Last week, I responded to Griffin's question as to whether humans can be art in my post "Humans as Art". Apparently, I misunderstood his question, prompting him to clarify in his post "A counter to Denise's response to my question", in which he asked: "What I want to know is can the human body be the art inherently without it representing some other form of art?"
Firstly, I would like to change the term human body to human experience, meaning the experience of being a living human in an intellectual, emotional, and corporeal world. To isolate just the human body, one would have to take the life out of it and it becomes just another object.
Now, one could argue that every moment of human existence is a piece of performance art. However, that seems very inclusive. And then, it's just another play, the story of a person's life.
Perhaps, we're examining this the wrong way. Maybe, all art forms are replication of the human experience. Maybe the human experience is the only true art form and the rest are just echoes, vain attempts to replicate and/or communicate that experience. Although, under this line of thought, perhaps the term should be changed to simply being alive, as humans may not be the only beings capable of creating art.
Is art just an attempt to capture the experience of being alive?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Art and Politics
"An artist is above all a human being, profoundly human to the core. If an artist can't feel everything that humanity feels, if the artist isn't capable of loving until he forgets himself and sacrifices himself if necessary, if he won't put down his magic brush and head the fight against the great oppressor, then he isn't a great artist." -Diego Rivera
On her blog, Sarah asked: "Is it just me, or does this quote contain a hint of Communist propaganda?"
The question references the last part of Rivera's quote, the section about fighting the "great oppressor". As Sarah mentioned, Rivera was a Communist supporter. In he most likely intended it, this was a call for a Communist Mexico and a profoundly political statement. Under those restrictions, I must disagree with Rivera's definition of an artist. Art can be political, but it doesn't have to be.
Yet, if one removes Rivera's initial intentions, it is possible to redefine his statement. If art has a message, and I believe that all art does, then it is supporting a certain point of view. If an artist is unwilling to express that point of view, regardless of it's popularity, is he or she really an artist?
On her blog, Sarah asked: "Is it just me, or does this quote contain a hint of Communist propaganda?"
The question references the last part of Rivera's quote, the section about fighting the "great oppressor". As Sarah mentioned, Rivera was a Communist supporter. In he most likely intended it, this was a call for a Communist Mexico and a profoundly political statement. Under those restrictions, I must disagree with Rivera's definition of an artist. Art can be political, but it doesn't have to be.
Yet, if one removes Rivera's initial intentions, it is possible to redefine his statement. If art has a message, and I believe that all art does, then it is supporting a certain point of view. If an artist is unwilling to express that point of view, regardless of it's popularity, is he or she really an artist?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Humans as Art
On his blog, Griffin asked: "Can a human be an art object?"
Scanning through the blogs of my fellow classmates, I found that this question had been asked and answered by others. Their answers included tattoos and sculptures of the human form. But, in these pieces, is the human being a work of art? Is the sculpted man any more human than the person in the painting? Is it the image of the tattoo or the bearer that is art? While I cannot deny that the above examples are art, I'm not sure that they qualify as human being as an art object.
So, when is a human being an art object? Once a year, somewhere in California, a performance art show is held. In the show, performers reenact famous pieces of visual art onstage, in front of an audience. During a period of darkness, the scene is set and the performers take their places. When the lights come on, the performers hold perfectly still, often in challenging positions, until the lights go off again several minutes later. The humans are the medium of the art. So, yes, human beings can be art.
Is there anything that can't be art, under any circumstances?
Scanning through the blogs of my fellow classmates, I found that this question had been asked and answered by others. Their answers included tattoos and sculptures of the human form. But, in these pieces, is the human being a work of art? Is the sculpted man any more human than the person in the painting? Is it the image of the tattoo or the bearer that is art? While I cannot deny that the above examples are art, I'm not sure that they qualify as human being as an art object.
So, when is a human being an art object? Once a year, somewhere in California, a performance art show is held. In the show, performers reenact famous pieces of visual art onstage, in front of an audience. During a period of darkness, the scene is set and the performers take their places. When the lights come on, the performers hold perfectly still, often in challenging positions, until the lights go off again several minutes later. The humans are the medium of the art. So, yes, human beings can be art.
Is there anything that can't be art, under any circumstances?
Hidden Meaning
On her blog, Kimberlee asked: "Do you ever think that people over think things way to much and assume a piece of art work to be much more intentional than it actually is?"
There are certainly times when we find more in a piece than the artist intended. I'll continue the literature example, as I find it the easiest medium for discussion, but the same applies to all art. Like Kimberlee, I experienced the same moment of disbelief in one of my high school literature classes in which I could not believe that the author had actually put so much thought into the symbolism. Sometimes in real life things just happen. Yet, this seems to be against the laws of literature, where everything has to have a meaning. But, does it? The storm might not represent the characters inner turmoil; it could just be a warm front hitting a cold front, just like they say on the weather channel.
And yet, sometimes there really is that depth of meaning. Sometimes, symbolism occurs without the artist's realizing it until later, and then going back and shaping it. For example, I am a writer. In a piece I was working on recently, I compared the sensations one of the characters experienced while trapped in a crowd as drowning. Later on, without thinking about it, I used drowning imagery again with the same character. Only when I looked back on my work and realized what I had done, did I decide that the character couldn't swim and, thus, anything connected with drowning or water, literally or through comparative imagery, represents extreme danger to her. At this point, I'll probably go back and add more allusions to water, but it wasn't something I planned to have from the very beginning.
What merits does the use of symbolism add to a piece of art? Does it make the art more artistic?
There are certainly times when we find more in a piece than the artist intended. I'll continue the literature example, as I find it the easiest medium for discussion, but the same applies to all art. Like Kimberlee, I experienced the same moment of disbelief in one of my high school literature classes in which I could not believe that the author had actually put so much thought into the symbolism. Sometimes in real life things just happen. Yet, this seems to be against the laws of literature, where everything has to have a meaning. But, does it? The storm might not represent the characters inner turmoil; it could just be a warm front hitting a cold front, just like they say on the weather channel.
And yet, sometimes there really is that depth of meaning. Sometimes, symbolism occurs without the artist's realizing it until later, and then going back and shaping it. For example, I am a writer. In a piece I was working on recently, I compared the sensations one of the characters experienced while trapped in a crowd as drowning. Later on, without thinking about it, I used drowning imagery again with the same character. Only when I looked back on my work and realized what I had done, did I decide that the character couldn't swim and, thus, anything connected with drowning or water, literally or through comparative imagery, represents extreme danger to her. At this point, I'll probably go back and add more allusions to water, but it wasn't something I planned to have from the very beginning.
What merits does the use of symbolism add to a piece of art? Does it make the art more artistic?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Make-up Art
On her blog, Katie asked: "Can make-up artists really be artists?"
I think that depends on what is meant by make-up artist. Some make-up artist, commonly called beauticians, deal with everyday make-up. They are the women sitting at the make-up counters in the mall who help you pick out the right make-up and show you how to use it. Some of them will even give you a make-over. Personally, I don't think that this is really art; it seems to be more of a skill.
But, there are other types of make-up artists. I think that the make-up artists that work on shows and movies are artists. They can spend hours working on one characters look, especially if it requires complicated make-up, such as the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera. For example, I recently performed in Cats at my high school. Cats requires a lot of make-up, as all of the characters are cats.
The make-up artist for our production designed different make-up for every cat. Applying the make-up was almost like painting and required several applications to achieve the different layers. The make-up for the show required intention, thought, and planning. In my opinion, it was art.
Are hair stylists artists?
I think that depends on what is meant by make-up artist. Some make-up artist, commonly called beauticians, deal with everyday make-up. They are the women sitting at the make-up counters in the mall who help you pick out the right make-up and show you how to use it. Some of them will even give you a make-over. Personally, I don't think that this is really art; it seems to be more of a skill.
But, there are other types of make-up artists. I think that the make-up artists that work on shows and movies are artists. They can spend hours working on one characters look, especially if it requires complicated make-up, such as the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera. For example, I recently performed in Cats at my high school. Cats requires a lot of make-up, as all of the characters are cats.
Are hair stylists artists?
The Experience of Thought
On his blog, Griffin asked: "Suppose that at some point we invent a device that allows us to peer into anothers mind and see in our own head what they are thinking. Now, suppose we use that device on a painter who has an amazing idea for a masterpiece. Would that mental image of the masterpiece be considered art even though it is not brought into sensory form yet?"
Not according to Dewey. Dewey argued for art as experience. He believed that the act of creating the art was as integral to the art as the piece itself. An idea is a wonderful thing, but it has no experience behind, no fulfillment. As the piece has not yet been created, has anything been invested in it yet? Dewey say no.
Still, I'm not sure Dewey's right. An idea in itself can be a creation. After all, the patent office will issue patents for ideas, even if no prototype has, or even can be made. Most ideas represent time spent in thought, developing the idea. Thinking can be an experience as well.
If ideas can be art, then can descriptions of ideas, such as a prose paragraph describing a painting, real or imagined, be art?
Not according to Dewey. Dewey argued for art as experience. He believed that the act of creating the art was as integral to the art as the piece itself. An idea is a wonderful thing, but it has no experience behind, no fulfillment. As the piece has not yet been created, has anything been invested in it yet? Dewey say no.
Still, I'm not sure Dewey's right. An idea in itself can be a creation. After all, the patent office will issue patents for ideas, even if no prototype has, or even can be made. Most ideas represent time spent in thought, developing the idea. Thinking can be an experience as well.
If ideas can be art, then can descriptions of ideas, such as a prose paragraph describing a painting, real or imagined, be art?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Definition by Example
On her blog, Katie asked: "Is this the way we should define or pin down art as well, use examples, compare new art to old art?"
Using examples to define art seems to be an easy solution. Rather than struggling to find just the right words, all we have to do is make comparisons to already established art. Actually, we've already consider this approach in class. Morris Weitz suggested the same thing. Rather than give a solid definition, Weitz found art by identifying similarities between a candidate and existing pieces of art. Now, if memory serves, we had some problems with Weitz's theory. It's a bit too inclusive. For example, Andy Warhol's Brillo Box is art. Now, since an actual Brillo box is visually similar, it should be art as well, but it isn't. Therefore, only some aspects of a work of art make it art and only pieces that share these particular aspects are also art. So, I think that we could use examples to define art, but we must be specific about which quality of the piece we want to exemplify.
If you had to create a definition of art from examples, which works, and qualities of those works, would you choose?
Using examples to define art seems to be an easy solution. Rather than struggling to find just the right words, all we have to do is make comparisons to already established art. Actually, we've already consider this approach in class. Morris Weitz suggested the same thing. Rather than give a solid definition, Weitz found art by identifying similarities between a candidate and existing pieces of art. Now, if memory serves, we had some problems with Weitz's theory. It's a bit too inclusive. For example, Andy Warhol's Brillo Box is art. Now, since an actual Brillo box is visually similar, it should be art as well, but it isn't. Therefore, only some aspects of a work of art make it art and only pieces that share these particular aspects are also art. So, I think that we could use examples to define art, but we must be specific about which quality of the piece we want to exemplify.
If you had to create a definition of art from examples, which works, and qualities of those works, would you choose?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)