After many have disputed more practical pieces of art, such as a white toilet, Matravers elaborates on his viewpoint on what art is. To explain how inanimate objects could be used as art, he says that as long as the piece is connected to the art world. If an artist claims it as his own work and it is accepted by the surrounding art community then it is art. This broad perspective allows almost anything to be considered art,and Matravers acknowledges this. In our discussion we found it hard to agree with Matravers. We decided that it not only has to be accepted by the community, but it has to have artistic intention behind it to be considered a work of art. If you walk outside and grab a tire and put in a gallery it is hard to consider it art, but if you put some intention into your piece, it becomes a lot clearer even to the non-artistic minded spectators what art is.
Factual Question:
What condition does Matravers have to consider something art?
-Be connected to the art world.
Discussion Question:
How does Matravers loose definition provide complications in the quality and aesthetics of modern art?
Discussion: an a piece that someone did not create but merely took and said was art truly be art?
ReplyDeleteFactual: Does Matravers agree with the art world as to a urinal being a piece of art?
Im posting on here since my author hasn't posted yet...
ReplyDeleteI feel that perhaps architecture is somewhat overlooked when we think of art, but when I think about it, it is most definitely an art form. (It's an art form I would never take up, too much math.) However, I feel that although it may be nice to have "pretty" buildings, function should be the most important. However, beauty in a building can provoke thought, which can be very helpful especially in learning situations. Also, like nature or any other art form, buildings can bring pleasure to life; many beautiful cathedrals have been built, and I would not say that their existence is frivilous.
Factual: What two things would Alain de Botton say that buildings ought to do?
Discussion: What buildings have inspired you?
I am also posting here since my author hadn't posted...
ReplyDeleteRegarding Singer’s theory on animals, I felt a bit uneasy even at the very beginning when he explains that ‘persons’ are only someone who is aware of their existence over time, therefore leaving newborns and anyone with a mentally debilitating illness out of that classifications. I guess if you are differentiating between ‘persons’ and ‘human-beings’, then I would agree more, but I still am not really sure about that concept. Moving on, I think his concept of animals suffering is interesting. I’ve never thought about how some animals are more sensitive in some ways - the examples he gives being an eagle’s eyesight and a dog’s hearing. I’m not sure if I think they necessarily suffer more, but it is an interesting concept. And also, I don’t agree with him when he says all people that eat the meat from animals are morally wrong; I think that is a decision that people have to decide for themselves.
--What does Singer say about most people who eat animals? (they are immoral to a degree)
--If you eat meat, do you consider yourself immoral for doing so?
--Natalie Ricketts
Hi I am posting here becuase I am also in section 13 group four and our author forgot to post. I came to the conclusion that I think everything in life can be considered art in some way shape or form. I do not believe that there is one formal definition of art that can be constituted as correct. When we looked at the urinal in class, I think that it was cool that people acknowledged that as art. I think that it was an artist trying to tell people that we need to view even the simplest things in life in a very artistic way. He is trying too convince people to think abstractly instead of with a concrete mind. As for singers view on animals here are my two questions... When does Singer say someone ceases to be a person? and Do you think that eating animals is immoral?
ReplyDelete- Amanda Gargano Section 13 Group 4
F: In Matraver's point of view, art is the imitation of nature. True/False (True)
ReplyDeleteD: Do you consider art in different forms (music, literature, philosophy, etc.) or just one form (photos, pictures)? Why?