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?