Gunnar Neitzke
Kim Andersen
UH 440
April 24th 2009
The Masters of Fine Arts Thesis
When one is faced with the unique and rewarding job of both observing and critiquing art, that individual must try to understand not just the up front values that a piece can be observed under but that individual must also be able to look deeper and try to see if there is something trying to be said the artist about the bigger picture of the world. The pieces exhibited at the Mast of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition, running from April 10th to May 9th, and the Washington State University Museum of Art, presented the viewer with not just very dramatic and visually stunning images but also a sense of a deeper hidden meaning that should be understood while the piece is being observed. One would be hard pressed to say that staring at the many of the pieces that something was supposed to be understood about them. A colleague that was admiring one such piece exclaimed, "I don't know what it is or what it is supposed to be, but I really like it". Many of the pieces seemed to speak directly to my other colleagues as they wandered through the exhibit, and interestingly not everyone got the same message from the same piece. Personally, the exhibit spoke on the concept of humanity and the individuality that goes along, and the two pieces that I felt characterized this sense were Brad Dinsmore's "Stuck here in the Middle (2008) and "Problems of Knowing" (2009) also by Dinsmore.
"Stuck here in the Middle" (see below for a link to the picture) created by Brad Dinsmore in 2008, displayed on a square canvas showed the large image of a what appeared to be a person with their back turned to the viewer. The possible person was hard to make out as they appeared very shadowy or ethereal and the canvas itself was painted almost in solid whites and grays with a sheen to it that made the actual image hard to make out. The person also possessed a sense of movement, such as possibly walking away from the viewer. This figure was not alone on the canvas though, as it was sandwiched between two smaller images that took up a space equivalent to a Polaroid photograph on the much larger four maybe five foot painting. These smaller images were different from each other. One appeared to be of a person looking at the viewer and the other seemed to be what looked to me like an angel. While their are different, they both share on the common trait of being almost impossible to figure out what the viewer is looking at. The paint on the two smaller images distorts whatever the original image was causing mass ambiguity.
For me, the painting conveyed a deep sense of sorrow and loss, while at the same time the feeling of motion. My interpretation of the image and with the help of the title was that the person in the center was stuck, like the title said in the middle of these two concepts displayed in the two smaller pictures. The turned back could imply that the individual in the picture has given up on the the concepts displayed in the Polaroids, despite still being trapped in between them. There are many interpretations of this picture that could be applied to further analyze it, but I feel that the artists intentional lack of clarity and definition in the picture speaks volumes for viewers to either simply take the piece at face value or to apply whatever concept best fits in their mind.
The second painting was "Problem of Knowing" (link also attached at the bottom), also by Brad Dinsmore, was the one piece in the entire exhibit that spoke directly to me. The image is of two two hands drawn in graphite and charcoal, with fingers outstretched, on facing the viewer and one turned away. But running through the hands are three very squiggly, for a lack of a better word, and convoluted lines drawn in pencil and light and dark green crayon. The image jumped out at me due to it contrast between the very simple hands and the bright intense colors of the crayons. Furthermore it reminded me of my days on the playground in elemental school playing a game we called "Cats Cradle" involved a piece of string that would be intertwined between the fingers and then manipulated.
Looking at the piece through a more philosophical lens, I felt that the artist was trying to make a statement about the, like the title implied, the problems that go along with knowledge. Many have experienced a concept such as this when they made the jump from High to University academics. In High School simply knowing that the Kreb's Citric Acid cyclic helped to provide 2 Adenosine Tri-Phosopate to the cell would have been sufficient but in college if one does not know ever protein involved in the cycle, including each protein's unique make up as well as how they all interact on a chemical level, then the likelihood of graduating is slim at best, let alone passing basic level bioscience. Furthermore, the piece spoke to me about the art world. Many academics throughout history have spent years if not lifetimes trying to understand what makes people appreciate art, or what can be define as good v.s . bad art, or for that mater, what is or is not art. As more and more knowledge as created on the subject, the strings of knowledge became more and more complexly twisted and tangled.
Overall I felt that exhibit carried a sense of the artists simply wanting onlookers to step back and just look. The second the observer started to try to give the piece a meaning or understand it, I feel only caused confusion. In terms of general humanity, the exhibit felt like it was saying, "Hey guys, just chill and look around you. There is lots to see. You just have to stop and look."
http://brad-dinsmore.com/artwork/305681.html
http://brad-dinsmore.com/artwork/689577.html
Friday, April 24, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Heidi Chronicles ~ Art and feminism.
It is hard for me as a male growing up in the period in which I have, to try and put myself in Heidi's shoes and see the world as a place that is overtly hostile to women. Where the patriarchal system of male dominance has essentially reduced women to having no say in their lives except for to "choose" to be a housewife or a suffer alone all their lives. Women have a lot to thank the women of the feminist era for the power and rights they have no for without them who knows where women would be today.
What to say about looking at those pictures. As a male and at first glance, they are terrifying. The paintings display two women holding down and decapitating a man. More than likely these images were supposed to mean something more than base line female gang violence against males. Consider the painting Judith Beheading Holofernes, by Artemesia Gentileschi. The women in the picture are showing a significant of struggle holding the male down as they remove his head. This is reminiscent of the struggle that Hiedi and the other women went through on the road to claiming their independence. Furthermore the women are using a sword, not unlike the sword that Lady Justice is known to carry. While these paintings more that likely were painted at the time to tell a story such as how some guy was beheaded, they have come to mean much more because of the actions of the Feminists in the 60s, 70s, and 80. Through a feminist perspective we could see the paintings to mean the up hill battle for women's rights and independence against the mail chauvinistic world. Or we could interpret the removing of the head, as seen in the paintings as the attempt by women to sever the male power base of the patriarchal world. Also interesting to note, like in the play despite Hiedi's efforts to be individual of forces that bound her to her female stereotype and ideologies, she was only semi-successful in achieving here goals. In these paintings the women have not succeeded in removing the male's heads but implying that women have not yet actually being able to free themselves from male tyranny but at least they are moving in the "right" direction.
As a gay male, I often have troubles understanding hardships that females have to go through. This is not to say that I do not know the statistic that males are much more likely to succeed in the work force and that a women who transgender to a male stand a substantially higher chance at making more money than his old female counterparts. But I also know that the gay community has yet to have its day, and I would like to believe that maybe we can take a tip from the feminists and actually make something happen.
What to say about looking at those pictures. As a male and at first glance, they are terrifying. The paintings display two women holding down and decapitating a man. More than likely these images were supposed to mean something more than base line female gang violence against males. Consider the painting Judith Beheading Holofernes, by Artemesia Gentileschi. The women in the picture are showing a significant of struggle holding the male down as they remove his head. This is reminiscent of the struggle that Hiedi and the other women went through on the road to claiming their independence. Furthermore the women are using a sword, not unlike the sword that Lady Justice is known to carry. While these paintings more that likely were painted at the time to tell a story such as how some guy was beheaded, they have come to mean much more because of the actions of the Feminists in the 60s, 70s, and 80. Through a feminist perspective we could see the paintings to mean the up hill battle for women's rights and independence against the mail chauvinistic world. Or we could interpret the removing of the head, as seen in the paintings as the attempt by women to sever the male power base of the patriarchal world. Also interesting to note, like in the play despite Hiedi's efforts to be individual of forces that bound her to her female stereotype and ideologies, she was only semi-successful in achieving here goals. In these paintings the women have not succeeded in removing the male's heads but implying that women have not yet actually being able to free themselves from male tyranny but at least they are moving in the "right" direction.
As a gay male, I often have troubles understanding hardships that females have to go through. This is not to say that I do not know the statistic that males are much more likely to succeed in the work force and that a women who transgender to a male stand a substantially higher chance at making more money than his old female counterparts. But I also know that the gay community has yet to have its day, and I would like to believe that maybe we can take a tip from the feminists and actually make something happen.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Pollock to me and Tolstoy
Pollock to me
There is no other artist that I know of who is more aggravating for understand in the sense of art and artistic expression that Jackson Pollock. Pollock's later work as we know focused around the use of splatter paint instead of the more traditionally viewed art that uses more conventional images and scenes. And that is exactly where Pollack got his fame. Unlike others that may not have considered his art to have merit, because, well hell, a three year old could make something comparable, Pollock did and inadvertently created a market for something new. His art is simply fluid motion captured through different colors and layering effects on a canvas. For me, he work is definitely pretty. But I wonder how much of that sense of beauty is universal or if it is something that I have been conditioned to have being raised in an artistic family and having know Pollock's work since I was little. I honestly feel, that if I was looking at Pollock works for the first time, as if I had lived in a vacuum to Pollock criticism until just now, I would have two reactions. The first would be to say "wow, wonder how long that took?" Implying that in that painting there is some sort of a lack of skill. The second reaction would be to notice the efficiency of the paint flings, the order in the chaos that was his splatter paint and I would begin to understand the work more. Like that forger was implying, we could all put on our crummy shoes, lay a canvas on the floor and start painting like Pollock did, but we would not be able to capture the movement and the feeling that his paintings have. Maybe if we had studies Pollock's work for years we would begin to have a sense of the kind of "strokes" that he didn't and didn't do, but even then those rules are probably completely variable considering how he had chosen to paint.
When one attempts to analyzes a work by Pollock, it is hard to even know where to begin. So in this case lets see what Tolstoy would have thought of Pollock's work. Tolstoy defined art as needing three things, Art must possess some feeing of the artistic behind it, the feeling which it is trying to transmit must be clear and the artist must be sincere in the message they are trying to convey. Thus, under this art criticism would Tolstoy consider Pollocks' work to be art. I personally don't think he would. Sure Pollock most likely had some individual feeling, following along with Tolstoy, and there the parallels fall apart. Was their a feeling that Pollock was trying to convey in his work entitled "Number1" ? I have no idea, It evokes emotion and feelings within me but were those the messages he wanted. Furthermore, if we can not identify which emotion the art is trying to convey how can we know if the artist was sincere in trying to convey that emotion? Thus, I would say that Pollock's works fail under Tolstoy's art criticism.
There is no other artist that I know of who is more aggravating for understand in the sense of art and artistic expression that Jackson Pollock. Pollock's later work as we know focused around the use of splatter paint instead of the more traditionally viewed art that uses more conventional images and scenes. And that is exactly where Pollack got his fame. Unlike others that may not have considered his art to have merit, because, well hell, a three year old could make something comparable, Pollock did and inadvertently created a market for something new. His art is simply fluid motion captured through different colors and layering effects on a canvas. For me, he work is definitely pretty. But I wonder how much of that sense of beauty is universal or if it is something that I have been conditioned to have being raised in an artistic family and having know Pollock's work since I was little. I honestly feel, that if I was looking at Pollock works for the first time, as if I had lived in a vacuum to Pollock criticism until just now, I would have two reactions. The first would be to say "wow, wonder how long that took?" Implying that in that painting there is some sort of a lack of skill. The second reaction would be to notice the efficiency of the paint flings, the order in the chaos that was his splatter paint and I would begin to understand the work more. Like that forger was implying, we could all put on our crummy shoes, lay a canvas on the floor and start painting like Pollock did, but we would not be able to capture the movement and the feeling that his paintings have. Maybe if we had studies Pollock's work for years we would begin to have a sense of the kind of "strokes" that he didn't and didn't do, but even then those rules are probably completely variable considering how he had chosen to paint.
When one attempts to analyzes a work by Pollock, it is hard to even know where to begin. So in this case lets see what Tolstoy would have thought of Pollock's work. Tolstoy defined art as needing three things, Art must possess some feeing of the artistic behind it, the feeling which it is trying to transmit must be clear and the artist must be sincere in the message they are trying to convey. Thus, under this art criticism would Tolstoy consider Pollocks' work to be art. I personally don't think he would. Sure Pollock most likely had some individual feeling, following along with Tolstoy, and there the parallels fall apart. Was their a feeling that Pollock was trying to convey in his work entitled "Number1" ? I have no idea, It evokes emotion and feelings within me but were those the messages he wanted. Furthermore, if we can not identify which emotion the art is trying to convey how can we know if the artist was sincere in trying to convey that emotion? Thus, I would say that Pollock's works fail under Tolstoy's art criticism.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Running the Numbers
Would I hang that on my wall?
A critical look at the exhibit “Running the Numbers” created by Chris Jordan
When one first walks into the Art Museum on the Washington State University campus and into the Chris Jordan exhibit “Running the Numbers,” that person is greeted by a large image of Mount Reiner. It is only when that person continues to move towards the image that they realize that it is not simple a photo of the mountain that many of us know so well, but in hundreds of shrunken pictures of shipping containers, the ones used to ship freight overseas. It is at this point that one begins to realize that there is more than meets the eye in this exhibit and thus brings me to the overarching concept of this review. From the very get go it is clear that the exhibit was designed or at some level intended to point out the glaring problems of America’s capitalist and consumerist culture. In this day and age, almost no American has any doubt in the existence of these two issues, and yes using an artistic medium to further show these issues in motions does have some merit. But at the same time, does the simple use of artistic styles make something art? And for that mater what does redundantly pointing our attention to issues that while we may not have known the numbers, the big picture is old news actually accomplish? The exhibit is something to behold. All of the images are very large, a technique shown very well by Roy Lichenstein as a great way to draw peoples attention. But when the whole exhibit bowls down, one is left with only their own feelings on the pieces. Kant states peoples individual tastes in art is purely “aesthetic …whose determining ground can be no other than subject” (98). For this critic one though repeatedly flashed through my mind as I wandered through Jordan’s art. Would I pay for this? Granted this is a very American and Worhol-esque approach to art and in no means the only means for determining the artistic value of a piece, none the less I feel that it is a very important factor to consider discussing the total value of a piece.
The first piece that I observed when walking through the exhibit was what at first glance appeared to be a series of intertwining pipes, something reminiscent of the old PC game Pipe Drain. I would like to believe that had the plaque on the wall not told me that the “pipes” were actually stacked plastic cups, specifically one million plastic cups the number used every hour on United States air lines, I would have been able to figure it out for myself. Sadly knowing myself, and the short amount of time we were able to view Jordan’s piece I am completely sure I would not have figured it out for myself before time ran out. The piece itself is very impressive. The amount of twisted and coiled lines make for a very tangled mess. The problem that I had with the piece is just what I said in the beginning of this paragraph, without the plaque, I would have had absolutely no idea what I was looking at. Despite that I felt that the piece itself was very visually appealing, and despite the fact that it was pointing out such a wasteful habit of Americans and that if I had the money and was in need of a large piece of art I would in fact consider trying to purchase the image.
Two other pieces that were on display at the museum contain completely different images but at the same time both contain a small feature that I found to very hard to swallow as someone critiquing art. Both images show consumer products namely Light bulbs and toothpicks and both of the images refer to the wasteful usages of their respective uses. The problem comes in the vagueness of the words that were chosen to describe the images. The light bulbs refer to the 300,000 kilowatt hours of inefficient energy use that happens every minute while the toothpicks symbolize the 100 million trees cut down to make paper for junk mail. The problem that I have as a critic is subjectivity of the words “inefficient” and “junk mail”. But to what standards is Chris Jordan holding those two words to? Does me leaving a light on when I am not home consist of inefficient use of energy? But what if I am doing that to deter a potential burglary? I feel that this subjectivity makes it almost impossibly to fully take the magnitude of the image into perspective because it relies solely on statistical information, which is commonly know to be skewed. One a solely aesthetic approach I would have no problem justifying the purchase of the works as they both contained a very beautiful image, but because of the plaque much of the value of the piece departed for me.
The final piece that I would like to talk about was an absolutely gigantic work consisting of thousands of tiny orange jumpsuits standing for all the person currently incarcerated in the United States. I will admit that I did not have time to walk right up to the work or to even read the plaque stating the exact number of jumpsuits, but as a criminal law and political science major I know to the point of Ad Nauseam, that this nation is plagued with a high crime rate and an even higher corrupt criminal justice system. It was not because of this work that I have decided to try and reform this system and I do not deny that an individual who observers it could be swayed to change their life to try and correct the systems short comings but on a purely aesthetic level I found the piece to be an extremely large eye sore. I am personally not a fan of the color orange so I found the piece very hard to look at.
Overall I found the exhibit to be a very interesting and subjectively aesthetic experience. But I found far too many problems with the concepts behind the works to say that I felt inclined to want to purchase any of the art. I felt that the images held profound messages about Americas consumerist system that I felt needed to change but I simply did not feel that Chris Jordan’s art was the way to go about causing the changes that I feel that he was trying to cause me to want to initiate. So while I feel that it may be a strong approach to looking at Chris Jordan’s work I feel that trying to understand if I would be willing to spend money on the work and thus hang it on my wall if a functional approach to comprehending Chris Jordan’s work.
A critical look at the exhibit “Running the Numbers” created by Chris Jordan
When one first walks into the Art Museum on the Washington State University campus and into the Chris Jordan exhibit “Running the Numbers,” that person is greeted by a large image of Mount Reiner. It is only when that person continues to move towards the image that they realize that it is not simple a photo of the mountain that many of us know so well, but in hundreds of shrunken pictures of shipping containers, the ones used to ship freight overseas. It is at this point that one begins to realize that there is more than meets the eye in this exhibit and thus brings me to the overarching concept of this review. From the very get go it is clear that the exhibit was designed or at some level intended to point out the glaring problems of America’s capitalist and consumerist culture. In this day and age, almost no American has any doubt in the existence of these two issues, and yes using an artistic medium to further show these issues in motions does have some merit. But at the same time, does the simple use of artistic styles make something art? And for that mater what does redundantly pointing our attention to issues that while we may not have known the numbers, the big picture is old news actually accomplish? The exhibit is something to behold. All of the images are very large, a technique shown very well by Roy Lichenstein as a great way to draw peoples attention. But when the whole exhibit bowls down, one is left with only their own feelings on the pieces. Kant states peoples individual tastes in art is purely “aesthetic …whose determining ground can be no other than subject” (98). For this critic one though repeatedly flashed through my mind as I wandered through Jordan’s art. Would I pay for this? Granted this is a very American and Worhol-esque approach to art and in no means the only means for determining the artistic value of a piece, none the less I feel that it is a very important factor to consider discussing the total value of a piece.
The first piece that I observed when walking through the exhibit was what at first glance appeared to be a series of intertwining pipes, something reminiscent of the old PC game Pipe Drain. I would like to believe that had the plaque on the wall not told me that the “pipes” were actually stacked plastic cups, specifically one million plastic cups the number used every hour on United States air lines, I would have been able to figure it out for myself. Sadly knowing myself, and the short amount of time we were able to view Jordan’s piece I am completely sure I would not have figured it out for myself before time ran out. The piece itself is very impressive. The amount of twisted and coiled lines make for a very tangled mess. The problem that I had with the piece is just what I said in the beginning of this paragraph, without the plaque, I would have had absolutely no idea what I was looking at. Despite that I felt that the piece itself was very visually appealing, and despite the fact that it was pointing out such a wasteful habit of Americans and that if I had the money and was in need of a large piece of art I would in fact consider trying to purchase the image.
Two other pieces that were on display at the museum contain completely different images but at the same time both contain a small feature that I found to very hard to swallow as someone critiquing art. Both images show consumer products namely Light bulbs and toothpicks and both of the images refer to the wasteful usages of their respective uses. The problem comes in the vagueness of the words that were chosen to describe the images. The light bulbs refer to the 300,000 kilowatt hours of inefficient energy use that happens every minute while the toothpicks symbolize the 100 million trees cut down to make paper for junk mail. The problem that I have as a critic is subjectivity of the words “inefficient” and “junk mail”. But to what standards is Chris Jordan holding those two words to? Does me leaving a light on when I am not home consist of inefficient use of energy? But what if I am doing that to deter a potential burglary? I feel that this subjectivity makes it almost impossibly to fully take the magnitude of the image into perspective because it relies solely on statistical information, which is commonly know to be skewed. One a solely aesthetic approach I would have no problem justifying the purchase of the works as they both contained a very beautiful image, but because of the plaque much of the value of the piece departed for me.
The final piece that I would like to talk about was an absolutely gigantic work consisting of thousands of tiny orange jumpsuits standing for all the person currently incarcerated in the United States. I will admit that I did not have time to walk right up to the work or to even read the plaque stating the exact number of jumpsuits, but as a criminal law and political science major I know to the point of Ad Nauseam, that this nation is plagued with a high crime rate and an even higher corrupt criminal justice system. It was not because of this work that I have decided to try and reform this system and I do not deny that an individual who observers it could be swayed to change their life to try and correct the systems short comings but on a purely aesthetic level I found the piece to be an extremely large eye sore. I am personally not a fan of the color orange so I found the piece very hard to look at.
Overall I found the exhibit to be a very interesting and subjectively aesthetic experience. But I found far too many problems with the concepts behind the works to say that I felt inclined to want to purchase any of the art. I felt that the images held profound messages about Americas consumerist system that I felt needed to change but I simply did not feel that Chris Jordan’s art was the way to go about causing the changes that I feel that he was trying to cause me to want to initiate. So while I feel that it may be a strong approach to looking at Chris Jordan’s work I feel that trying to understand if I would be willing to spend money on the work and thus hang it on my wall if a functional approach to comprehending Chris Jordan’s work.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Taste
I find the idea of trying to actually give a standard to taste to be extremely comical. Consider my current circumstance. As I am reading an passage that is defining what is tasteful I am sitting here browsing threw you tube videos. Sure I may have started watching something cool like the trailer for the new live action version of “The Legend of Zelda. And then only a few clicks later I am watching Happy Tree Friends videos. I am not sure if there is anyone who would every say that that series merits any sense of taste, but I was reading the part of the passage about Alcoran. All of the Short Happy Tree friends start off innocent and happy enough. Enough so that if you had only ever seen a few seconds of one, one would think they were most likely a happy and innocent children’s short as all the characters are supper cutesy animals that make adorable giggling sounds. Shortly after those first few seconds of watching the video, the viewer is greeted with images that can only be described in the words of David Hume, “images of inhumanity, cruelty …and bigotry”. The shorts are very much disgusting and revolting showing those previously mentioned cutesy animals being severely mutilated. Now what is odd. Is that if there was to truly be any sort of standard of taste one would assume there would only be a few of these videos. Instead as I unpleasantly discovered there are hundreds, each with thousands of views and on further investigation I have discovered that there is actually a rather large fan basis for them.
Thus I would argue that despite any practical argument that could be made about a standard of taste. I will always stand by the saying that “there is no accounting for taste”. Sure it could be possible for a minor standard of taste to come about within some sort of smallish social group but it would be impossible to establish one for the general population we have simply become too individual. In fact this individuality would be effect by not just out personal likes and dislikes but also the light that we see the art in. Take Happy Tree Friends. If say, I was with a group of friends that all found the shorts to be very comical I might laugh at them and enjoy them. But watching only a few of them by myself has left me sick to my stomach. So in that circumstance my surrendering could effect my standard of taste.
When trying to determine if the two pictures that Dr. Anderson linked are have taste. I would personally say that neither of them do and at the same time both of them do. They are both very satirical. The one of the monkey holding the flower seems to be a kind of making fun of the sophisticated person from back in the day. But as it is a monkey, the painting is most likely making some kind of satirical joke at the upper class. The other one is seems to be off a person in Shakespearian era, because of the clothing style, but instead of sitting in a respectable fashion as would have been common in portraits for that era instead is making a funny face. Thus if one considers the satirical ramifications of the works from the mindset that of understanding and appreciating the satire than their tastefulness can be appreciated but if instead the onlooker sees the working as making fun of them, they would likely find the art to be insulting and thus not tasteful.
Thus I would argue that despite any practical argument that could be made about a standard of taste. I will always stand by the saying that “there is no accounting for taste”. Sure it could be possible for a minor standard of taste to come about within some sort of smallish social group but it would be impossible to establish one for the general population we have simply become too individual. In fact this individuality would be effect by not just out personal likes and dislikes but also the light that we see the art in. Take Happy Tree Friends. If say, I was with a group of friends that all found the shorts to be very comical I might laugh at them and enjoy them. But watching only a few of them by myself has left me sick to my stomach. So in that circumstance my surrendering could effect my standard of taste.
When trying to determine if the two pictures that Dr. Anderson linked are have taste. I would personally say that neither of them do and at the same time both of them do. They are both very satirical. The one of the monkey holding the flower seems to be a kind of making fun of the sophisticated person from back in the day. But as it is a monkey, the painting is most likely making some kind of satirical joke at the upper class. The other one is seems to be off a person in Shakespearian era, because of the clothing style, but instead of sitting in a respectable fashion as would have been common in portraits for that era instead is making a funny face. Thus if one considers the satirical ramifications of the works from the mindset that of understanding and appreciating the satire than their tastefulness can be appreciated but if instead the onlooker sees the working as making fun of them, they would likely find the art to be insulting and thus not tasteful.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Paradigms and Purepose
I am sure most people are starting with their post by resuming up the question. It is true that in the chapter many points of view were presented. Some of which made a lot more sense than others. And for me, Aristotle spoke to me the most.
I believe that many of us use art to do what Aristotle proposed. And that is through art, in Aristotle's case the tragedies people are become educated because the art appeals to their emotions. Much like how we as humans can observe a piece of art for not only the material fact that it is something tangible but also the emotion that is behind it. Like looking at a boat lost at sea and feeling actual fear as if we were really there. It makes perfect sense that in a tragedy, if a good character and faces hardship it creates a sense of cleansing through fear or pity. When we observe art or a performance we can relate to the characters if they feel such basic emotions as fear or pity no mater how complicated the contained concept may be those using those emotions to further teach us about how to deal with life if something like what the character is facing were to happen to use.
The other part of Aristotle's argument that really speaks to me is that the tragic hero is not actually a bad person but Hamartia, or a tragic flaw causes that person to do bad things. This causes the character in the performance to further relate to us. We know that we are not perfect and it are those flaws that causes us to make poor choices in our lives. This further makes sense as Aristotle argued that art in general is an imitation of real life. Through both this concept and flaws and that that art imitates our lives we can see how Aristotle's point about art being education can make a lot of sense. If we look at art as a lesson we pose to learn a lot about not just the world around us but ourselves.
I believe that many of us use art to do what Aristotle proposed. And that is through art, in Aristotle's case the tragedies people are become educated because the art appeals to their emotions. Much like how we as humans can observe a piece of art for not only the material fact that it is something tangible but also the emotion that is behind it. Like looking at a boat lost at sea and feeling actual fear as if we were really there. It makes perfect sense that in a tragedy, if a good character and faces hardship it creates a sense of cleansing through fear or pity. When we observe art or a performance we can relate to the characters if they feel such basic emotions as fear or pity no mater how complicated the contained concept may be those using those emotions to further teach us about how to deal with life if something like what the character is facing were to happen to use.
The other part of Aristotle's argument that really speaks to me is that the tragic hero is not actually a bad person but Hamartia, or a tragic flaw causes that person to do bad things. This causes the character in the performance to further relate to us. We know that we are not perfect and it are those flaws that causes us to make poor choices in our lives. This further makes sense as Aristotle argued that art in general is an imitation of real life. Through both this concept and flaws and that that art imitates our lives we can see how Aristotle's point about art being education can make a lot of sense. If we look at art as a lesson we pose to learn a lot about not just the world around us but ourselves.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Is art evolutionary.
Over the years I have been asked by teachers and educators to swallow some very hard to take material. None of them compare to the Natural History of Art article. How could it be that our preference for art is genetic, an ingrained system determined by our DNA? Sure there can be some merit to the concept. The author makes the point that there are certain markings in nature that represent danger. But these aren't something that we just automatically know. Think about snakes. There are two snakes that have a very similar color scheme, on one yellow stripes are touching black, on the other red and black stripes are touching. The differnce is the first is relatively harmless and the later will kill you. But these color patterns aren't something we know through our genetics but are instead warned by others. Thus nurture over nature. And sure, bright colors can tip us off at somethings potential threat but even then show a child a bright object and a dull one and they will most likely go for the bright one, even if that is a Poisin Dart Frog unless they have been warned against its risk. Because of this logic, I simply can not understand how ones appreciation for art is determined by out genetic code. Over all the article makes broad generaltizations about humans with little to know solid facts or data to back up their theory. The Article is also littered with passive or weasle words like "maybe" "perhaps", which in a article based in the realm of science, simply makes me cringe. But other than that it is an interesting article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
