Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Group 4 Section H1 - ART

Group Members: Erin P., Larissa W., Yusra M. (absent), Keaton D., and Evan L.

Author: Evan Lester

Today's discussion was all about art. The main (and very debatable) discussion was about what defines art. Keaton D. said that art is something that gives you an emotional response whether it be music, art, or something relevant to those things. In my personal opinion, I think art is something that you can see. Art is not something that makes you picture an image of something. Most of the members and the floaters (if not all) said that music is art because it gives them an emotional response and it gives them this image (correct me if I am wrong) from the music. I tend to disagree with this because I think the image that is made from the music and other pieces of "art" in someone's mind cannot be called art because that is something personal someone came up with. The music I listen to never gives me an image that I can actually see or even make in my mind. Therefore, I think that music is not art. (Maybe it is because I do not listen to that kind of music or from the fact that I have never played an instrument as my group members and floaters pointed out.)

We ultimately came up to the conclusion that anything can be artful depending on what you define as art. People can view things in different ways, like the "Ur-I-Nal" (British pronunciation). I tend to agree with this because what some people may think is art, others may not. Some people agree with fashion styles and clothes designing is art (which I actually agree with because it is visual), but some may not. Some may see that music is a form of art, but some will not see it that way. As you can see, art is defined by who thinks it is art and who doesn't. But who actually gets to decide whether it is art or not? This was what Dr. Oliver pointed out as he floated over to our group. Also, who gets to say that Monet and Rembrandt are some of the best artists of all time? (These were just the two that popped up in my head). What about the other people who did similar artwork and didn't get recognized? That is a question you all can answer in your posts if you like.

In conclusion, I know that I "ruffled" feathers today in our group by disagreeing with most of what they defined as art. However, I am grateful that they opened up to what I had to say, even though that was not what they defined art as I described it in my personal opinion. But that is what makes us all unique. Everyone has his or her own opinion about everything in life. Great job today Group 4! Just a little thank you to group 4 for being such a great group!

DQ: How much does a person influence an animal's behavior? Or is there behavior part of their "animal nature"?

FQ:    Q: The major issue about _________________ , according to Peter Singer, and how we treat them is that they're capable of suffering.
  
          A: Animals

Link: One quote that I think is very true about art is by Oscar Wilde as I was reading about what defines art. Wilde said:

"Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known."

Please comment group 4 your own opinion of art!


(Comment before it is too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

8 comments:

  1. Haha, Evan I love the picture! Poor kid....

    Yes, we kind of all ganged up on you today. You stood your ground, and I'm proud of you! And, I just smoothed out my ruffled feathers after class so no worries.

    I asked Merriam-Webster Inc. for their thoughts on the subject and they said that they believe art is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."

    So I'll give Evan a couple points because it mentions "objects." But I also think music falls within the "conscious use of skill and creative imagination" category.

    When I listen to specific types of music, I don't always see images in my mind, but I definitely feel different emotions. When I listen to praise and worship music, I feel uplifted and happy. When I overhear dance music with the heavy kick drum quarter notes and the techno-kinda stuff playing on top and some guy yelling incomprehensible phrases, I feel smothered, like I'm about to have a panic attack. I guess when I hear that music it makes me think of a lot of people crammed together in a dark room with flashing strobe lights and they are all jumping around and such, and it's oh-so-loud, with your insides vibrating and your ears bleeding. The very thought of this fills me with dread. Call me dramatic. I tend to gravitate towards music that lifts me up and relaxes me. I'm not big on the whole GET UP AND DA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-NCE!!!!!! music. But, my roommate, whom I respect and admire, loves that kind of music, and I am perfectly fine with him liking it! He has his own taste! It's a weird taste, but it's his! ;)

    I do wonder if there should be a council or something kind of like back in the 19th century France where they accepted or rejected art that was submitted to the one and only art show. Because, I'm just not feeling the whole urinal thing. Anyone could have plopped a urinal onto a pedestal and said, "ART." Not everyone could have painted a 50 foot long painting of water lilies like Monet did. The lines are becoming blurry, where anything and everything is considered art just because some guy stole something from a public restroom.

    This reminds me of what I'm studying in my history class. In the Middle Ages, the church's clergy was slowly getting filled with people who were put in there by nobles; they didn't have any spiritual goals for their position, they just wanted power. Because of this, things went sour for the church, with sexual immorality and political issues tainting their moral reputation. Finally, popes like Leo IX and especially Gregory VII put their foot down and said, "No. We will only allow into church leadership people who want this position for spiritual reasons, and they will only be elected by church leaders, not secular nobles who just want power." Then, the church started improving. While art does not match the power of the church, I do believe it is extremely influential, and it should be taken seriously. So, should someone put their foot down and say, "We shall not accept anything into which someone can mistakenly relieve himself or herself"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keaton, I agree completely with what you wrote, but in regards to DuChamp's urinal... yes, anybody COULD have plopped a urinal onto a pedastool--but Duchamp actually did!

    I really liked the PB description of art as "a collection of the ideas behind the art" to describe modern art. Dadaism (the branch of art that Duchamp worked with), is all about irrationality and pushing the boundaries. To quote wikipedia:

    "Dada rejected reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition...

    According to Hans Richter, Dada was not art, it was "anti-art."[5] Everything for which art stood, Dada represented the opposite. Where art was concerned with traditional aesthetics, Dada ignored aesthetics. If art was to appeal to sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend.
    As Hugo Ball expressed it, "For us, art is not an end in itself ... but it is an opportunity for the true perception and criticism of the times we live in.""

    Thus, I think that, as Dada artists use "art" to criticize the time they live in, they are a member of the art society (of art being about the idea behind it as opposed to the object you see), and thus the Fountain is a piece of art.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry. The link to this is

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

      Delete
    2. Crap. And the DQ: If art is about the ideas behind it... is the ability to BS the only qualification an artist must have?

      Delete
    3. I do see your point of how the ideas behind art are just as important as the object itself. It would make sense to say that the ideas are the most important and the object is just the vessel that conveys those ideas.

      My tastes do not include certain flavors of art, like in literature and music. The art world is so vast, no one is going to like everything!

      Delete
  3. Matthew, I agree with what you said about the urinal: Duchamp actually did it. I think sometimes when people see art, they’re like “What’s so great about this? I could have done it.” But you didn’t, and I think that way of thinking is kind of missing the point. Maybe the urinal wasn’t anything “special,” but it still makes you think. Anything can be art. You just have to have the courage to turn it into art: for example, the projection room.
    In regards to who determines what great art is, it reminded me a lot about books, especially, Harry Potter and Twilight. In my opinion, Harry Potter isn’t just a wonderful story. It’s also about the way it’s written and all of the thought put behind the story. Twilight’s okay, but the writing is not anywhere near the level of that of Harry Potter. I think there will always be some sort of criteria for art. It’s easier to see what makes something well written than what makes a painting good. If you look at traditional art, I don’t think any of us know enough about the subject to deem that the painting is painted well or not. Modern art is a different story, because it’s all about being creative. I don’t really think there are any set rules to it. It’s all about your own perspective. Maybe that’s why people are drawn to modern art. Hasn’t that always been the point of art? To break the rules? I mean, that’s what I think of when I think of an artist. It’s about doing your own thing and being crazy. You can’t put a label on it because art is all about being against the stereotypes. That’s what makes it great. It’s the one subject where you can’t do anything wrong, relatively speaking.

    DQ: Do you think that because everyone is trying to be different and trendy, etc., that art is becoming more about image and less about expressing yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I took an orientation to art class last semester and the modern art section was one of my favorites. But at first, it kind of made me mad. I was like what the heck is this crap???? Malevich literally painted a square on a canvas and it was some high class masterpiece.. copies of it still sell for hundreds of dollars.. I wish I could get famous from slopping a square of paint on a piece of paper. But when you really start looking into it, it's pretty cool. Art went from illusionistic, representational, this painting looks so real stuff; to impressionistic stuff that doesn't look real at all; to abstraction.. and it's pretty cool when you learn about it. There was a series called the last paintings which were just solid colors painted on canvas. The artist (whose name is escaping me) said that this was the logical end to painting, you can't get any more abstract than just a solid painting, and beyond abstraction, he didn't think there was any more that could be done to art. Some of the coolest artist we learned about (I thought) were Tom Friedman and Andy Goldsworthy. Both of these guys just took random stuff and threw it together to make art. The most memorable piece of Friedman's art was that he took hairs and made them into circles on a piece of soap... like who thinks of that and who takes the time to actually do it? Goldsworthy used nature for his art so they are all temporary pieces. It's super awesome! I encourage yall to google them!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Erin Paul8:29 AM CDT

    I was only in this group at the beginning but I found the discussion to be interesting. I think I agree with Keaton's definition of art as something that creates an emotional response. But I think the beauty of art is that we all have different personal views of it. We all have different interests and tastes and so having one exact definition or criteria for art definitely limits the enjoyment level of all. Art is diverse - people are diverse. And I love that! It just makes it very tricky to define what is good and what should make millions of dollars and a spot in a prestigious art museum. But all in all, if it's art to somebody, I believe it's art.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.