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?