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?