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?

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?

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?

Personal Imitation

On his blog, Griffin asked: "Can an artist imitate their own work?"

All art is based on the artist's experience. Sometimes it comes from the life of the artist and sometimes it finds it's roots in other pieces of art that the artist has encountered over his or her life. Artists also build off of their own work. If you look at an artist's work from across his or her career, it is usually possible to see a gradual growth or change of style from the first piece to the last. By reviewing their work, artists can see what works and what doesn't work. In their next work, they can change or not change the style accordingly. Is this change a type of imitation? I don't think it is. Rather, it's the development of the artist's skill and personal style.

 If a piece of art is consciously inspired by the work of a different artist, should the original artist be credited? 

The Benefits of Instruction

On her blog, Hanna asked: "Is it better to have a teacher, or let your skills develop organically?"

 I think that a healthy combination of instruction and natural growth is important for a developing artist. An artist, of any type, needs to explore and grow on their own to develop his or her own voice and personal taste, but this does not negate the benefits of instruction. Teachers introduce artists to other aspects of their art that they may never have discovered on their own. These new discoveries may one day be incorporated into an artist's style. Teachers also show artists the weak points in their work, which they may not notice on their own, and offer suggestions for improvement. Conversely, they may also show artists where they are truly talented. Enrollment in a formal class forces artists to devote time to their art, which they might otherwise neglect.

In the same post, Hanna expressed her talent and interest for drawing. Personally, I am a writer. I'm aware of several other artists in our class. What do you consider to be your art?

Generalization and Example

On his blog, Duncan asked: "Can art be described without any of the three though? (the three being generalization, example, and anecdote.)"

Let us assume, that art can be described without example or anecdote. Would it be possible to explain art without generalizing.  I don't believe that it's possible. Art refers to a broad range of things. Within visual art alone, there exists paintings, sculptures, etc. Then, one must consider music and literature. How can you specifically describe art without neglecting one of these categories? On the other hand, one can take generalization too far. To say that art is anything that is aesthetically stimulating would include several things that are widely considered non-art, such as nature.

Now, on to example and anecdote, which I think are the same thing as an anecdote is just a personal example. I think that, eventually, one must always return to example when trying to explain art.  For instance, let's return to the supposition that art is aesthetically stimulating. We have just defined an abstract concept with an abstract concept. Our answer is probably followed by the logical question "What does it mean to be aesthetically stimulated?" We have three options. We can try to define "aesthetically stimulated", which seems to be a difficult if not impossible task. We could state that we are aesthetically stimulated when we view art, making our definition circular. Or, we could cite an example of when the questioner probably felt aesthetically stimulated. Personally, I do not think that the first option is possible. Therefore, we must eventually reach example to have a solid conclusion.

How would you describe art to an intelligent life form that has no understanding of the concept?

Explaining the Abstract

 Have you ever tried to explain an abstract concept, such as justice to a small child.  It's no easy feat.  One cannot describe it by color, sound, texture, scent, or any other sensory clues by which humans gather information.  The concept has to be intuitively felt.  In my experience, I've found that, rather than give a child a definition, most people would give a child one or more examples of the concept in action.  Thus, a child can only know what justice is after he or she has seen justice.  I believe this theory applies to art as well.  It seems to me that, if a person had never experienced art before, he or she would not understand an explanation of art until they were shown an example, no matter how eloquent the teacher.

If art is an abstract concept, how can we describe it without examples and anecdotes?

The Function of Cake

On her blog, Sarah asked: Does cake have a place in sculptural studio art?

This reminds me of a debate we had in class a few weeks ago.  We were discussing the artistic merit of culinary arts.  The official opinion was that it was either not art or that it was a lower form of art because the primary purpose of the culinary arts is to create food for people to eat.  Basically, at the time, our judgment was based on the function of food, or in this case, cake.  Now, enter Goodman.  Goodman asks us to consider when non-art functions as art.  Perhaps, that is the basis for viewing a cake as a work of art.  Just being a cake does not qualify something as art.  Once an artistic cake is cut up and served, it is not art.  However, when an artistic cake, such as those seen on the television series Ace of Cakes, is on display before it is served, it is functioning as a work of art, which, according to Goodman, makes it art in that moment.

If an established work of art is destroyed, for instance shredding the Mona Lisa, is it still art, just as it is still art if it is used as a blanket?

Art and Quantum Physics

Several weeks ago in class, we discussed whether any two people could experience a work of art in exactly the same way.  After considering all the variables that go into the development of a human being, we determined that this was impossible, as even something as simple as viewing an object from a slightly different angle can change our perception of it.  In my opinion, this disputes Hume's theory that we have a common basis for personal taste and, while all tastes are valid, only one taste is right.  Recently, I watched a documentary entitled "What the Bleep Do We Know?"  The film, which was rooted in quantum physics, discussed an interesting principle.  According to the film, or at least my understanding of it, everything is everywhere all the time.  So, not only am I experiencing my life right now, I am, theoretically, experiencing the lives of every single person on this planet.  This new level of shared experience could be just the evidence Hume needs to back his theory of shared personal taste.

So, if I'm sharing the varied personal tastes of everyone on Earth, does this make all of the tastes right, thereby eliminating the need to define what is correct?

Chain Reaction

On her blog, Amanda asked: "Wherein lies the art? Is it in the final product, the poem that you write about the painting? Or is it in the initial painting that started the series? Are all the creative works art? And are the emotions evoked from the works that inspired more creativity considered aesthetic emotion, or are the pieces inspired by just the urge to create, and the experience of creation?" (If you're confused about the questions, check out her post here: http://aohappy.blogspot.com/2010/10/just-some-thoughts.html)

In my opinion, every link in the chain is art.  Every piece of art has some sort of inspiration.  It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to create something from nothing.  Artists draw from their experiences, including their encounters with other art, and from speculation on those experiences.  Although it can be difficult for even the artist to identify it, the initial inspiration is there.  The source of that inspiration should not devalue the art.

As for Amanda's second question, I believe that it is the human emotions that the piece invokes that inspires the next creative endeavor.  If the painting merely fostered an urge to create, then the next work would not truly be inspired by the painting.  The painting would serve only as a catalyst, speeding up the creative process.  Yet, if it inspires an emotional reaction, this feeling would spill over into the next piece, creating a common link between the two.  The link may not be the same from the first painting to the final poem, but one could still follow the chain.

Does understanding the inspiration behind a piece of art enable our personal interpretations, or confine us to the interpretation of the artist?  What do we miss if we know the artist's thoughts before we form our own opinions?