinion. I know Jackson Pollock is a very famous painter, but come on his splatter painting is completely ridiculous. In my opinion something a two year old could do shouldn’t be fought over or even worth 50 million dollars. I’m not saying its not art, I’m just saying that in my opinion something as easy as that, something that to me takes no thought to create shouldn’t be called art.
Everyone has different personalities and that’s why no one can draw the line and say what’s art and what is not art. People can only speculate and give their opinions on what they like and dislike. Art can be anything because to me it’s an expression of ones personality. Now I think some works are completely ridiculous and can’t see how its art, but to other people it’s the most amazing thing they have seen. So this is why I just sit back and listen to what people think is art, because I believe you can tell a lot about a persons personality from what they like and dislike.
Art is a personal experience. It is intended to tickle the imagination and to stir thoughts. Art is always SOMEONE’S creativity expressed. Because of its’ personal nature, one cannot possibly determine what is noisy, proper, beautiful or disgusting for anyone other than oneself.
Every form of art is subjective. This means what I see may be different than what you see, when viewing the same piece. I am the only person who can give art meaning to me. This idea parallels the notion of “Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder”. Jackson Pollack understood this as well with his Abstract Expressionist artwork. His art has been viewed as an existential in nature. Pollack knew that not one other person on earth would experience his paintings the same way as he had. He understood that art is a personal experience, whether positive or negative. Art has no meaning on its’ own. PEOPLE give art meaning. A neat illustration of this is a piece called “The Connoisseur” by Norman Rockwell. It is a painting of a man standing before a Pollack-like painting; and he is thinking. He is giving that art meaning at that moment…and we are left wondering what he is thinking!
In my opinion, everything can be art or equally garbage; depending on my perspective. When I am having a bad day or have a poor attitude, I perceive the world around me as negative and flawed. Therefore, I am more critical and intolerant in my interpretation of “art”. However…..when I am healthy, energetic and inspired, the world is a beautiful place and colors seem more alive and vibrant. This is when I would naturally be more open and accepting of different forms of “art”!
So, when I come across some avant-garde artist like Chris Burden, whose work is highly controversial and misunderstood, yet wildly popular and entertaining, I will simply thank him for offering me such a unique and personal experience.
Chris Burden:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/artworld/2007/05/14/070514craw_artworld_schjeldah
Jackson Pollack:
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/pollock_jackson.html
Art can be expressed in many different ways. Original thought, talent, emotion or idea should be present in art. It is hard to narrow art into either Pluralistic or Noisy because art can come in all forms and be different all over the world. Artist Marcel Duchamp put a urinal on display and it is now studied in art classes all over America. I think that is an example of how some art can degrade others. One can call anything art but it doesn’t mean it is good or anyone will care to view it. Many works are passed off as art especially in the areas of collage, installation, and performance, even though many of the works are thoughtless and boring.
Collage is one the first ways a child is exposed art, clipping out pictures and pasting them to paper. While many collages are interesting some should be left for the fridge. Juan Gris made a collage called the Table, it is hard to tell if the newspaper in it is painted or real. The colors lines and shapes catch my eye and I could imagine this at a museum. Phillis Ailberts is another example of a talented collage artist she also uses paint in her works and makes it difficult to tell what came from a paper clipping and what she drew herself. Her collages look like they took time and thought to make. Romare Bearden has a collage called The Dove, in which he put a lot of thought but not much effort or organization is his work. I would not expect to see this at a museum. Taking clippings from magazines doesn’t show talent and I would not pay to see his work. Many people might consider him to be a great artist but to me it looks like he made this collage in thirty minutes with little or no planning involved. Collages are probably the most difficult to determine what is art. I believe collages should both be appealing to the eye and have obvious thought involved.
Installations are probably my favorite of the generally new forms of art. I like that they involve the viewer and make art fun. My favorite is Eleanor Antin; I like her Minetta Lane- A Ghost Story. I can imagine going up to that house and looking through the windows, curious to see what she has come up with. I think that was a clever idea and she recognizes the fact that as humans we have a natural curiosity about others. James Turrell’s a Frontal Passage is definitely not traditional art but I would go and see it. His message might not be clear, but he entertains and engages the viewer by playing with their sense of space. With installations the viewer isn’t just walking around staring up at walls of art, installations are fun and interesting.
Performance art should above all be entertaining. If an artist has a message or emotion for the viewer, the viewer should be engaged and want to see more. Performance art is a great medium to express oneself but not everyone will watch. Mimes are a great example of bad performance art. It may have taken a mime a great deal of time to prepare his performance but on day of the show no one will care. A mime is still an artist, a boring, uninspiring artist. Marina Abramovic is an example of a performance artist that captures the viewer’s attention. In Imponderabilia she interacted with the public and made them choose to brush up against a nude male or female. I like that she involved people and made them apart of the performance. Marina may not talk in her works but her point comes across clear. She entertaining and catches my attention.
Art has changed from “fine art” of the renaissance to performances, collages, and urinals on display. Art can be anything an artist wants it to be but not all art should be hanging in a museum. Much like music the definition of good art is different for each person. It should be thought provoking, entertaining, and pleasing to the eye. A group of art such as Performance cannot be called noise. Each piece of art weather its oil painting or installation needs to be judged individually. Talent should be recognized as well; a talented artist who has spent month’s maybe years on a painting should not be group with someone who spent thirty minutes to make a collage from magazines. Robert Goeber could bring his Untitled sink to Mexico and proclaim it as art, but the people of Mexico might tell him “no, that is not art” and point to the Colossal head in Villahermosa and say “this is art”. Art is going to be different in every area, it can not all be grouped as either pluralistic or noise. Anything can be art but if it is not entertaining, thought provoking, or eye catching, then no one will care.
-Bridget Raimondo
A world of Art
Henry M. Sayre
Collage art, Phyllis Ailber
http://www.psaliber.com/
Marina Abramovic
http://www.artnet.com/awc/marina-abramovic.html
All art to me, wether horrible or beautiful is great. Am I going to go with pluearalistic or noisy? NO, I do beleive that without all the different types of art out there, that is what has made our society different. It has made cultures come together and indivuals show there personalities.
Everyone has their own opinions about different kinds of art peices and artists. In every peice of art, as I have learned throughout my life and this class, there is a meaning behind each and every one. The artist as a human expresses these peices and relates them to our every day world. Art hasn't only opened our mind to different things but has brought many cultures together. In this class we have studied about many different art works from every kind of culture. Being in the United States we are learning about many different cultures and why they have painted what they have painted. Art has brought together these cultures by everyone from a different place wanting to view these beautiful peices of art. We read and learned a lot of about Jackson Pollock. This American painter became a huge famous artist to all in the world. A man that was one of five children, the only being a painter. Then we had Picasso, another well known artist from a different country that all wanted to know of and see his art work. Two very different cultures being brought together.
Art has made everyone as an individual different. There are many types of art out there, and each has really helped someone choose there style and ability to be who they are. We have learned about photography, sculpture,rennassaince, etc. and these paintings all really reflect on at least one person's personality out there. Everyone has there own taste in music, which I do consider art and also style. In order to like a painting you have to view the picture as a whole but in order to LOVE a painting, you have to decide on that by your style. If a picture is not your style, your not going to choose that peice to just be hung in the middle of your house. But since there have been so many types throughout history, this has really helped people express themselves, through music, performance, and style preference.
Again Pluralistic or Noisy? I am not going to answer what is too noisy or what isn't. If you aren't willing to accept art for what the artist really meant behind it. Art is art and each and every peice out there is beautiful in their own way. People just have to be willing to accept that art is what makes our world and society different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock
What is the definition of art? What can be accepted as art? These questions came to mind during this art appreciation course.
Art is defined as a diverse range of human activities, creations, and expressions that are appealing or attractive to the senses or have some significance to the mind of an individual. The word "art" may be used to cover all or any of the arts, including music, literature and other forms. It is most often used to refer specifically to the visual arts, including media such as painting, sculpture, and printmaking.
My idea of art is an expression of the imagination. It can be expressed through painting, drawing, sculpture, collage, performance and installation. Everything in life has a limit, and I feel the same way about what should be accepted as art. Fountain by Marcel Duchamp is a perfect example. Where is the creativity and originality? At first, people were outraged that some one would consider a urinal with a name written on it art, but things changed when people found out that Marcel was the one who did it. Accepting a piece of work as art, should not be judged only on the fact that the artist is famous but by the quality of work that is produced. An artist work should be based upon individuality, style and creativity. Duchamp’s main point was to show the hypocritical side of the art world which we also saw in the movie “Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?”
David by Michelangelo, The rape of the Sabine Women by Giovanni da Bologna, and Three Goddesses, just to name a few, are examples of art. These artist brought marble to life. Their sculptures have harmony, balance and rhythm.
Performance artist use acting to tell their story and get their message across to their audiences. Marina Abramovic and Ulay, Imponderabilia had a message and a purpose. They wanted people to confront their attitudes and feelings about sexuality and gender. I am certain one can think of a thousand ways to do this differently but this was a lesson to all who experienced it.
Everything has boundaries. What is music to me might be noise to someone else. What is beautiful in my eyes can be ugly to someone and vice versa
I cannot force my belief on someone, so with all that I have said to each is own.
Information taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
A World of Art
“One man’s onion is another man’s water lily.” That’s the first thing that came to mind when I read the topic for this essay. The first problem with criticizing another person’s art form is defining art itself. The dictionary defines art as “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” But then the question is what is beautiful? Looking at so many pieces of art, from performing arts to fine arts, classical to modern, I’ve decided on my own definition of art. To me, art is the use of materials or body in a form of expression. With this definition art falls into two categories: skilled art and unskilled art. Leonardo da Vinci’s work is an example of skilled work and the painting of a three year old child is unskilled. I appreciate both though I may not like certain pieces or artists from either category.
Monet is an example of a skilled artist whom I despise. I appreciate the fact that he is the father of the expressionist movement, but I find his work to be overrated and dull. His famous paintings of water lilies remind me of dryer lint after a load of blue towels regurgitated on a canvas. The idea of breaking an object to its core form is fascinating but the way Monet achieved this just makes his paintings look muddled. I find his subject matters to be dull and his composition to be unattractive. Do I still appreciate his contribution to the art world? Absolutely. Would I ever hang a Monet in my house? Definitely not. Is Monet considered one of the best artists of his time by the majority of the art world? Yes. “One man’s onion is another man’s water lily.”
Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” is an example of unskilled art. There was nothing actually created by his own hand and yet he was expressing his thoughts of the pretentiousness of the art world and art marketing and so it fits in my definition of art, unskilled, but art. The first time seeing “Fountain” I thought, “What the hell?!” but then after a few more moments of tilting my head from side to side, a smile grew across my face. I got it. I liked it. The piece exposed the art world of its truest colors as they blasted it when the artist was unknown to them but then cherished it when Duchamp stepped forward with the confession that “Fountain” was his piece. I like this piece because of the fact it reveals a truth that has always been, that there is art created when not intended and it surrounds us in everyday life. That beauty is unearthed in the most unusual ways and should be appreciated when found. Many people would look at “Fountain” and shake their heads, I laugh and cherish it. “One man’s onion is another man’s water lily.”
I despise critics because for whatever reason their opinion is so much more important than the average person. They have deemed themselves the only real people who can identify what “real” art is. These opinions make or break people’s form of expression. Who are they to say that a piece is unworthy of public notice? Who are they to break down a person’s right to express themselves? Why were critics ever made that important to the art world?
If artists want to share their ideas and make people confront their own beliefs and sexuality by standing naked in the doorway of a gallery like Marina Abramovic and Ulay did in Italy, 1977 then fantastic! If they want to confront the idea of what behavior is socially acceptable in modern society, the idea of wearing masks to hide your true emotion like William Wegman’s “Rage and Depression Reel 3” then all I can say is “right on!” Whether it’s a giant red dot painted on a large white canvas or the classic beauty of Greek sculpture everyone should step back and appreciate that a person stepped up and shared with society as a whole their feelings. You can love it or hate it but most people fear having their emotions displayed for all to see, artists take that chance, artist take the dive, and no walk like that into the unknown should be denied a chance to be shown to all who wish to see or criticized by the narrow minded views of the art critic collective.
In conclusion I say this: In my perfect world there would be galleries and theatres in every town, village and city where any person could display their art. These places would be filled with children’s finger paintings, a father’s depiction of a bad day at the office drawn in stick figures. There would be people standing in corners just screaming, with tears running down their cheeks. There would be paintings that looked as if God himself had created them right next to the awkward pottery piece done by the old lady next door. The theaters would show films made by kids in a basement, school projects and wedding day movies. On the walls in huge letters painted in every style and every color would be the words “One man’s onion is another man’s water lily.”
Resources
A World of Art, Class Textbook
www.wikipedia.com
When I first started to think about writing my response, I was first drawn to the meaning of pluralistic. I found interesting meanings and examples. Pluralistic means “of or relating to social or philosophical pluralism and having multiple aspects or parts: "the idea that intelligence is a pluralistic quality that ….varies in many dimensions among individuals" The last part of this definition caught my attention. The idea that intelligence is a pluralistic quality because every person has different dimensions. In my opinion this falls right into the idea of art. There are many dimensions to art. These dimensions include paintings, collage, installation and performance art. The artists we studied and researched were all skilled in their trade. Their works have the ability to engage individuals and create experiences that can range from tears to ecstasy. Personal interpretation of each work of art is key, again, varies in many dimensions. When starting the journey to explore the meanings of paintings, installation art, collage and performance art, the individual can soon become bewildered by the amount of points of view that are offered. One guideline I will emphasize is this: if you see it for yourself, believe it- no matter what anyone says. If you cannot see it, do not believe it. Everyone has the right to bring to a work of art whatever he or she chooses by way of seeing and experience, and to come away with whatever he or she chooses on a personal level. Knowledge of art history, symbolism, and technical skills should only broaden the experience. But it is the personal dimension. Trying to look at a work of art like a puzzle to solve only loses the significance. In my opinion, technical ability is one of the prime considerations. A great artist must have mastery of the physical skills required plus the knowledge and imagination to push these skills, and the existing rules of art, to new limits. Using this technical ability to be “first” in any art form is to be remembered as a key figure in history. Giotto and Picasso are deemed to be giants of European art because they succeeded in rewriting the existing rules of art and offered an alternative visual language. Installation art effectively inverts the principles of sculpture. Whereas sculpture is designed to be viewed from the outside as a self-contained arrangement of forms, installations frequently envelop the viewer in the space of the work. The Viewer enters a controlled environment which may utilize constructed, found, and ready-made forms as well as light or projected imagery and sound. Installation based art is related to conceptual art in that if frequently challenges the viewers expectations. Installations can be playful, solemn, or alarming, ranging from meticulously detailed reconstructions of everyday reality to memorials to the dead. They played an important role in the Italian Arte Povera movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Significant practitioners have included German artist Joseph Beuys and Rebecca Horn. Performance art roots lie in the theatrical events staged by the Dadaists and Surrealists in the 1920s. In the 1960s and 1970s it was often associated with political protest in the forms of “happenings”. Performance art takes many forms. Performance art differs from theater in that it does not depend on narrative, but rather seeks to encourage the audience to question their assumptions about life, politics, and social and psychological relationships. A collage can be photographs, bits of newspaper, magazines, and wallpapers and so on, pasted down, and sometimes painted around and over. Many artists used this form of expression; Georges Braque, Pablo Picasso, Aleksandr Rodchenko, and Kurt Schwitters. So to enter into this argument of pluralistic or noisy, I would side with pluralistic. Art has multiple aspects which definitely vary in dimensions. But, again, it varies among the individual and their perception…….
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pluralistic
http://artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/art_appreciation.htm
Traditionally the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery, a concept which altered during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science". Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art. Whether art can even be defined at all has been a matter of controversy. Okay so if it can’t be defined its based on opinion which forms pluralism. In art, the art of the current period where every style is practiced.
Duchamps urinal is more of a statement than it would be art not that art can really be defined but even he thought of it as humorous. He valued humor, telling a New York newspaper that, "People took modern art very seriously when it first reached America because they believed we took ourselves very seriously. A great deal of modern art is meant to be amusing." Okay so now some artists do things for laughs, I do not believe this was the case with Marina Abramovic and Ulay’s Imponderabilia. What they were doing was to them art but to me it seems as tough it was merely and human response test or something you would find in a sociology book I really don’t understand how it could be considered art but yet it cant be defined so your interpretation and feelings are as good as mine. So yes what is noise to some is music to others. A piece that brings music to my ears is Franz Marc’s Blue Horses. Looking back people even thought photography wasn’t considered art so who’s to say what any ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
http://arthist.binghamton.edu/duchamp/fountain.html
Art as a whole is all a matter of interpretation. For one person a piece of art they made may symbolize their being as a whole and is the pride of their life. For an outsider looking at that prized artwork it could mean absolutely nothing and they may not even take a second glance. Whether is be collage, installation, or performance art I think it all depends on a person’s mood and they place they are in their personal life to determine if they would consider it art or not.
Collages in my mind are one of the easiest art forms to make. Anyone who is inspired enough has the ability to make a collection of things come to life. This could range from a young child making something for the refrigerator to an experienced artist such as Ann Marshall. Ann’s “Olivia” is a pastel and paper collage of a young girl and flowers whose eyes captured my heart in an instant.
Installation art has to be one my most controversial art medium. I have things in my mind that are just not that beautiful such as Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain”. Personally, I do not think this is a piece of art as grand as people seem to say. One day Marcel might have stumbled across a urinal that was outside in a dump and it was on its side. That to me did not show as much originality as something such as Tara Donovan’s untitled art made up of Styrofoam cups and hot glue. Yes, this is another house hold object but this took time and someone made something how they wanted it instead of turning something on its side.
Performance art is very close to my heart. I dance and I see it as a way of expressing myself. I love the fact that I can embrace every feeling that I am trying to portray and have the audience feed off of my energy. One of the coolest performance arts I have seen recently was Cirque du Soleil. Yes, this is fairly ‘mainstream’ but I see performance art as art that a person does intentionally to tell a story. Alegria’s hula hoop act preformed by Elena Lev in Cirque du Soleil is breathtaking. To me it tells a story of grace and poise.
All in all I appreciate and consider mostly all collage and performance art to be just that… Art. Installation art is the type that I am most on the fence about. Yet, like I said earlier art is all a matter of interpretation of the person viewing it.
Art Examples Mentioned in Paper:
Ann Marshall’s “Olivia”
http://www.annmarshallart.com/port-olivia.html
Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain”
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00016/loo1_16768t.jpg
Tara Donovan’s “Untitled”, 2003
http://www.acegallery.net/artwork.php?pageNum_ACE=10&Artist=8
Alegria’s hula hoop act - Cirque du Soleil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztXmzMvSXZ0&feature=related
- Amanda Young
The world is an all encompassing mass of natural formations, lifeforms and the debris that they create. It is both pluralistic and noisy. Filled with clutter and refuse, yet open to profound beauty, greatness, joy, sorrow and everything between.
Art, whether it be music, literature, performance, film, painting, drawing, sculpture, assemblage, photography, or just a pile of stuff that someone found, can with some level of accuracy be described as a reflection of the world around us in the time it was created as seen from the perspective of the artist.
Once any piece of artistic work leaves the mind of the artist it is immediatly subjected to the opinions and interpretations of those who can never know it in the way that it's creator knew it.
What is art? It is a question equivalent to what is humanity? There are billions of people and billions of answers, none of which are incorrect in the minds of those who spouted them.
It is my opinion that no piece of literature music, painting, sculpture etc. , which was made to be interpreted, can ever be said to mean anything specific unless it was stated to have this meaning by the artist.
Are the life-like sculptures of Michaelangelo which have been met with such high praise and celebration the pinnacle of art? Or is the mess of swirling curves that is Brice Marden's "Cold Mountain 3," the most profound piece of work ever created?
In my opinion those questions have no answer as it is a matter of perspective and preference. As we all read different books, prefer different looks, and follow different philosophies on life, I believe that the whole world will never ever wholly agree on anything. It is an impossibility.
Was Marcel Duchamp making a profound statement with his creation of "The Fountain, 1917?" Or was Duchamp just an opportunist who realised that in the twentieth century even the most juvenile attempt at art would be met with praise? Was the art leading up to the twentieth century so masterful that we just ran out of places to go with it? Has it really all been done before in the world of art? To this I have to say no. I constantly find it sickening when people tell me that it is impossible for music to ever really be new, or a story to be truely original.
I think that Duchamp was making a statement about the art of the twentieth century. But more so he was making a statement about his art. Duchamp was a celebrated artist who had tried his hand with conventional art. Maybe he never really likes his own work, and so resorted to large scale vandalism. I give credit to him for making it a career of it. However I think that the influence of Duchamp's work on the art world is similar to the effects of PCP on the human mind.
Now if I enter an art museum I can find wall after wall with simple, unimaginative works. Maybe this whole wall is white and has a red line on it. That wall over there is all green. The artist claims that is represents this feeling or that phenomina, or whatever other snake oil they peddle to the art community.
Personally, I wonder how the same art world that supported so many gifted artists can tolerate the works of Duchamp, Marden,and Pullock. Anything and everything is accepted as a work of art. Maybe it all is art, and maybe it is not.
Because I find it as impossible to define art as to describe the face of God, I must say that while I hold an opinion of every piece I see, I can not tell you if the world of art is pluralistic or noisy. Most likely I must colclude that it is both.
Art then stands as a perfect reflection of the world as it's many artists have seen it over the centuries. It is both pluralistic and noisy. It is both authentic and fraudulent, beautiful and disgusting, the purest truth and the dirtiest of lies.
To me this was a question that could not truely be answered. Hopefully my reflections on the question can help spark a new thought or two among any who choose to read them. But, I feel that for me to tell anyone what the art of the twentieth century truely amounts to is like asking a caveman what stars are.
-fin
According to the encyclopedia, art refers to “a diverse range of human activities, creations, and expressions that are appealing or attractive to the senses or have some significance to the mind of an individual.” During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as a special capability of the human mind to be classified with religion and science. Art is a product of human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind. With a broad definition such as that, it would seem that anything could be considered art. I believe the art is an expression of thought through a visible medium. It is about looks and appearance. It is about pleasing or displeasing the eye. How something is depicted is as important as what is depicted. But it is also, and possibly foremost, a means of communicating a thought, an idea, a feeling, or a conviction. Context plays a huge part in how a message is perceived. Museums, galleries, frames-- all are extra applied contexts that may change the message delivered by a piece. They can be removed, altered, or replaced. A viewer's opinion of a work is influenced by his own past personal experiences. That is a context that an artist may never remove, alter, or replace. Everyone has their own idea of what should be considered art and what should not and it makes sense that it varies from person to person because it affects each person individually and that is the true purpose. I believe that anything imaginative that is created to evoke thought is art. I do not exactly understand most Contemporary/ Post Modern art be it conceptual, environmental, performance or even installations but I know that each one of those forms of art affects another human being deeply and therefore it is art. It is absolutely not fair to arbitrarily exclude any form of creative thought that evokes provocative contemplation simply based on the fact that one person does not see it as art.
When I was a young child I went to a Christian summer camp each year. One of my favorite things to do while at camp was the many arts and crafts projects that were set up by the counselors. Most of these projects were pre-fabricated arts and crafts that came straight out of the box ready to color or paint.
Now that I am older, I have taken many classes that involve art. However, there is a distinct difference between what I consider art and what I do not consider art. To me, art is the expression of a person’s creative nature expressed in a way that others can understand via their senses. Hence, there are many media for art. I find a play or musical just as artistic as a painting or drawing.
This definition however does pose some problems to the amount of art that is then produced. For this reason, I have some additional criteria that must be met before I will name something a work of art.
The first is that the work of art, whether a painting or a dance, must be original. That means, if a person simply reproduces something that has already been done, without altering it to a noticeable degree, I do not consider it a new work of art.
This leads me to my second criterion which is that the work of art must be something that is not easily reproduced. If a person can look at something and then go home and duplicate it easily, it is not art. This is what I would consider a craft.
Thirdly, the piece in consideration must show some skill with whatever media is chosen. People posses different talents and therefore every person may not be good at the same things.
The piece also must express the emotion of the artist. Although, this does not mean that the artist should tell its audience exactly what he/she is feeling at the time. Rather it should be discernable when the audience experiences the work. Although not everyone will agree on what emotion the artist was feeling, the people will identify with whatever they believe the artist was trying to convey.
The next criterion follows closely to the last; the piece should cause a reaction in the audience. The audience should feel an emotion because of the piece. This may be positive or negative, but unemotional feelings are not an option.
Three examples of pieces that I consider art are: the Mona Lisa by Di Vinci, the splatter paintings made by Jackson Pollock, and the Fountain by Duchamp. Most people accept the Mona Lisa as a famous work of art, but many may disagree with me about the Fountain by Duchamp. Although the Fountain is a prefabricated object, the signature on the side is enough of an altercation to be considered a new piece made by the artist. Also, the impact that the piece has made on 20th century art is enough to admit it into the category of art.
However, I would not consider an unaltered prefabricated coca cola bottle a piece of art. If the artist has not changed the piece, then it is not truly their own art work. Another example would be a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa. Although this would require skill, it would not be an original piece.
Though the art world has become somewhat cluttered with things that many do not consider art, I still believe there is value and worth in every attempt made be people to express themselves. The world contains billions of people currently, this fact combined with the nature of humans to be both creative and their desire to feel connected to others results in a world rich in art.
What is art and who holds the ultimate opinion? Can this question even be answered? Some say that everything is art, while others stand by strict rules and guidelines of what another should be allowed to classify as art. One could even argue that the ideals of such regulations could be construed as art even if not agreed with. The mere fact that we exist could be classified as art, but this idea may even be watered down by how much we are bombarded with the such an expansive existence and also ideas of what art should be.
It would be easy to argue that any type of quality music would be art even if it isn’t desirable to one individual but is to another. However, it is also easy to argue that jumbled notes on an unrecognizable musical scale isn’t anything of value at all. Taken one step further, one could argue that any type of sound created for the purpose of statement could be art or that any sound at all could be art as well. If we learned to appreciate jumbled noise, would it then become art?
By reading some of the information at arthistory.sbc.edu, one can see that art has changed dramatically over the centuries. Something that wasn’t considered art created hundreds of years ago by someone who wasn’t even an artist may very well be considered art today. In that regard, something created today that isn’t art might be considered art hundreds of years from now.
Over the centuries, we can see that the rules and regulations of art often times governed what was considered art. The ability to be able to distinguish an artist’s influences can often times be recognized through their work which means that they have built their art off of previous changes and methods of earlier artists. This can be considered to be both a service and disservice to art. It’s my personal opinion that the patterns of art throughout the centuries show this through the drastic changes and opposition to established art. Looking at the early work of Jackson Pollock shows his influences, while the latter works show a new form of art. Such rebellion can also be seen in Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain. While many may say that it isn’t art, the statement that it makes is what really makes this piece stand out.
It seems almost egotistical to say that one thing is art over another; however, it is easy to rule out overly offensive material although to many it may still be considered art. Over all, I feel that everything might be considered art in that it all comes down to personal opinion. The fact that art has been changed over time and that the rules and guidelines have been broken can be good and bad in that it frees up opinion, but it eventually leads to different guidelines that eventually need to be redefined again. Much of art comes down to personal opinion, public conformity, and just how much someone is willing to pay for something they perceive as valuable.
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html
http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/cas/pkhouse.nsf/pages/pollock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
My goal in Art Appreciation was to learn about the history, forms, shapes, color, mediums and how to be able to enjoy galleries or exhibits. I hope this paper will articulate the things I’ve learned in this class to discuss the plurality of art and my new awareness.
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, 4th Edition, pluralism is a noun and refers to “various ethnic, religious, etc. groups existing together in a nation or society.” It is a noun and so denotes a person, place, thing or an action. Noise is defined as a loud or disagreeable sound.
I like impressionist paintings, sculptures of wildlife, and photography. Balance is important to me as well as order and a sense of reality in the perspective of the artist. Monet is probably best known for his impressionist work in Water Lilies (1920-1926). The colors vary in color and range from dark vivid blues to greens and then to almost red from the reflection of the trees in the water. The water lilies are yellow with little flowers. The blending and movement of one color to another is so peaceful and it draws me into the painting. The work in chapter 22 of our text, Giacomo Balla, Dyanism of a Dog on a Leash (Fig. 719) is a wonderful depiction movement and I like the contrast of the black on a grey background that appears as a sidewalk.
But, the work by Picasso (Fig. 725) and Marcel Duchamp (Fig. 722) were both noise to me when we discussed them in class. As I learned about the preparation and studies Picasso conducted before painting Guernica, I began to see a pattern and the turmoil he was trying to portray in the work. It was no longer noisy or ugly to me. However, Marcel Duchamp’s urinal is not and will never be a fountain to me. Plagiarism is a matter of ethics, so Mona Lisa (L.H.O.O.Q) is nothing more than vandalism of another artist’s work.
Collages are interesting to look at and I like the variety of material available. Setting up a photograph to look a certain way is an art. A good example of collage art is Kerry James Marshall, Many Mansions (Fig. 741) and the combinations endless. However, I am not a fan of pop art. Performance art is new to me and it depends upon what the purpose of the performance it. A man and woman standing at the entrance of a public museum is not my idea of art. The fact that the police stopped the “performance” tells me swimming suits might have accomplished the same goal. Many culture use performance art at part of a ritual as in the film, “Dances with Wolves”, when the Cherokee tribe prepared for the buffalo hunt. The hunt involved dancing, body and horse paint, and every member of the tribe moved to the area of the hunt.
The question of pluralism is a matter of tolerance for different expressions by people as they live their lives. We are all artists in some way when we interact with each other daily. We make blankets, we prepare and serve meals, we decorate our homes, and some of us share our chosen art form with the world. At least for me, there will be less noise and more opportunities to experience art from a new point of view.
Text:
Sayre, H. M. (2007). A World of Art, Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Website:
Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, Claude Monet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Lilies, (last updated July 17, 2008).
Silence is the most amazing of all arts. So much can be said, heard, seen when no words are spoken. It is true that different types of art take place every day, but what I can not seem to comprehend is how silence seems the strongest. Is there a dance that has touched your heart, a smile that has made one tremble, a touch that felt electric, or a kiss that words could not describe. When nothing is said art has been created.
The art that means the most to me, is the art of silent emotion. When your feelings create something indescribable, better than any painting, picture, or sculpture. When two bodies emotionally collide, no artist could ever present this. Though it may not be visible, it is strong and worthy. Emotion may take place in one dance, flowing side to side, fingers inlocked together like a puzzle. Two bodies moving as one as if they are sharing a love scene from a movie. Silence can allow you to truelly feel ever bit of emotion. Has a look of the eye ever meant more, than saying I love you, I miss you, even I need you? Feeling wanted is what most humans need to survive. A kiss, so gentle, sincere, unpainful. So much can be said in it's silence. It shows secrurity and acceptance. There is no need to say anything, because the silence means everything.
Not only can love be shown with no words, but pain. Have you ever heard silence hurts the most? I know from experience, sometimes, the yelling and screaming would have comforted me more than the soft wisper of nothing. Waiting for her answer, still waiting, but than the sound of air. That's when you feel the pain of silence. Like I said silence is strong, it can feel beyond amazing, or it can rip your soul apart.
Some appreciate art differently. Some may feel the art of silent emotion does not exist. Does that make them wrong? Of course not, some prefer to be able to hold the piece, enjoy the color, the visual stimualant. In my opinion, I enjoy the things that can not be seen. I prefer to feel my music incomparison to hearing it. I believe art is much deeper then the eye can see.
Darrell Griffey Jr.
Its All Noise.
How do we define an artist? Artist shouldn’t be criticized for what they create. Art is an expression of emotion via some means of a tool or instrument whether it’s a pen or pencil or even a guitar or microphone. Music and dance are considered types of performance arts and concerts are happenings for people to see and take part in. I like rock music as well as country music which are almost opposites of each other but who has the right to say which one is noise or art. Both involve a type of dancing and artists that are alike in the way they bring people together. After all, art is about an expression whether it’s appealing to others and provokes some sort of reaction within us or not. Musical art leads to movement and performance art.
Slipknot is a hard rock band that hides their true identity behind masks on stage much like artists that don’t leave signatures or sign under fictitious name. The energy is awesome at an event and they use a more rough style sound and dance. Moshing is done in an area called the pitt. It’s a whirlwind of people pushing and shoving back and forth jumping off of each other in a violent manner. Although, there is a respect and responsibility to take care of each from falling and getting trampled. Is this art? Some people would say that it’s ludicrously labeled an art form. I think that if people didn’t enjoy it they wouldn’t partake in this performance art. I’ve been to many rock concerts and I love the energy it produces. Rock concerts tend to have a more crazy crowd than country style events which are almost opposite in performance but equally enjoyable.
Country music concert are significantly more subtle than that of a rock concert. This type of music incorporates line dancing oppose to moshing. In this style of dance, people move in fluidity with each other doing the same movements together at the same time with precision. Instead of just jumping around a whirlwind pit of people the movements are more rehearsed and intricate. Does that make it higher on the totem pole of the performance art world? The performance artist Brooks and Dunn utilize line dancing to some of their songs with a more smooth style melody rather than the hardcore rock music. Which one is better than the other depends on the viewers of the artists and their performances.
Overall, I like rock and country music and I feel that they are both equally enjoyable forms of art. People shouldn’t be so hypocritical towards other individual’s art and accept it as a gift if they choose to view the content of the emotion being conveyed. Music has many sounds and can express many emotions. The rock may present more rage in performance as the country music goes with more love and affection. Therefore, the dance will be different. It’s impossible to line dance to a Slipknot song and I can’t mosh to Brooks and Dunn. The sound is not the same for the type of action invoked from within us. I equally enjoy both activities and the energy they emit at the concert or happening where they are performed. We need both art forms for the sake of emotion and existence in the art world. Art is about creating a piece of work from a subconscious emotion within us and if it reaches out to others then your emotion has created continuity amongst community and the artist. The art world should simplystop all that ridiculous noise andlearn to accept what is given to them and see the beauty of the content created.
How do we define an artist? Artist shouldn’t be criticized for what they create. Art is an expression of emNoise
How do we define an artist? Artist shouldn’t be criticized for what they create. Art is an expression of emotion via some means of a tool or instrument whether it’s a pen or pencil or even a guitar or microphone. Music and dance are considered types of performance arts and concerts are happenings for people to see and take part in. I like rock music as well as country music which are almost opposites of each other but who has the right to say which one is noise or art. Both involve a type of dancing and artists that are alike in the way they bring people together. After all, art is about an expression whether it’s appealing to others and provokes some sort of reaction within us or not. Musical art leads to movement and performance art.
Slipknot is a hard rock band that hides their true identity behind masks on stage much like artists that don’t leave signatures or sign under fictitious name. The energy is awesome at an event and they use a more rough style sound and dance. Moshing is done in an area called the pitt. It’s a whirlwind of people pushing and shoving back and forth jumping off of each other in a violent manner. Although, there is a respect and responsibility to take care of each from falling and getting trampled. Is this art? Some people would say that it’s ludicrously labeled an art form. I think that if people didn’t enjoy it they wouldn’t partake in this performance art. I’ve been to many rock concerts and I love the energy it produces. Rock concerts tend to have a more crazy crowd than country style events which are almost opposite in performance but equally enjoyable.
Country music concert are significantly more subtle than that of a rock concert. This type of music incorporates line dancing oppose to moshing. In this style of dance, people move in fluidity with each other doing the same movements together at the same time with precision. Instead of just jumping around a whirlwind pit of people the movements are more rehearsed and intricate. Does that make it higher on the totem pole of the performance art world? The performance artist Brooks and Dunn utilize line dancing to some of their songs with a more smooth style melody rather than the hardcore rock music. Which one is better than the other depends on the viewers of the artists and their performances.
Overall, I like rock and country music and I feel that they are both equally enjoyable forms of art. People shouldn’t be so hypocritical towards other individual’s art and accept it as a gift if they choose to view the content of the emotion being conveyed. Music has many sounds and can express many emotions. The rock may present more rage in performance as the country music goes with more love and affection. Therefore, the dance will be different. It’s impossible to line dance to a Slipknot song and I can’t mosh to Brooks and Dunn. The sound is not the same for the type of action invoked from within us. I equally enjoy both activities and the energy they emit at the concert or happening where they are performed. We need both art forms for the sake of emotion and existence in the art world. Art is about creating a piece of work from a subconscious emotion within us and if it reaches out to others then your emotion has created continuity amongst community and the artist. The art world should simply accept what is given to them and see the beauty of the content created.
otion via some means of a tool or instrument whether it’s a pen or pencil or even a guitar or microphone. Music and dance are considered types of performance arts and concerts are happenings for people to see and take part in. I like rock music as well as country music which are almost opposites of each other but who has the right to say which one is noise or art. Both involve a type of dancing and artists that are alike in the way they bring people together. After all, art is about an expression whether it’s appealing to others and provokes some sort of reaction within us or not. Musical art leads to movement and performance art.
Slipknot is a hard rock band that hides their true identity behind masks on stage much like artists that don’t leave signatures or sign under fictitious name. The energy is awesome at an event and they use a more rough style sound and dance. Moshing is done in an area called the pitt. It’s a whirlwind of people pushing and shoving back and forth jumping off of each other in a violent manner. Although, there is a respect and responsibility to take care of each from falling and getting trampled. Is this art? Some people would say that it’s ludicrously labeled an art form. I think that if people didn’t enjoy it they wouldn’t partake in this performance art. I’ve been to many rock concerts and I love the energy it produces. Rock concerts tend to have a more crazy crowd than country style events which are almost opposite in performance but equally enjoyable.
Country music concert are significantly more subtle than that of a rock concert. This type of music incorporates line dancing oppose to moshing. In this style of dance, people move in fluidity with each other doing the same movements together at the same time with precision. Instead of just jumping around a whirlwind pit of people the movements are more rehearsed and intricate. Does that make it higher on the totem pole of the performance art world? The performance artist Brooks and Dunn utilize line dancing to some of their songs with a more smooth style melody rather than the hardcore rock music. Which one is better than the other depends on the viewers of the artists and their performances.
Overall, I like rock and country music and I feel that they are both equally enjoyable forms of art. People shouldn’t be so hypocritical towards other individual’s art and accept it as a gift if they choose to view the content of the emotion being conveyed. Music has many sounds and can express many emotions. The rock may present more rage in performance as the country music goes with more love and affection. Therefore, the dance will be different. It’s impossible to line dance to a Slipknot song and I can’t mosh to Brooks and Dunn. The sound is not the same for the type of action invoked from within us. I equally enjoy both activities and the energy they emit at the concert or happening where they are performed. We need both art forms for the sake of emotion and existence in the art world. Art is about creating a piece of work from a subconscious emotion within us and if it reaches out to others then your emotion has created continuity amongst community and the artist. The art world should simply accept what is given to them and see the beauty of the content created.
Works Cited
"A World of Art." Henry M.Sayre.
www.98rock.com
www.brooksanddunn.com
www.cmt.com
Upon entering this class I have learned a great deal about what is accepted as art. If you would have told me 6 weeks ago that two people standing in a doorway naked was art I would have said you were crazy. As we have progressed through the course I ‘ve come to realize there is no right or wrong there is only your perception of what you see.. Art comes in a multitude of shapes, forms ,colors , and expressions. Each artists view on what is art differs as shown by the vast spectrum of art in the art world today there are numerous forms of art that are generally accepted. Some which are earth works, collages, installations and performance art, but what defines art is the application of knowledge and skill of the artist.
When thinking about what pluralistic or noisy is in art it a toss up. Again I could make a argument either way lets flip a coin, heads it is “noisy”. As I have looked at all the art in this book I saw giant stone structures, paintings, and even human art know as “performance art”. After looking at some off the earth works I started to realize that there wasn’t much that didn’t fall under the category of art. I once believed that art was painting or drawing like Leonardo da Vinci’s work. Then you look at work such as Damien Hirst (Mother and Child Divided) which said to be part of a Natural history series. This piece of so called art should be considered a science project not a work of art. If it was to be exhibited it should be at science fair not at a art museum.
It is amazing what freedom of expression has done to the world of art. As long as I can remember art was about human creations, and expressions that are appealing or attractive to the mind of an individual. The change in art has more to with what appeals to us a society’s than it does with the artist. They are just trying to appeal to the mind of the viewer and we have become so shallow and desensitized to things of this world it hard to get our attention. I believe that artist such Damien Hirst and Marina Abramovic and Ulay have grabbed the attention of the viewers with their unusual methods .When you have to stand in a doorway naked to perform art I say what the since. It seems more like a experiment of how people would respond to the female body vs the male. If this is considered art I guess I could get naked and stand in the door of our class would that be art. If I had to guess most people would think your were crazy and call the cops on you.
As best I can put it into words the work of Hirst, Abramovic, and Ulay seem like noise and it’s not a good one.
When I started this class I had no idea what all went into art and all of its various forms. I also had not really heard art referred to as installation art or performance art. I suppose I expected the class to go a little different than it has, but the way that it has turned out has been great. I have learned so much more than I thought I would. It has been very interesting. I have learned so much and I would actually love to learn more.
So, what is art? Well, I know that there are many answers to this question. I now know that art is not just a picture or a sculpture, but it is also an expression of one's feelings. Throughout the different centuries, art has meant various things to the people that lived in that time. Some viewed their art as just an expression of themselves, but we now view their expression as something almost priceless. Their art, paintings, sculptures, etc. are sold or auctioned off for obscene amounts of money. Back a few hundred years ago, it was said that only the wealthy people had art. I can understand why. And, now, all of this time later, the wealthy people still have all of the art. The value has risen to the point that they are the only ones that can afford it. But, there are cheaper versions, copies, or prints that are available to the masses that the rest of us can enjoy in our own homes for the fraction of the cost. For $87.75 plus shipping, handling and tax, I can visit the website of anseladams.com and purchase a framed and double-matted print of "Fresh Snow" and have it hanging on my wall in probably about a week or so depending on ship dates.
http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=150
Now, on the contrary, if I was wealthy and I just had to have this print, I could have it for a very nice price. It could hang on my wall or maybe just lean against my wall because it might be too expensive or large to hang. I could experience it in all of its 2-D glory. And 2-D because it is a picture. Back in the day, the normal people like us had no way to just go and reprint what ever picture that they wanted. Nowadays, with our technology, we have that luxury. And the same with sculptures. You can buy a fake version of a sculpture and put it in your house and also enjoy it or display it the same way that you would your beautiful picture or painting. For example, here is a lovely sculpture of the sacred domesticated cat. It was regarded as equivalent to the Sun God or the Solar Eye. The domestic cat attained special significance as the sacred animal of the Goddess Bastet. And thousands of actual cats were mummified and put into the tombs of many important people. This sculpture is from 550 B.C. and is from Cairo, Egypt.
http://museumstorecompany.com/popup_image.php?pID=1667&image=0
So, it is no so much as what is art as it is what it is exactly. Art can be defined as the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others. And so the term "work of art"emerges. For example, a work of art from 16th century Italy or France included architecture, paintings, and sculptures. In the 18th century, music and poetry were included and they are classified as fine arts.
Art is a lot about feelings. An artist feels something and attempts to convey that in whatever way that person deems necessary and hopes that others will come and experience the same feelings when they, too, look at that particular artists work. And if they can get one other person to share in that or see something from either their perspective or their own personal perspective then they did a great job. That other person needs to be infected with those feelings. It can then be deemed as art.
Art has a lot of meanings to me personally. I love art. And, I love the way that it is expressed. But, I am like a lot of people that are not really well versed in the ways of art. I enjoy it and what it means to me is definitely different than what it means to someone else. But, I think that it is great and we need it in our lives to be more cultured and expand our horizons. It lets us dream and think and reach for something higher than we might have tried to attain. And in some ways, it helps us also get there. It really does inspire us. A picture truly is worth a thousand words.
What is and is not art is purely a matter of opinion. Some take long thoughtful gazes at pieces and others take one glance and create a negative opinion. In all honesty, to me, life is art. Everything we see or do each day makes up the masterpiece of our lives.
Before this class, I probably could not have told you what exactly performance or installation art was. Now, I can say, like everything else, including photography or collages, it is all a matter of opinion. One critic could look at a piece of work and see garbage, while another could look and say it is a masterpiece and worth millions. It may not be fair to say anything can be art, but who can really classify what is and is not? As was stated, one person’s noise is another person’s music. We are a society full of stereotypes and seem to be very close-minded at times. If more people opened their minds to the beautiful world around them, they would be able to distinguish the music many hear and the artwork many different types of artists create.
Another problem is many people only see things like sculptures and paintings as artwork. They do not realize that anything created or a creation sought out by an individual can be considered artwork. You do not have to like that particular creation, but you can appreciate it for what it is. Someone put a lot of time and energy into their work and shared it with the world, so the least one can do is respect the artist’s opinion and their attempt at giving the world something else beautiful. It is nice to know that there are those out there who still give the open-minded people creative and unique pieces to enjoy.
What is art? This has been a question ever since art emerged in its purest form. Art has not always been as what we think of it today. As far as we can date back art started being made when the Greeks were around. The Greeks painted pottery, created manuscripts as well as others. “Art” was not their base intent. Along with other cultures/society emerging at this point in time, “art” as we perceive it today was not the reason it was created.
These structures, sculptures, manuscripts, paintings, architectures, ect… were mostly created to communicate. Also note communication was also at its emergence and purest form. Back when these works were created, writing, or other forms of communications were available (only speaking). These cultures lacked knowledge of what art really was, therefore making art a subjective idea, in other words lacking a finite definition.
Some may argue well some art forms served more than a tool of communication; others may also argue that while these objects were appreciated and admired in various ways it is still not considered “art” in its current sense.
This all leads to the argument of whether collage, installation, and performance art are considered art. These types of expression or communication for that matter are therefore not considered “art”. Art according to the dictionary is expressed as a way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online) -- rather than what it is. This sounds as the technical form of a collage, an installation, and performance art.
On what basis can someone argue that this form of expression is not considered art, is told without concise basis of argument? What is commonly seen is Art represented to something that may not consider it “art”. Art is very personal, is a way in which individuals express themselves just as we express ourselves in the form of speech. It is lack of knowledge to differentiate between what is an appropriate form of expression through art and what is appropriate. Collage, installation, and performance art is subjectively considered art and holds a basis of great art as long as the artist believes so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
http://britannica.com/#search=tab~TOPICS%2Cterm~art&tab=active~home
http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/
When I think of art, I think of the renaissance period with artists such as: DaVinci, Michelangelo and other great artists of that time. Then I start to conceptualize in which that time period of art was so great. That painting and sculptures from the Renaissance is a product of their time. Now, I ask the question,” What is the art of the current period of time?” While some people call performance, collages, and installations art “Noisy” in how they seems to show off their characteristics, but I take a more different approach. I see performance in a product of our time, as well as the collages and installation art. In this essay I will attempt to prove not only is these types of art not noisy, but just a product of their time.
According to Jack Bowman, performance art is “relevant of today” meaning that performance has to do with events or activities happening in our everyday life in this time period. He also goes on to say that performance art is brief, about fifteen minutes long. Lastly, he says that performance art is the “ultimate in creativity”. Now with reviewing these points of interest, don’t you think these are some of the very AMERICAN values we live on today? We as Americans, don’t like to be limited for any reason, some things we live on today are: we don’t like to wait in line at a taco bell for longer than 5 minutes, being told what we can do as far as expression of art, and we don’t live too much in the past; we like things to be always changing. This is just one example of art in our time period. Collages are another great example of art for this time period in history. It allows people to get a literal view on how people interpret events happening in our lives today. Collages have been particularly used since the early 1900’s. Early artists such as: Pablo Picasso and George Braque started the movement of artistry known as cubism, specifically synthetic cubism. Synthetic Cubism was the first time a collage was made into a fine art. These types of art were around the time of 1912, which is the time of the start of World War I. It transformed the art world tremendously, and it spread quickly throughout the European countries.
Throughout history art has changed its face many times over. The question is,” What face is it now?” From an American perspective on art, art is current, art is relevant, art is brief. Performance art exemplifies what it means to have a “Western” type mentality, not only towards art, but also to life in general. Collages seem to interpret what events are really surrounding us. So, in art in this period what people may call noisy, I say it is a product of our time and people should learn to embrace art and enjoy.
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso78.html
http://userpages.bright.net/~dapoets/performa.htm
Post a Comment