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)