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.