My Favorite Artist.

At the beginning of this course, I had no idea who my favorite artist was or if I even had one. I did not really know how to define art and I had too little experience with art to choose a favorite just yet. After blogging, discussing philosopher's views of what is art, searching artworks online, visiting museums, and so on, I can finally say I have a couple of favorite artists. I think having more than one favorite artist is justified because there are so many different forms of art. My favorite painter is Leonid Afremov.

I found his works while looking for a painting to add to my blog and I fell in love with them. His usage of colors is inspiring and pleasing. He is a very optimistic artist, which is what I love most about him. I consider his art to be my favorite because it's beautiful but also conveys certain emotions and messages in each piece. Plus, I love the subject material he decides to paint: Autumn, nature, flowers, rainy days, dancers, and so on. It's all just beautiful. Enough said.

I also love The Beatles. They are my all time favorite band. I don't think I need any explanation for this one. They are just amazing. :)

My question to you is: Who is your favorite artist and why do you consider him or her as such?

My Definition of Art.

"Art is what's left over after you've defined everything else." -Michael Vitale.

Art and Philosophy has taught me more than I expected about art and how to define it. After reading the works of many philosophers, I find that I agree the most with Tolstoy and "Art as Communication of Feeling." Professor Johnson defines art as, "The suitably technical, creative, and intentional embodiment of aesthetically engaging thought or emotion in any publicly accessible medium." I would have to agree with him mostly. To me, art is a form of creativity, self-expression, and above all, communication. The artist of the piece of work decides what he or she wants to create before hand and what message is going to be communicated in the piece. The artist intends for it to be art and for people to view it and learn from it. He or she uses aesthetics to create a piece with strong emotion using different techniques. In the piece, the artist's self is displayed to the audience and the audience views the piece to learn something about the artist and the world. A work of art can be frightening, pleasing, beautiful, ugly, sad, mad, and so on. When it comes to art, there are no boundaries because anyone can express themselves anyway they want and everybody's idea of what is good and what is bad art differs.

I feel as though the definition of art is always changing and expanding as society evolves. I do not think it is undefinable and I feel like art needs to be appreciated much more than it is. The first step is encouraging children to learn about different forms of art and encourage the population to view museums and exhibits. Seeing art in person is a whole other experience than viewing it on the internet. My definition of art is: Any creation by a member of the art world that not only expresses certain emotions in an aesthetic manner but communicates a message to the audience successfully.

My question to you is: After completing the seminar, Art & Philosophy, how do you define art? Which philosopher from class do you associate your views with the most?

Georgia O'Keefe's inspiration of this painting was the waves of Lake George in NY. I chose to put this in my blog because I live close to Lake George and think it's pretty awesome a painting so famous has to do with something so close to me. :)

Response to "To Be Unique."

Response #19

In Misty Elliot's blog, she talks about Adrian Piper's view on art objects. Piper believes art loses its uniqueness the more it is viewed by us because we appreciate it less and do not feel the surprise we initially did of seeing something new. She also believes we, as human beings, see art as a fetish. We feel the need to categorize, obsess, and label it until it loses meaning. Misty states that she does not agree with Piper because she believes it is possible to enjoy something even more after viewing it enough to understand it and know it deeply. Misty believes the problem is that individuals do not take the time to appreciate art. People take for granted the everyday beautiful of life and don't find the time to admire the works of others. To her, it isn't about fetishism when it comes to art. It's about enjoying and respecting it, which is not done enough in this day and age. Misty asks, "If piper is right and objects lose their uniqueness through perception, does that apply to people as well? If not, then why would objects made by unique people lose their uniqueness when people don't?"

I think Piper makes a strong point about the artworld but I do not think art loses its uniqueness each time it is viewed. The purpose of creating art is to communicate a message to the observer and still have it be aesthetically pleasing. This can't be done if art is not viewed. Of course, the initial surprise of art decreases the more it is seen but I think it becomes even more appreciated and understood each time a person views a piece. For example, when I see a film, its suspenseful and unpredictable since I have never seen it. However, the more and more I see it, the more I enjoy it because I learn something new about it each time. I have seen my favorite movie, The Princess Bride, more times than I can count. But that makes me love it more and I still find it to be a unique film. I don't think people can lose their uniqueness unless they change who they are and conform to society. I feel as though once a person is characterized as unique, then they become even more so over time. Say a person gets a tattoo, something uncommon. This probably just adds to their unique self. The tattoo will never disappear off a person's body so he or she just can't lose this unique aspect of his or herself. Uniqueness, most of the time, is lasting. Piper's account of art is interesting but I still don't agree that art becomes less unique the more it is viewed. I don't think people do either. Once something is characterized as unique, than it takes a lot to take away this label.

My question to you is: Do you agree with Adrian Piper's view of performance art, that it is the most unique and appreciated form of art? Why or why not?

"Garden" by Joan Miro (I chose this painting because of its uniqueness)

Response to "Life-Changing Art."

Response #18

In Katherine Marchand's response to my blog port about life-changing art, she states how there are no specific works of art that have greatly affected her life but there are artists who have had an impact on her. She gives the example of the poet, Taylor Mali, who has inspired her as well as made her feel other varying mixes of emotions. She states that she finds Mali to be "incredibly talented and fascinating" and has changed her life in some ways. She asks, "What is it about artwork or a particular artist that is powerful enough to have a lasting effect on one's life?"

Art is influential. It has the potential to really move a person and make them feel something they may not usually. It is capable of communicating all different kinds of messages and getting the observer to understand something he or she previously did not know. Art is powerful. It's moving. Why is this? I think it is because art is personal and emotional. The combination of colors, techniques, messages behind the piece, and the subject all are combined to create a work of art that can possibly have a large impact on a person. With art, not only is a message communicated but it is done so aesthetically so this appeals to the observer. The works of art I see as powerful show a lot of passion and feeling.

A good artist gets the observer to feel what he or she felt when creating the piece. A successful piece of work gets the observer to understand why the artist created such an object. If there is true meaning behind it, the observer to appreciate it and relate to it through his or her own life experiences. Basically, artists use art in such a way to get an observer pondering and connecting to his or her surrounding world. Art is suppose to be moving, in my opinion. It can show an array of emotions; anger, stress, chaos, love, sadness, etc. As long as an artist shows his or her true talent and gets the observer to connect with what was created, then he or she can have a lasting affect on the observer. This can only be done is the observer is willing to embrace the emotions within a piece and connect to what has been created. It is like a partnership; as long as the observer is appreciative of the work and able to take as much as he or she can from the piece, then the artist can do whatever he or she pleases to express a certain message or thought about the world, in an artistically pleasing and appealing way.

My question to you is: Is there really such thing as a bad artist or is a bad artist not actually an artist at all?

Paul Cezanne, The Forest. (I love this painting)

The Artworld.

I have referred many times in my posts to this so-called artworld but what is it actually? Dickie sees the artworld as a social institution which is open to anyone who wants to be a part of it. It incorporates the practices of artists, gallery owners, critics, art historians, philosophers of art, and anyone who observes and appreciates the artistic works of others. Dickie's definition allows anyone to be part of the artworld which I think is a valid point because artists as well as the observers are both equally necessary and crucial for art to be an important aspect of our society.

Art reveals what is not always seen. Art, in my opinion, is an artist's interpretation of the world around them. In order for the artist's message to actually be worth delaying, the observers need to be willing and ready to receive it. I feel as though people are less appreciative of art because of how technology has made it so available. It doesn't seem as valuable and the attraction to actually viewing the original works in museums is falling fast. Art just doesn't seem as rare as it once was and the line between was is actual art is greatly being skewed. Take Mass Moca for example, many people question if the "art" the museum contains is actually worth seeing. People who are part of the artworld are becoming slimmer by the day. How can this be changed? What must be done to get more people interested in art? Because it is all around us and so easy to view, does this make art less important? I am starting to think so. Art is necessary to have a functioning society because people need to express themselves and get their message across. Art allows this to happen. Without art, we would be lost.

My question to you is: Do you consider yourself to be part of the artworld? Why or why not? What characteristics must a person posses in order to be considered part of the artworld?

M.C. Escher. A print of this painting has been in my house ever since I was a little girl and I have never actually looked at it. After coming across it and realizing how familiar it was, I actually took the time to see it as a work of art. It's really quite interesting so I thought I'd add it to this post.

Response to "Knowledge vs. Emotion."

Response #17

In Jenna Haley's blog, she talks about how everyone is capable of making valid judgments of art since there really are no qualifications needed to have an opinion. Danto believes, in order to fully understand and appreciate art, the observer must have knowledge of the history and the reasoning behind the piece of work. This way, the observer's place in the artworld is more distinguishable and valued. In interpreted the text as saying that Danto believes the observer's opinions and critiques are more valid when he or she has an abundance of knowledge about the piece at hand. Jenna confers that he may think those who do not have the knowledge and understanding of the artist's thoughts do not get to enjoy the piece fully. She states, "I think the meaning of art is to let the audience decide for themselves what the art work means or represents," and I couldn't agree more. Her question is, "Do you think it is better to possess knowledge about a work of art or to interpret it in a personal way?"

I certainly think personal interpretation of art is much more important. Knowledge is never negative to posses but, like Jenna says, it could alter a person's original interpretation and thoughts on a piece but this can be good. I really like Jenna's example of how a person could view a piece as moving and meaningful to him or her personally but when he or she finds out the meaning and purpose of the artist is something completely different, feelings for the piece will change. I think music is a perfect example in this case. We all listen to music, everyday, but sometimes we don't know all of the lyrics being said. Maybe we just like the rhythm or the chorus. Maybe the song has meaning to us... until we find out what the actual words are. This happens to me a lot. I will love and enjoy a song but way not know all of the words being said. When I go to look up the lyrics and the meaning of the song, I may realize they weren't what I thought and I can't relate to the song as much. I will lose interest in the song. So, maybe never knowing the true lyrics is a good thing, in some instances. I value education and learning but, to me, a person's personal take on art is more important. Knowledge really isn't always a requirement to understand the world, especially the artworld.

My question to you is: Do you find that knowing the background, purpose, and history behind a work of art increases or decreases your interest, attraction, and feelings for it?

Robert Duval

Response to Jenna's "What?"

Response #16

In Jenna Haley's blog, she responded to Mary Marcil's post about how an individual's set of ethics can be changed by aesthetics. She states that an emotion can change someone forever and the work of art does have the ability to change a life. She uses the example of a painting. It can make you see something in a different way than you have known it all of your life. It can make you realize something new about yourself. So, ethics can be changed in this way. Jenna asks, "Do you think a piece of art of any kind, a book, a painting, can change a person’s life?"

I think anything can really be life changing, depending on the person. When I look at certain paintings and other art forms, I may find inspiration and motivation from the message communicated but it has never changed my life, exactly. That doesn't mean it can't change someone's life. However, there is a book that I would say changed my life because it was the first book I ever read and enjoyed. It got me to love to read and is called Weeping Willow by Ruth White. I was always forced to read in school so I never liked it but I fell in love with the characters and the plot line that it got me curious about other books. Turns out, reading is pretty much my favorite thing to do. There are songs that I have listened to and have gotten so much out of. In a way, they really have made a difference in my life and are important to me. I think every person has different feelings about how art affects them but I know art can be life changing. The purpose of some forms of art --movies, books, paintings, songs, etc-- are to make a difference in a person's life and let them see the world in a new way. Some art does an outstanding job of affecting the way people see the world and some art really can have a large impact on a person.

My question to you is: Is there a piece of art (movie, book, song, painting) that has changed your life? How so?


I chose this painting because it symbolizes the strength of women, in my opinion, and is inspiring to me in many ways. :) I thought it fit nicely with this post.

Response to "Danto and Contemporary Art."

Response #15

In Lisa Diamond's blog, she talks about Arthur Danto's theory of art. Danto questions why contemporary art should actually be called art and what distinguishes an art object from the real thing that the artist used as a reference for the art object itself. Wartenberg writes, "How could a large painting consisting of nothing more than two large criss-crossing black brushstrokes on a white background be called art?" It is true; a lot of modern art is questionable, because it seems like anyone can create it. Like Lisa states, Wartenberg uses the example of Andy Warhol's Brillo Box. What makes the piece of artwork art, and the actual carton of soap pads not art? Why isn't the carton considered artwork if the painting is just a still life of that object? Lisa asks, "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"

I do not agree with Danto. Anyone who is talented and has a passion for art can have an "eye" for it. He or she does not need to know the complete history of art to enjoy it or even to successfully create it. There are many artists that create art to express their emotions or communicate a message. They did not need to know any history to do so. The same goes for enjoying art. The topic came up in class whether someone must know the background of a work of art to actually like and understand it. Two examples were brought forth. One students said she listens to Japanese music and loves it even though she doesn't understand the words. Another student brought up U2's song "Sunday Bloody Sunday" which is about politics and war in Ireland. I love this song but I really had no idea what it was about. I just like how it sounds and the message behind it even though I didn't know exactly why such lyrics were written. Overall, I think knowing the history of art is helpful and great for expanding knowledge but it is not exactly necessary. Any artist can create a piece without knowing the history first. The same goes for enjoying art. Although knowing the in and out's of a piece of art may help understand it and increase its appreciation, anyone can still enjoy it even if he or she does not know everything about it.

My question to you is: Do you feel you need to know the history/background of a work of art before you can fully appreciate and enjoy it? Why or why not?

An Example of Contemporary Art:

Mirror Mirror on the Wall.

Hamlet and Socrates saw art as a mirror held up to nature. "Socrates saw mirrors as but reflecting what we can already see; so art, insofar as mirror-like, yields idle accurate duplications of the appearances of things, and is of no cognitive benefit whatever," Wartenberg, p207. Hamlet saw mirrors as something that exposes what we could not already see. Art, being mirror-like, reveals us to ourselves. I find this idea rather interesting because it makes me wonder if mirrors are basically revelers of truth and if they hold more truth than reality. Art is just imitation of nature, after all, and if art is a mirror of the world, than that may make art communication of what is true and unseen by the naked eye.

"The dominant aesthetic theory of the early eighteenth century was that man should hold a mirror to nature. Put like that, it seems rather crude and misleading; in fact, a falsehood. To hold up a mirror to nature is merely to copy what is already there. This is not what these theorists meant by this phrase. By nature they meant life, and by life they meant not what one saw, but that towards which they supposed life to strive, certain ideal forms towards which all life was tending... the highest artistic genius consisted in somehow visualizing that inner objective ideal towards which nature and man tended, and somehow embodying this in a noble painting. That is, there is some kind of universal pattern, and this the artist is able to incorporate in images, as a philosopher or the scientist is capable of incorporating it in propositions." Isaiah Berlin, The Roots of Romanticism, p26.

My question to you is: In what ways are mirrors revelers of the truth and is art just a mirror of nature, in your opinion?

Response to "Imagination."

Response #14

In Shawna Towers' blog, she talks about the imaginations of children compared to those of adults. Children are able to channel their creativity and think outside the box but this greatly diminishes as they grow older and become adults. When a child looks at a piece of art, what they see is very different from that of an adult. She asks, "Do you think that it is possible for adults to gain the imagination that children have and therefore also gain their creativity?" Imagination is very important because it helps children grow and learn. However, it gets lost overtime. Adults just don't think the way children do because children are so simple minded, curious, and in-the-moment. Adults have responsibilities, worries, and do not have as much time to enjoy the little things like children do.

This does not mean adults are not capable of thinking like children, but it would be hard once that initial creativity and imagination is lost once a child grows up. I think it is important to be a child every now and then. Having fun is crucial in everyone's lives and living in the moment shouldn't be a rare occurrence. It is like children are their own species, however. They think so differently. They are just so innocent and ready to learn. They are accepting and open-minded. If adults want to learn how to be creative like a child, they need to be as accepting and naive as a child. I think it is possible to sometimes find the creativity of a child but it does not last because a person can never gain their childhood back. Children have their own unique creativity that adults can't always mimic since they are grown up and affected by the issues of society. Adults can not get their innocence back. I wish, when I was a child, that I knew how valuable my time was. Maybe I wouldn't have taken it for granted.

My question to you is: What can adults do to reconnect with childhood and maybe begin to think like a kid again? How can adults learn to be imaginative like children, especially with their creativity in art?

Self-Expression.

The definition of self-expression is, "Expression of one's own personality, feelings, or ideas, as through speech or art." I think self-expression is extremely important because people should be able to state what they want how they want. Everyone needs to let their feelings out and have their voice be heard in a healthy manner. Keeping opinions and feelings to oneself only causes more problems and self-destruction. Everyone has the right to show who they are through how they present themselves and the art they create. So, are tattoos, body piercings, and dying hair a way to express yourself? Is it art?

I have two tattoos, my ears pierced, and a purple streak in my hair. I use to think my body was created the way it was and I should not alter it. I'm still quite against plastic surgery, tanning, fake nails, and other artificial ways to alter what a person looks like but I see nothing wrong with expressing who you are through tattoos and piercings. Your body is all yours to do what you want with it and expressing who you are through what you wear and such is important because everyone is unique and everyone has the right to show the world who they are however they want. I know many people that would never get something prominently inked on their bodies and sometimes I can't believe I have two tattoos that will never go away but not they are a part of who I am. They express me. I think they are art because they are intended to be seen by people and communicate a message of who I am. The withering dandelion that turns into birds flying on my shoulder blades expresses the message of how dreams and wishes can come true. The word "peace" on my ankle speaks for itself; I stand for peace. I do not regret my tattoos because I see them as works of art that have become part of who I am. What do you think?

My question to you is: Do you think the body is a blank canvass for self-expression or should people respect their natural selves and leave expression to painting, writing, sculpting and other forms of creating tangible art objects?

My first tattoo.

Women in the Arts.

As a feminist, women's rights activist, and employee of the Women's Center on campus, how women are portrayed in the arts is something that has always caught my attention. For the most part, women are portrayed as objects. They are often nude and presented as dainty, elegant, simple, beautiful, vulnerable, sensual and sexual beings. They are usually skinny and perfect (especially in advertising) but too bad this is not how women always are in reality. Because of what we see in the media and all around us, women are pressured to fit the ideal "perfect" model that is impossible to really attain. In the United States, it is reported that five to ten million girls/women between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five have eating disorders. There are actually websites that advocate anorexia and use images of skinny girls to show how "beautiful" it is to be thin. This all stems from the media and how women are portrayed in the arts.

Think of your favorite sitcom or television show. They usually present the audience with a "typical" family where the mom is skinny and beautiful and the husband is not so intelligent or attractive. (The Simpsons, Grounded for Life, The King of Queens, Fresh Prince, Everybody Loves Raymond, The George Lopez Show, etc.) What about "reality" television like Jersey Shore or Tough Love? Women are dramatic, fake, and only interested in how they look and finding a guy to be happy. In real life, women are intelligent and no different than their male counterparts. They seriously aren't as superficial as they seem. In my opinion, gender is a social construct. The only difference between a man and a women is their reproductive systems but, other than that, they are both capable of anything they set their mind to. Women have come along way to gain equal rights and respect from the other gender. However, they are still being oppressed and the media/arts are not helping the matter.

My question to you is: Women have such a negative image of themselves because of what they see in the media. Even though they have come along way to gain equality, they are still not completely there. What must be done to change how the media and the arts presents women in order for true equality between the sexes to take place and will this ever happen?

Does this not scream gang rape?

Response to "The Value of Shock Value."

Response #13

In Katherine Marchand's blog, she talks about shock value which is defined as "The potential of an image, text or other form of communication to provoke a reaction of disgust, shock, anger, fear, or advertisement." Katherine states that shock value is usually used in comedy and advertising. The purpose of shock value is to offend the audience to get them to react. Shock value art is suppose to make the audience feel uncomfortable and think beyond their limits. Shock value helps the observer come to terms with reality. Katherine asks, "Should there be limits on how far an artist can go with shock value? (In other words, is there a certain point at which shock art should be censored, and if so, where is that point?)"

I think shock value truly does have a place in the art world because it helps the observer see reality differently and gets them thinking about the world they live in. People should be offended every now and then so they can react to what is going on. Shock value is a very powerful tool and should be used wisely. I think it needs to be censored at a certain point because people do not need to be overly offended. However, artists should be able to express themselves however they want (since there is freedom of speech in this country) but children and teenagers should not be exposed to it since they are so impressionable. Shock value is supposed to cause ruckus but not to the point of an uprising. People could react very negatively if the work is too offensive or sets off a trigger in their mind. It can become dangerous but people do need to see the truth and should be allowed to see or listen to whatever they want. Shock value is greatly present in the lyrics of music and movies, that's why there are cd's with parental advisory and ratings for movies so the youth is not exposed to such offending lyrics and films. Marilyn Manson, Insane Clown Posse, and Gwar, are a few shock value bands I can think of.

My question to you is: Do you think our society tries too hard not to offend anyone and is too politically correct? If so, try to give examples of this through artworks or the media.

My favorite Marilyn Manson song, "The Beautiful People," is about surviving in a capitalist society and presents a link between American media and Nazi propaganda. The purpose is to show how society is brainwashing us and is also about all of the "beautiful" conceded people who are just not needed in today's society because they just show how our population is conforming to capitalist ways.

Go here to see the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc

Response to Misty's "Social Restraints."

Response #12

In Misty Elliott's blog, she responded to Marek's post about the stereotypical image of a man who spends his life contemplating and analyzing art. She talks about how everyone looks at art differently because it is always changing. She asks, "Are there social restraints put on us as to what clothes we can wear in public? Can we wear whatever we feel like and what kind of consequences would there be for wearing something ridiculous?"

I think there are definitely social restraints on what we can and can't wear. For example, if someone walked down the street in their underwear or even in the nude, this would obviously not be accepted by our society. I think people are always getting judged by how they look. Just browse through a magazine. Celebrities are always being judged by their outfits. There are pages stating fashion do's and don'ts. Of course there are people out there who don't care what others think. They will wear whatever they want but they will still get judged even if they ignore it. We can technically wear whatever we want, as long as we're covered in public, but if something is ridiculous, people will react negatively towards you. First impressions are also really important and if a person meets someone wearing something not so aesthetically appealing or something extremely crazy, people may get the wrong impressions. We spend so much time caring about what we look like and buying clothes that are "in" even though it should not matter. To me, fashion is about self expression and not conforming to what everyone else wears or what is "in" at the time. If you like it, wear it.

I want to talk a little bit about fashion designers and models pertaining to art. I'm not going to lie, I'm a closeted America's Next Top Model fan (don't tell anyone) and I think some of the designer's outfits are ridiculous. I would never wear some of the outfits the models wear because they are just so not appealing. I do think fashion design is another type of art form because it does take talent to create and design clothes that are attractive and would get people to buy them. But what about models, is modeling a form of art? What determines a great fashion designer from a not so good one? Many of the outfits I find in magazines or on these fashion shows are nothing I would ever wear nor would want to but they cost so much money. I don't get why people would want to wear them.

My question to you is: In your opinion, is modeling a form of art? The purpose of a model is to look beautiful on the runway and work their outfits so the crowd will buy them so there is some aesthetic aspects to modeling. Or do you think designers are the true artists since models just walk in what they create?

Response to "Taking Art Seriously."

Response #11

In Marek Krawczyk's blog, he talks about how some people take art way too seriously and over analyze it to the point where it loses its initial value. He describes the typical art critic and how he just wants to be a common person viewing art and then moving on with his life. He asks, "Should we be serious when viewing art or is it possible to appreciate it without having to obsess over it, just like a common person instead of a critic?"

There are people that enjoy analyzing art and learning every detail about the piece of work and the artist's purpose in creating it. Some people value art over others. Critics are paid to observe and express their professional opinions about a piece of work and if it is actually art. However, the common person can indeed view a work of art and then move on. Not everyone has to contemplate the piece and spend hours analyzing it. Art is very important in our world for so many reasons. It shows creativity, interpretations of ideas and feelings, delays emotions and communicates messages. Art is pleasing to the eye and teaches us new concepts. It is a type of self expression, a very valuable one. Although it is important to learn the artist's purpose of a piece and time should be spent analyzing it since the artist did put much of his or her time in the creation, people can simply appreciate it without having any knowledge about art.

There is a message in every piece that needs to be deciphered but it isn't your job to be the person who figures out the meaning, emotions, and purpose of the piece. We enjoy beauty everyday in everything. Aesthetics are all around us even if we do not pay much attention to it. It is certainly possible and encouraged to simply and briefly enjoy a piece of work without going into deep judgments. That's what museums are for: So the public can enjoy works and get whatever they want and can out of each piece. Art does need to be taken seriously but not necessary by everyone and maybe some pieces are just meant to be aesthetic pleasing to the eye. You can view it simply and still enjoy it.

My question to you is: It's no secret that appreciation for art is decreasing. People just seem less and less interested in visiting museums and using their creative abilities to make their own works of art. So, what must be done to increase the interest of artwork and museums in the individuals of today's world?

Leonid Afremov

Aesthetics of Everyday Life.

In Beauty, Roger Scruton talks about the aesthetics of everyday life. He states, "There is an aesthetic minimalism exemplified by laying the table, tidying your room, designing a web-site. Nevertheless, you want the table, the room, or the web-site to look right and looking right matters in the way that beauty generally matters--not by pleasing the eye only, but by conveying meanings and values which have weight for you and which you are consciously putting on display." (p9) He calls this minimal beauty.

A part of me feels like we, as human beings, overly obsess about how we look and how we come off to other people. We spend so much time trying to reach some sort of perfection which doesn't seem to exist. Appearance is more important to us than we realize. I'll admit I am a bit of a perfectionist. I really care about what I look like even though I don't want to. In my room, my bed has to be made every morning and all objects must be in their exact place. I'm constantly cleaning and fixing my surroundings. I do care about what other people think a little too much. Aesthetics are very important to me. Beauty is important. I do not like chaos or disunity. I like everything to be pleasing and inviting. When everything is in place, beautiful, clean, and so on, then I am satisfied. This got me thinking: How different would life be if I stopped caring about what I look like or what my room looks like? How different would the world be if everyone just stop caring about how everything looks? Hmmm.

My question to you is: If humans did not value aesthetics in their everyday lives, how different would the world look and be? Would life be more chaotic and possibly much more meaningless if no one cared about the visual aspects of life? Explain. :)

S.H. Lee's "The Garden Room."

The Useful Arts.

In Roger Scruton's book, Beauty, he begins by showing stunning pictures of famous architecture that is universally valued. Sometimes I forget the world is filled with beautiful architecture because I just don't see it in my everyday life. I haven't traveled nearly as much as I want to and pictures don't do justice to the amazing buildings around the world. Architects truly are artists because not only do they design and create buildings for a certain purpose but they incorporate aesthetic value to their work. Unfortunately, architecture does not last forever and the aesthetic value of the work decreases because of arrogant and urban settings.

During my senior year of high school, everyone in my French class had to do a project and presentation on some form of French architecture. I did my project on the Mont Saint Michel because the setting is still natural and not yet destroyed by mankind. There is no undesirable backdrop to the Mont Saint Michel like there is with a lot of architecture these days. Wonderful works of art are losing appreciation because of mankind's creations, most of which aren't beautiful. I think some buildings are not appreciated aesthetically because people look past the art behind it and care more about the purpose of the structure. This goes for many everyday objects. Scruton states, "Much that is said about beauty and its importance in our lives ignores the minimal beauty of an unpretentious street, a nice pair of shoes or a tasteful piece of wrapping paper, as though those things belonged to a different order of value from a church by Bramante or a Shakespeare sonnet. Yet these minimal beauties are far more important to our daily lives." (p12) Art and beauty are all around us but we fail to see it because we only recognize great/famous works as art.

I have an activity to get you thinking about the objects that surround you everyday. Beauty and art can be present in so many different objects, especially everyday objects. Choose something you wouldn't normally view as aesthetically pleasing or as art and reevaluate it.

My question to you is: What is your new viewpoint of the object and, now that you see it differently, how can it be described as beautiful or as an artistic object instead of just a functional one?

"Mont Saint Michel."

Too Beautiful?

For my book review, I am reading Beauty by Roger Scruton. In the first chapter, he brings up an interesting point about how some works of art can be too beautiful like Tennyson's In Memoriam or Faure's Requiem. He states, "Works that are too beautiful ravish when they should disturb or provide dreamy intoxication when what is needed is a gesture of harsh despair." (p16) Even though certain works are artistic achievements, they can also be just too beautiful or overly done. Beauty is a type of aesthetic success and everyone's idea of what is beautiful varies but there are universal works that people may see as just too beautiful. Sure, it's great when something takes our breath away but some artists can go over the top, like Scruton suggests.

Every piece of art has a message to communicate to the observer, in my opinion. Art displays all different kinds of emotions and feelings but sometimes this gets lost if a piece is too beautiful. The observer may be distracted by the aesthetics to understand why the artist made the piece, according to Scruton. After browsing all different works of art, I can not find any examples of art that is just over the top. I'm sure there are some out there, but all the pieces I found are just beautiful but not overly so, like Flaming June by Leighton and Claude Monet's Water Lilies. Although I think Scruton brings up a good point and I bet some art is too beautiful when it should be focusing on something else but I can't find any of my own examples...

My question to you is: Are there works of art that you see as breathtaking and does the beauty of the piece take away from the message/meaning in it? Basically, can beauty be too distracting?

"Flaming June"

Hume and Critics.

After reading about Hume's philosophy on art in Wartenberg, I was rather taken aback. He states that everyone has their own distinct tastes of what is art but there are universal pieces that can be seen as magnificent by everyone (Like the Mona Lisa). He states that all opinions on art matter. Then, he says only the critics can really judge art. "Hume judges that only certain people are so well qualified that their responses really count" (Wartenberg, 41). In the end, this contradiction never did solve itself.

According to Hume, "The taste of all individuals is not upon an equal footing, and that some men in general, however difficult to be particularly pitched upon, will be acknowledged by universal sentiment to have a preference above others" (Wartenberg, 47). He thinks there are distinguishable men in society that have higher opinions and better taste than everyone else since they are superior in knowledge and understanding. While I see that critics have the authority to state their opinions to the public since it is their job, I do not understand why they are superior over everyone else. Half of the time, I do not even agree with the critics. They seem to not like movies that I do. I never read reviews because my opinion will always be different from someone else’s. I trust my friend's viewpoints of art over the critics. Why should we trust the opinions of people we do not even know? Why can't we just see for ourselves? Hume does say tastes vary and opinions of what is good art and what is bad art often differ...

My question to you is: What characteristics do critics have that make their opinions superior to ours when pertaining to art? Why do we trust the opinions of people we don't even know when it comes to different forms of media like music, books, and movies and how often do you agree with the critics, anyways?

David Hume Statue.

Response to Jen's "Art as a Teaching Tool."

Response #10

In her blog, Jenna Haley talks about how art is a great teaching tool and should be taught to explain historical events but the teacher must stress the fact that the artwork may not be literal or exact, it is just a representation or an interpretation of real life events. She asks, "Do you think teachers should incorporate art in their lessons, whether they use paintings, music, or other forms of medium?"

I think using different works of art to teach a subject is very important. Not only does art supply a visual for the students, it helps the students realize the information in a text book is more important and relevant to the world than it may seem. Using art in a classroom also promotes creativity which is highly crucial in the lives of every individual. Using art would be very stimulating and would lead to many activities the teacher could have in the classroom. It provides variety and encourages students to respect and appreciate art at a young age. Art really is all around us and there is no reason not to apply it to the classroom.

Having students create their own art helps them be more motivated and puts the emphasis off of just learning about the information of the subject and puts it onto the students' abilities to express their thoughts and ideas to the teacher and their fellow classmates. This would also help the types of students that are fearful of failing or making mistakes. It would also help the teacher understand his or her students more deeply. I do not see any reason not to use art in schools and everyday. There are so many mediums to choose from as well; the sky is the limit when it comes to art. In books like Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, art is banned from society. Reading is banned from society. Learning is of unimportance and self expression is discouraged...

My question to you is: What would happen to our society if art and self expression were banned? How can a society exist without art?

Pablo Picasso's "Guernica." (War)

That's art? I could do that!

Everyone's opinion of what can actually be considered art may differ for some works but there are those pieces that make you think, "That's art? I could do that!" When wandering through an art gallery or museum, there are always works that make you wonder how they can be considered brilliant when it looks like a four year old splattered paint on a canvas.

Professor Johnson finally stated his definition of art which is, "The suitably technical, creative, and intentional embodiment of aesthetically engaging thought or emotion in any publicly accessible medium." I think art is something that expresses a certain mix of emotions aesthetically and communicates a message to the observer. Art can be in many different forms; literature, music, drama, paintings, sculptures, etc. It can express many different emotions; sadness, excitement, joy, madness, anger, etc. It can also communicate many different messages such as the destructiveness of war or the beauty of every day life. Art can be beautiful or ugly. It can be confusing. It can be pleasing. It can be anything, really, but within limits. Art needs a purpose. If something is created for no reason, then it should not be called a work of art. Sometimes a piece is questionable of whether it's actually art or mindless creation and everyone has their own unique aesthetic tastes when it comes to judging works.

My question to you is: In your opinion, where is the line drawn between something that can be considered a work of art and something that doesn't quite meet the standards?

Jackson Pollock Art.

Response to "Descriptive."

Response #9

In Shawna's blog, she posted an entry about how art is descriptive and how each piece of work conveys a message to the observer. Sometimes the message the artist intended to portray is not exactly what the observer sees. Shawna, like Morris Weitz, believes art really can never be defined. It is true that "art" encompasses a huge range of works and is always evolving and changing as generations continue and Shawna states that art is meant to make us think so it does not need a set definition. Shawna asks, "Do you think that art will ever be defined or do you think that it should be?"

I believe everything is definable. Weitz argues that the very nature of art as a practice makes definition impossible but I would have to disagree. Art is always advancing as technology advances. There are different eras of art like the impressionist and the realist and there are many different forms like paintings and sculptures but all works of art have characteristics in common which defines them as such. Back in ancient times, what they considered to be everyday tools (like pottery) is displayed in museums as art now. What was art then may not be valuable to us now because times always change and this is not just with art. As times change and we become more knowledgeable about the world, we need to advance on what we already know. In the field of science, new information is always being found because technology advances constantly. What we thought we knew may be completely different than what we know now because of advancements that are being made. The same goes for art; even though art was different in the past, it doesn't make it any less artistic than what is being created today.

Although everyone's personal tastes of what is beautiful and ugly are different and what some may see as art others may view as trash, I think we can still come up with some sort of definition to describe art. To me, art is a creative way in which one person communicates a message to another person. If the artist gets his or her point across successfully, this, to me, makes the piece more successful. I think, as long as some sort of emotions and feelings were put into a creative piece, then it is art. If the artist started with a certain intention and finished what he or she planed, then I would call that art as well. I don't think my definition is quite complete but it is a start... The definition of art is tough to come up with but I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.

My question to you is: Do you think art is definable or do you generally agree with Weitz and say that it is not? How would you define art?

This painting, "Girl With a Pearl Earring," is also the focus of one of my favorite novels written by Tracy Chevalier.

Literature As Art.

"The reader should be carried forward, not merely or chiefly by the mechanical impulse of curiosity, not by a restless desire to arrive at the final solution, but by the pleasurable activity of the journey itself." -John Dewey (Page 139).

I think we forget that the definition of art encompasses more than just paintings and sculptures. Like we talked about at the beginning of the semester, art includes many different forms such as music, dance, poetry and literature. I feel as though authors don't get as much credit for being artists as painters or sculptors do. I also feel like, as each generation continues, the appreciation for literature is becoming less and less. One of my favorite pastimes is reading and when I ask what a person's favorite book is, I get laughed at. People do not seem to enjoy reading anymore. The majority of my friends don't understand why I like to read so much. I think a reason why people, especially my generation and earlier ones, dislike reading so much is because we are forced to read and over-analyze literature all throughout high school. How can we enjoy Lord of the Flies or The Grapes of Wrath if we are forced to read it and talk about it to the point where it loses meaning?

I wish more people understood the importance of reading literature. I am not saying all books are enjoyable because there surely are novels out there that I have not liked reading (*cough* The Scarlet Letter *cough*) but I feel as though literature is forced upon us early on and that is why most people shy away from it. I think the most enjoyable activity in the world is to curl up under the covers with a good novel. My favorite book is The Color Purple by Alice Walker because of its powerful message and strong female characters. It is amazingly written and certainly a work of art. Books should be enjoyed. I don't know how to get people to see why books are so important, so special, and can be so entertaining. When a person realizes the power of words, then he or she has the opportunity to expand his or her horizons and actually learn and experience something completely new.

My question to you is: What is your favorite novel and why?

Response to "Craft Vs. Art."

Response #8

In Katherine's blog, she talks about the distinction between art and craft. Some view craft as a form of art which I have to agree with. Katherine states that craft is a skill needed to produce art which makes sense, however, I think people that create crafts don't get enough credit as artists for their talents. My mother has her own chair canning business which is a type of craft but I still view her as an artist. It is a complicated and time consuming process but she loves to do it. She is an artist because she has a purpose for her work and has a certain result in mind. I'm not sure there is much emotion portrayed in her work but that doesn't mean her craft can't be viewed as art.

Katherine asks, "Many people are quick to say whether or not they believe a "craft" piece (from a convention or elsewhere) is ugly. If crafts and arts are equal to one another, should people be just as quick to judge "true artwork" as they are the work of artisans/craftspeople?" My mom has brought me to more craft fairs than you can imagine and I have seen many different questionable crafts. However, I have seen work that is downright beautiful and filled with talent and emotion. I do think craftspeople are artists and craft is just another form of art but I don't think people should judge others' work so harshly. We all have our opinions but it is not fair to call something ugly without understanding the purpose of the piece and the effort put into it. I think people are too judgmental when it comes to the work of others and I think people judge other types of art (paintings, sculptures, poetry) just as quickly as they do crafts. I believe we seriously need to judge less but this is easier said than done. Crafts should be treated equally to other art forms and judged just the same, if we are to judge at all.

My question to you is: I know we have already discussed this in class but, in your opinion, what are the differences between arts and crafts and should craftsman be considered artists? Why or why not?

Chair Canning.

Aesthetic Vs. Artistic.

In chapter twelve, the terms "artistic" and "esthetic" are compared. It states, "Since artistic refers primarily to the act of production and esthetic to that of perception and enjoyment, the absence of a term designating the two processes taken together are unfortunate." (Page 144) Since art is a process of creation, perception and enjoyment are separate from the act of creating a work of art. Art involves molding clay, chipping marble, constructing architecture, singing, dancing, playing instruments, painting on a canvas, drawing on paper, acting on stage, and so on. Art uses physical material to present something to the observer. Aesthetic refers to experience as perception and enjoyment of something. It is the appreciation of beauty and good taste and is a theory of beauty and art.

Experiences can be aesthetic but does this make them artistic? Experience occurs nonstop because living creatures are always interacting. A person can experience certain events and moments but this is different from an experience. We talked in class about the difference and how we are constantly experiencing life but this is different from having an experience in life. We determined that experiences are always aesthetic but they can sometimes be artistic as well. Walking to class is something we experience but stopping to enjoy the fall foliage is an experience. It is sometimes hard to distinguish the difference but it is there...

My question to you is: Can a work of art be artistic and not aesthetic or must the two coincide to make art?

Response to "Analyzing Art."

Response #7

In Lisa's blog, she talks about how over analyzing pieces of art such as literature or paintings usually leads to less appreciation for the piece. In the end, the artistic value of the piece diminishes after analyzing it nonstop. Some may believe this only increases the appreciation for a piece of work but most get tired of it after discussing and thinking about it longer than necessary and to the point where it is no longer enjoyable. Thinking back to literature and art classes in the past, it seems true that reading into a book or looking past a paintings surface creates better insight into the thoughts of the artist. However, there is a line between analyzing a piece and analyzing it too much.

Then Lisa talks about abstract art and how modern art needs commentary since the observers are less likely to understand the meaning of the piece. Viewpoints become increasingly varied. Lisa asks the question, "Do you believe that modern art is becoming more and more abstract, and therefore harder to interpret, or are art-viewers just getting lazier at piecing together the meaning behind a painting?"

Art has greatly changed over time and I believe modern art is very abstract especially compared to past artworks. All artists have a purpose for creating their works and put some sort of emotions behind each piece. It seems as though modern art can be too abstract to understand the purpose of the piece. When looking at modern art, the observer will feel certain emotions but they will most likely vary compared to the emotions the next person feels. To fully understand the artists intentions, I do believe there must be more commentary to the piece. However, its no secret that our generation seems to be much lazier than past generations. Maybe having the artist explain his or her piece makes it less valuable as an art form. Observers should, in the end, think for themselves and having the artist narrator the piece defeats the purpose of individual interpretations. While I believe modern art is more abstract and there should be some more commentary than in the past, the observers still need to think for themselves when it comes to viewing and appreciating art.

My question to you is: Where is the line between modern/abstract art and random lines/colors on paper? Can anyone be an artist in our modern-day society?

Response to "Significant or Irrelevant?"

Response #6

In Jillian’s blog, she talks about Clive Bell’s opinion of real art and how symbolism and matter are of unimportance to the overall piece of work. I agree with Jillian. Viewing art as just colors and lines takes away from the purpose of creating art work. To me, that purpose is to express emotion and communicate with the observers. Art is about taking something ordinary in nature and making it your own. Art is about showing the world what a simple idea or object in life means to the artist. Of course the aesthetics are part of the overall presentation of the piece but meaning does matter a great deal. Like Jillian points out, not all art is full of symbolism and great meaning but that doesn’t mean the art that does present something deeper should be ignored.

Then Jillian talks about art created in class or for an assignment. She asks, “Do you think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art?” This is a difficult question and I think everyone’s responses will vary. I have created many pieces throughout grade school, middle school, and high school. However, very few of those pieces are something I can be proud of. Although, depending on the assignment, some effort was put forth. Two of my pieces were displayed in art competitions, once in sixth grade and once in eleventh. This does not make me an artist but I do think I did create art since it was valued by others. To answer this question, art must be defined but I do not know the definition just yet. After thinking about the question, I guess I would have to say works created for an art class should be considered art because the student or artist had a purpose, a goal, and did create something malleable. Maybe there was a lack of effort in some pieces, but overall, creating art for a grade should not be ignored because sometimes great creations come out of it.

My question to you is: Do you consider yourself an artist? Why or why not?

Truly Great Art.

“Great art remains stable and unobscure because the feelings that it awakens are independent of time and place, because its kingdom is not of this world.” (Page 124) I agree with Clive Bell because art must defy time in order to be considered truly great, in my opinion. Bell continues, “To those who have and hold a sense of the significance of form what does it matter whether the forms that move them were created in Paris the day before yesterday or in Babylon fifty centuries ago? The forms of art are inexhaustible; but all lead by the same road if aesthetic emotion to the same worlds of aesthetic ecstasy.”

For instance, great works such as The Mona Lisa and A Starry Night are just two examples of art that are still appreciated in today’s society. Works created hundreds of years ago should still be valued today; however, this is not always the case. It seems as though, as our society progresses, art is less understood and noticed and it is becoming more abstract. Modern art is questionable when it comes to being actual art because people have splattered pant on canvases and it has been actually called talent in the eyes of some people.

Clive states, “Art might prove the world’s salvation.” However, how can this be if people don’t care about art anymore? Students are forced to read classics or memorize famous poetry but they don’t actually care. Very few people develop a passion for art and even students I know who are majoring in the fine and performing arts despise art history and other subjects since they are forced to learn the material. I wish our society as well as my generation were both more interested in great works of art. The interest of the “art world” is diminishing so it is our responsibility to bring it back to existence.

My question to you is: What is your favorite era of art and why? Also, do you feel you truly appriciate art?

Response to "Mood."

Response #5

In Shawna Towers' post, she talks about the intentions of the artist to portray a certain emotion in their works. Some people, like Tolstoy, would believe that a piece of work would not be considered art if the observer received an emotion unintended by the artist. However, the observer's feelings at the time of looking at a piece of work usually affects how they interpret it. Shawna asks, "Do you agree with the idea that mood and emotion effects one's perception of art?"

I agree to some extent. Human beings are somewhat open-minded. However, what we feel at the present time contributes to how we view a piece of work. For example, if I listen to an upbeat song and I am in a depressed mood, it may uplift my mood a little but because I am so depressed, those feelings affect how I listen to the piece. Of course, if I listen to a heavy metal song with screaming, I doubt I would find this to be a happy piece. Though, if my mood is already quite high, it may not affect me too much. Some pieces of art are hard to depict the emotion being portrayed. Even though the viewer receives clues through colors and brushstrokes what the artist was feeling, our present mood overshadows the purpose of the artist. But not always. It all depends on how strong our mood is. I do agree that a person can view a piece of work one day and see and feel something completely different another day. However, the artists' true intentions (as long as they are a successful artist) always get across in the end.

My question to you is: When you are in a sad/depressed mood, do you tend to look at art that also expresses the same mood or do you find more uplifting art appealing? Basically, do you view art that expresses the same mood you are feeling or do you look at art that doesn't correspond to your mood at the time?

Daydreaming.

Sigmund Freud believes dreams and fantasies reveal the deep truths about human nature. According to him, dreams must be understood as unfulfilled wishes. For example, a person may not voice their thoughts about punching another human being in the face but dreaming about it satisfies this desire without having to make it a reality. This applies to art because, in order to express unconscious thoughts, artists show their deep feelings in their works. In these works is displayed their unrealized desires.

Freud believes those that are not satisfied with their lives daydream. However, can anyone ever be completely satisfied with the way life is? A person could be utterly happy but still daydream about those that aren't as fortunate and who go to bed hungry. I feel like one of the reasons we enjoy and appreciate art is because it may satisfy a dream or thought we have. We look at art because it may be unfamiliar to us and satisfy an inner feeling. In my life, I may daydream about being on a beach and a poem or a picture may help satisfy my desire our at least appeal to my sense of sight. Does this mean I'm unsatisfied with my life? Also, art is the desires of other people so why are they so greatly valued by the viewers?

I think daydreaming is satisfying. Sometimes what I daydream are not actual events I want to take place or places I want to go. My mind wanders and thinks about many of the other choices I could have made in life. For instance, I may think about what would have happened if I did not attend MCLA. I would have different friends, different classes, and a different life. However, I would never want to leave MCLA. It is just interesting to think about. However, the book states, "Happy people never make fantasies; only unsatisfied ones."

My question to you is: Do you agree with the idea that all daydreamers are dissatisfied with their lives and do you want all of your daydreams to become a reality? Why or why not?

Perfection.

Tolstoy defines beauty as something absolutely perfect which exists outside of us. However, there is no such thing as perfect. We try every day to achieve some sort of perfection even though we know it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a perfect piece of art. Everything has flaws. An artist can dedicate his or her entire life to the production of a piece of work and it still won't be perfect or finished. It may be beautiful, but never perfect. All human beings have flaws, therefor, all works created by people have flaws too.

My greatest flaw is denying the fact that perfection doesn't exist. I spend all of my time trying to reach this unattainable goal. I am never satisfied unless I am the best at what I am doing which just leads to disappointment because no one is great at everything. I need to learn that trying to be perfect accomplishes nothing. Flaws make life and people interesting. Flaws make works of art interesting and unique. I don't believe beauty if flawless. I believe beauty is when you see the flaws in something and still love it, accept it, enjoy it all the same because its flaws make it unique, special, and what it is. The same goes for people. Love is when you see past a person's flaws and accept them, admire them, and see them as perfect anyways. They are who they are. When we accept the fact that no one is perfect and the flaws we have make us beautiful, then we can live our lives. When we realize the flaws in a piece of work are what makes it art, then we can enjoy it, understand it, and love it.

My question to you is: Why do human beings only focus on the negatives of people, things, and even art when our flaws are actually what makes us beautiful?

Response to "Beauty."

Response #4

In Shawna Towers' blog post, she talks about how beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person can look at a piece of art and regard it as beautiful while someone can completely disagree. She asks the question, "Do you personally believe that beauty in the eye of the beholder or do you think that it is something more than this?" Beauty is defined as "A characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction." However, I believe beauty can never truly be defined. I think everyone has their own personal view of true beauty and it really can not be defined, it just is. Each individual may interpret the idea of beauty (of people, objects, thoughts, etc.) according to his or her own biased, genetic, emotional, cultural, social and spiritual needs. Having said that, most people feel they "intuitively" know and "understand" what is meant by beauty in their mind's eye.

Everyone finds beauty in different things; there is beauty in almost everything and everyone. It doesn't have to be physical beauty. It can be what's on the inside of a person, and how they treat others. The media portrays the physical aspect of beauty, making people believe they need to look a certain way in order to be considered beautiful but this is not true. You know what beauty is by the way you define it, whatever is beautiful to you. To me something beautiful brings emotion; the New England coasts, lighthouses, the fall foliage, different works of art, and so on. Beauty to me comes from knowing; knowing who you are on the inside and what makes you feel lifted in spirit. I see beauty in something and you may see something different. It is completely up to you. That is what makes life interesting.

My question to you is: What do you think about how the media is altering the idea of beauty and making it seem superficial/fake?

"Real" Artists.

The dictionary definition of an artist is "A person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria." Aesthetics is the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty. However, can anyone be an artist? If you have talent and a desire to create your own unique pieces of work, does that make you an artist? What is the line between an art and a craft? As you can see, I have many questions about what makes an artist just that. I have some friends that can draw or take pictures but not all of them call themselves artists so may if you believe you are an artist then you are. Maybe you label yourself as such.

Art is about freedom and creative expression. Being an artist is first and foremost about feeling free to create. It is about expressing what is inside you, expressing something that potentially others have not expressed before or have expressed in a different way. It is about expressing what you want and maybe even need to express. It has nothing to do with schooling or if you create professionally or as a hobby, in my opinion. After searching the internet for people's ideas of a "true" artist, one person said "to define an artist, one must first define art."

My question to you is: What characteristics do most or all artists have in common that makes them "real" artists? What is a "real" artist, anyways?

Response to "Emotions."

Response #3

In Shawna Towers' blog, she talks about how artwork expresses emotions and how different people can interpret those emotions in varying ways. Sometimes the emotions the artist was feeling when making the piece is not what the observer feels. She asks the question, "Have you ever looked at something and you thought it carried one particular emotion, but then when you go back and look at it you realize something different about it?

I think art is greatly about expressing the emotions of the artist. Art is about delaying a message to the viewer and getting him or her to feel what the creator feels. However, no matter what the artist intendeds the viewer to feel, it always varies. I think how we feel when looking at a piece determines what we think of the piece at that moment. For instance, when looking at a painting of the ocean, I may see sadness or depression if that is how I feel. Then, another time I look at the piece, I may see joy and happiness if I am in a more positive mood. I think we see what we want to see. When it comes to details of a piece, we notice different aspects each time we see a piece of work. For example, when I watch a movie for the first time, I miss out on the small jokes or the people in the background because I am so focused on the main subject matter. Once I look at it again, I search for other parts I may have missed. We learn something new about a piece of art every time we see it. This goes for all types of art, whether it be a movie, a picture, a painting, and even people. We are always learning and observing.

My question to you is: What types of emotions do you usually look for and enjoy the most in a piece of art?

Mother Nature.

We have talked in class about nature and if it is truly art. The argument is that nature is not man-made and no one intended it to be viewed artistically so it can't exactly be art. However, as the observer, I see nature as art and Mother Nature as the artist. My stance, currently, is that nature is the highest esteem of all art. After all, any attempt at creating a piece of work is in response to a reaction to nature. All artists observe nature and the universe to try to present it to the observer in their own unique way. All art is imitation of nature.

No matter how hard an artist tries, nature can never fully be captured. Therefor, I think Mother Nature is the greatest artist of all. Sure, a tree wasn't just created to look nice or be seen as some sort of metaphor. It was created to give oxygen to living organisms and other practical purposes. But a tree is still beautiful. My eyes capture it as a work of art, so it is art to me. I understand that nature isn't permanent, but is a painting of nature any more so? Nothing lasts for ever. I think seeing nature is much more artistic and beautiful than seeing a picture of it. The entire world is an easel, mother nature holds the paintbrush, and we are the anxious spectators waiting to see what she has in store for us next.

My question to you is: What aspect of nature (whether it be a tree, flowers, the sky) do you find most appealing to view as a piece of art work and why?

Response to "The Intentionality Thesis & The Violation of Art."

Response #2

In Lisa Diamond's blog post, she talks about the intentionality thesis of art which is when an artist means to create his or her piece of work the way it turns out in order to label it as "art." She makes many valid points about how art can be created on an accident or if nature can be viewed as art if the observer sees it this way even though it is not intentional by Mother Nature. She also talks about how art has both benefited and been violated by media and technology. Now that art is so accessible, it gets more of an audience but then people skip out on the experience of going to museums and seeing a piece of art in person.

Lisa asked, "Art has become so metaphorical and abstract nowadays that almost anything can be considered art. Some artists take it to the extreme and put others and themselves as risk for their art. Where are the boundaries between what is art and what is just plain reckless?"

I think the simplest answer I can give is that this is based solely on opinion and the individual's perspective of art. Some would use nudity as an aspect of creating art but others may view this as pornography. In my mass media class, we talked about pornography in the media and where is the line between erotica and actual art. It all comes back to the artists intentions. If nudity and sexuality are used as an art form, then it isn't reckless or porn as long as the intentions of the artist wasn't simply to arouse the audience. Some instances like offensive graffiti are reckless and serve no purpose as art but other works of art may be reckless but still portray a message or the artists intended purpose. I think art has become so abstract because random colored lines on paper may not be art to me but someone may see it as just that. This all comes back to the universal question of what makes art art.

My question to you is: Does every piece of art have a purpose or a message behind it or can art be pointless? If so, does that still make it art?

Response to "Rumors."

Response #1

In Jen Haley's blog, she talks about rumors and the credibility of the source. She discusses how people will rely on one news source because they trust it and don't bother to back op any news story with another source. Everyone has heard gossip or has been the subject of gossip so we must all have our opinion of the matter. Her question is "Do you think people believe a statement to be true solely because of who is saying it? Does their decision making depend on the popularity of the person saying it and/or where the statement derives from?"

I think it all depends on the person. If you are easily trustworthy of others, you may only believe in one source. Or, if you truly want to believe in something, one source may be enough. For me, I need to hear a piece of gossip or information from numerous varying sources in order to believe it. I don't like hearing gossip because I understand what it is like to be talked about, as does everyone. However, if there is a piece of information spreading or a news story, I like to hear it from a variety of people or news sources. People are easily swayed to one side so it is best to hear a story from many different point if views. I do think popularity has something to do with credibility of a source because if everyone views one news source or receives gossip from one person than they are probably more trustworthy than a not so consistent and dependable source.

My question to you is: What, in our human nature, attracts us so much to gossip and the drama of others? Why must we obsess over other people's lives when we have our own to live?

Humility.

After reading the Philosophy Toolkit, the topic of Intellectual Virtues made me think. Number five is titled "Intellectual Humility" and states that "one must have preparedness to acknowledge one's ignorance or error and proceed with inquiry." However, it is not by any means easy for a human being to admit his or her own faults. It seems as though it is in our human nature to always be right. We do not like to acknowledge our mistakes. No human being is perfect so why is humility so hard to come by? The definition of humility is the "quality or condition of being humble, modest, and respectful of others." On the contrary, we live our lives everyday witnessing arogence, disrepct and an abundance of pride. It seems as though the majority of human beings do not understand the concept of humility. There is a difference between confidence and cockiness.

We learn from our mistakes, we learn from other people, so why must we disrespect those we don't know? Why do our egos get in the way of reaching our full potential and learning from others? We need to admit we are wrong when indeed we are wrong. We don't know everything and anything can change within a blink of an eye. We aren't always right and we are rarely modest of what we are right about. The only way to learn is to acknowledge our mistakes and move forward but, in general, we can never believe other people on concepts we think we know everything about. If we dwell on what we think we know, we can never advance.

My question to you is: In general, why are humans so reluctant to admit to our mistakes when we know only good can come out of it?