Bert the, Western, Conqueror

Bert comes to town an amateur and leaves a conqueror.

Thrill-seeker Bert Kreischer takes viewers to the legendary events, competitions and adrenaline rushes that celebrate local culture. He experiences the most hilariously absurd, undeniably dangerous and hands-down insane challenges small-town America has to offer.

Whether Bert's attempting to walk across "The Greasy Pole" in Gloucester, MA, catfish noodlin’ in Knoxville, TN, or taking on Cedar Point’s "Fearsome Foursome" roller-coaster challenge in Sandusky, OH, he'll stop at nothing to showcase what the locals do for fun.

Best known as a comedian, Bert travels the country meeting the passionate people who participate in these backyard adventures, experiencing the annual traditions that rally small towns and screaming his lungs out on thrill rides across the country.

Get ready to laugh.


....




This is description of the show Bert the Conqueror from the Travel Channel website.  
The show has a western-philosophy-on-conquering-foreign-land feel to it. The 'conqueror' Bert actually believes something like an amusement park ride that has already been "conquered," by local people, can be re-conquered by himself, a random person who has never been there and doesn't know anyone from there.  


They should make an episode honored to the other great re-conquerors like Columbus and Sir Edmund Hillary

A philosophy joke I stumbledupon

An eccentric philosophy professor gave a one question final exam after a semester dealing with a broad array of topics. The class was already seated and ready to go when the professor picked up his chair, plopped it on his desk and wrote on the board: “Using everything we have learned this semester, prove that this chair does not exist.”

Fingers flew, erasers erased, notebooks were filled in furious fashion. Some students wrote over 30 pages in one hour attempting to refute the existence of the chair. One member of the class however, was up and finished in less than a minute.

Weeks later when the grades were posted, the student who finished in one minute got an A. The rest of the group wondered how he could have gotten an A when he had barely written anything at all.

This is what he wrote:  “What chair?”

MCFA

Massachusetts College of Fascist Arts

A few nights ago a group of students, who will remain anonymous, decided to express themselves through the use of sidewalk chalk.  They did so outside Hoosac Hall all over the walls and ground.  Immediately the next morning maintenance cleaned it off and students were e-mailed informing them that if each person who were involved does not come forward then all living in the dorms were going to be billed.

The issue: The reasoning behind the billing is because the student handbook does inform students that the use of chalk is prohibited and "profanity" was also seen... a valid point

The reality:  For those who have used chalk before they will know that rain will wash it away.  The next day it rained, but before the rain could get to the chalk it was sprayed down with a hose.  Also I personally saw the finished art and it was in no means at all profane.  Oh and did I mention that I witness people who do not even live on campus draw?
Why would a majority in the dorms who did not partake in the use of chalk be billed when it was a select few who were a mix of on and off campus students were involved?  And why would it even be an issue if the rain was going to wash it away shortly after maintenance "took care" it.

I do not think I am wrong in saying that there is irony in this.. a liberal arts college punishing students who most likely consider themselves artists.

Over analyzation of sub genres of art

Today in class we discussed the filming of a play to make it a movie or the recording of a musician's live performance to make it a record.  Does the distribution of the Dave Matthews Band live trax (or any other performing artist) diminish the experience shared by the audience and band or does it give valor and worth the the experience by proving it to have been a great performance to someone who was not present?  

Response to Andrew Roiter's post "what is art vs. what is good art"

Q: Should we even discuss what makes up the qualities of good art?


I think that the word art is a large umbrella and because so much can fall under the umbrella and be classified as art that everyone is capable of making some form of art.  And why should anyones art be susceptible criticism?  I believe negativity has no part in the art world, but this does not mean art should not be shared.  It should be open for discussion and comparison without a competitive mindset.  
This is why I believe discussing what makes up the qualities of art to be unnecessary.  It could only lead to transforming the 'good art' into a popular standard or scientific method towards art of which rebellion will arise and new sub-genres of the art for will form.

Response to Jenna Haelys post, "Knowledge vs. Emotion"

Q: Do you think it is better to possess knowledge about a work of art or to interpret it in a personal way?


I believe art is open to interpretation and no one has the write to tell someone that their art, or opinion on a work of art, is bad or wrong.  But if the personal interpretation of a viewer claims that the work is intended to evoke, for example, feelings of joy and happiness when the artist, standing right next to them says, "no, that is not what i meant," then who is right, the person who has zero knowledge of the art or the one who created it?
Also, if someone learns about the work of art there is potential that it could be over analyzed and ruin the 'moment' that occurs when they then look at it.  But if one were to not possess any knowledge at all there is a chance this could lead to ignorance.  
I do not think knowledge is better than personal interpretation or visa versa.  There needs to be an equal balance of both.

Response to Aditi's post, "The Ever Changing World of Art"

Q: In an ever changing world, is art always subjective to the time? Does it come and go like a trend?


I think the two main forms of art where we see fads that come and go are fashion and music.  How many times have you thought to yourself, "I can't believe this song is on the radio again," or "Who would actually wear that?"  I like to treat the way I dress, the music I listen to the same way I treat the movies I watch and the art I enjoy.  Critics do not have too much influence on me in the art world and if they did I wouldn't be the same person I am today.


The main stream art that is being shoved in our faces by the media can be ridiculous and what seems to be "in" is changing so much that it is physically impossible to keep up without becoming a programed zombie. 

Response to Skyla Seaman's post, "Mirror on the Wall"

Q: In what ways are mirrors revelers of the truth and is art just a mirror of nature, in your opinion?


Mirrors can be revelers of truth in the sense that a physical mirror will mirror the image presented in front of it regardless of what it is.  An artist has the ability to mirror an image and warp it in order for others to feel the same emotions the artist felt when they decided to depict the image in the first place.  Its as if a canvas were the funhouse mirrors that distort the physical truth but also reveal another that was not able to be seen before be it something positive or negative.  


Also I think art and nature are similar to each other but they are more than just mirrored images.  The longer one takes to hike a mountain the more they will be able to appreciate individual plants and animals and beauty around them, as opposed to someone who just sprints or drives through with no inclination to stop and see what there is.  The same thing can be said about an art museum.  If one were to slowly look at each work of art they would walk away with more than a bored 6th grade student on a field trip.

Response to Mary Marcils Post "Perspective"

Q: "...is looking at the world through this particular "lens" a more fulfilling way of experiencing things through an individual's senses?"


When I first read this question there where two ways i thought i could approach it.  The first was that I could say, "Of course you need to look at the glass half full!" because i have fould myself to be quiet optomistic.  But i was able to counter this point by looking at this as a way to live life ignorantly because ignorance is bliss.  But of course the counter point will always be, "Why can't one live in the bliss that goes hand in hand with ignorance?"


So my question is, "Why can one not live in the bliss that goes along with ignorance? I believe this is no way to live but what do you think of this?"

Response to Skyla R. Seamans Post, "Self-Expression"

Q: 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? 


While i believe that everyone should embrace the body or 'significant form' they were born with, i also believe that they body is a blank canvas that is open to modification to an extent.  I have four tattoos that represent different milestones in my life.  Some represent good times, family, including the living and the dead, and also a public sign of who i am.  If someone decides to modify their body in a way that is adorning it and embracing who they are then they have every right to do so. But i also believe that if someone is to get extreme plastic surgery to the point that they look like a completely different person is something that should be addressed.  Everyone is who they are for some reason with signifigance and should be able to accept that without drastic changes that are motivated with negativity.


Question: Are my own tattoos forming a bias that excludes tattoos and piercings from extreme body modifications? And what are your opinions on plastic surgery? Is it a quick fix that one might regret in the long run or is it the answer to those who cannot find happiness within themselves as they were born?

Response to Jenna Haelys post, 'Pass or Fail'

Q: Do you think if the audience does not receive the same aesthetic emotion that the artist intended the art work is a failure?


Art is so open to interpretation now that it is often misinterpreted either by over-analyzation, under-analyzation or misleading information.  Personally I think that art does not need to be put under such scrutiny that a pass or fail mentality is formed.  If a group of people look at the same work of art, chances are not every person will have the same aesthetic emotion evoked and the same goes for the most successful works of art.  Just because the art did not cause the same emotions to be felt as the artist does not mean it will be a failure.  Not everyone will enjoy a work of art, but this doesn't mean its value is diminished.

A Response to Aditi's post, "Is this art"

The question was, "Question: Do you think that technological advances have helped make the art world less elitist? Has it helped furthered the arts? Caused our society to pay mor attention to it? Or has it overshadowed it/demoralized it?"


While the application is available, it is safe to say that the general population of iphone and itouch users are far too busy updating facebook, checking twitter or playing a repetitive game to appreciate art.  And while art should not be taken too seriously, it shouldn't be taken as a joke either and it seems like Apple is just turing art appreciation into a fad that will soon disappear. 
But I do not think it is fair of me to be so pessimistic on the topic.  I think it would be wonderful if someone were to first be exposed to the art world this way and be inspired to travel and see the works of art in person.  This would be the exception to it but we also can not forget that we have mentioned in class that seeing the Mona Lisa on a projector in class will numb a person to the significant form.


Question: Is there another way of looking at this more optimistically and is the possibility of art dying out like a fad in the future plausible?

Response to Katherine Marchand's post, "The Art of Everyday Objects."

Q:Question: With my broad interpretation of everyday items in mind, is artistic beauty truly in the "eye of the beholder"?


When I read this post I immediately thought of this as a mix up of the words 'artist' and 'artisan.'  The definition of artisan is, "a skilled manual worker who makes items that may be functional or strictly decorative, including furniture, clothing, jewelry, household items, and tools."  I understand this as defining objects such as blankets, furniture and the greek pottery, that we now see in museums.  Yes the aesthetics are pleasing to the eye but it is only that way in order to make an everyday convenience a little more appreciated.  But the significant form is not as meaningful or in-depth as other artistic objects such as Pablo Picasso's painting "Guernica."
But I do understand that in the context of the question this is my eye, so to say, on the value of everyday objects.  And why I also understand that my interpretation of everyday objects makes me seem slightly pessimistic, I also think that these objects, when they are aesthetically pleasing to the person, can make simple daily tasks in the day slightly more enjoyable.

Response to Marek Krawczyk's Post "One Art Form to Describe The Other"

Why should we give a specific definition to art? Why should we define something that is changing with an art form that is also changing?  It can be repetitive hearing different philosophers try to explain the same thing in different ways, almost like how an out dated map has different names for the same place.  But I find this only crosses my mind when I take the topic too seriously.  Sometimes we need to not scrutinize art so intensely and enjoy it for what it is, while keeping a balance of taking it seriously and not just accept a work of art for what it is.

Availability of Art

Today in class we were talking about how animation and how the multiple copies make viewing the work of art easily accessible.
The question I would like to raise before the bulk of the blog, which is what forced me to hesitate on speaking during class, is: Does the availability of art numb us to good art or does it end the snobbish and stuck up view of art that is only a select view can view it?
Two examples that I would like to look at are Leonardo Da Vinci's, Mona Lisa, which was discussed in class, and the film The Departed.
It is without a doubt that the Mona Lisa is one of the most recognizable paintings from the Italian Renaissance but is this a negative or positive?  When someone is so numbed to something does the thing, or work of art in this case, lose value and cause it to be taken for granted?  To an extent do I think this is true.  How many times do we wake up and think, "I could not appreciate the sun that rises everyday more than I do every time I see it in the morning." The fact is we don't, but just because we do not reflect on it everyday does not mean that we think, "The sun has risen again? I could change it up today and live in darkness!"
The reason why I choose The Departed to talk about is because of how infuriated I was when I starting typing "Leonardo Da Vinci" into my google toolbar to search background information, I was suggested to search "Leonardo Dicaprio" after only typing "L-e-o." This annoyed me when I thought of what else people could be concerning themselves with and the infinite number of things that could be studied other than an actor or, as Plato would refer to him as, an imitator of an imitators (the writer) work.
Although we have the internet and television have the ability to de-sensitize us from violence, current events and art we can not leave out how many people would rather be entertained by a movie.  This is why the most searched topic starting with "Leo-" is a famous actor and not a famous artist.

This is why I am hung up on the question; Are we numb to good art or better informed about good art?

Response to Mary Marcil's Question in her post "Juggling"

"...do you think there is good art and bad art, or is all art simply on an equal level with all that is encompassed in the category?"


I believe there is such a thing as good art and bad art.  While we would like to live in a picture perfect world where everyones art is appreciated and enjoyed by all it simply is not true.  Just because an "artist" painted a picture  with all the best intentions that could change the world does not mean that they will paint something that the public will accept.  If a "musician" releases a political album that could change the world but not a single note sounds good and the lyrics make no sense then the message will not be conveyed because their bad art is not enjoyed by the listener.  Call it shallow but I think art needs some aesthetics that attract us to it in the first place.

Response to Skyla's Post "Literature as Art"

I think over that over time a words meaning can change and the word 'art' is no exception. For example when I first finished my favorite book, "I am the Messenger," by Markus Zusak, I didn't think to myself, "What a great work of art!" I thought, "What a great book!" And this also applies to the artists themselves. When a painter or sculptor states their job title in a conversation the person they are talking too would most likely think of them as an artist. But if it was a novelist or poet whom they were conversing with the same person might think of them as a writer, not an artist. I also agree that as the generations continue less and less people enjoy reading. But while the over analyzation of books in high school, such as a six page paper on the use of the word 'iron' in the Scarlet Letter (I disdain the book as well), is a leading cause in the downfall of reading it is not the only one. Instead of books for leisure people have an infinite number of things to do online, they can watch television or enjoy the day outside (Even though I think physical activity is declining just as much as literacy in the country). It is sad to say but, just like the theatre, literature is a dying art.

Art and Music inspired by Clive Bell's Chapter in Wartenberb

It is difficult to write a universal definition of art.  This is because their are so many types of art that what gives credit to one genre would have nothing to do with another.  You would need to look at numerous sub-genre's that all boil down to creativity and purpose.  


A simple painting of the sky is made up of different colors and painting techniques just like a song is made up of different instruments and styles.  Musical instruments are combined in order to convey the musicians intended emotion just like red and yellow paint would be combined to put an orange hugh in the painting of the sky to convey the painters intended emotion.   


As far as a the musician goes, a sight reader would read music and play it with what they were taught as far as what key and time signature to play in and a vocalist is no exception to this.  There are good pianists and guitarists and vocalist but what about the lyricist?  The lyrics could be taken as a poem combined with music to make a hybrid but can it not be argued that the lyrics are not a poem but instead words acting like notes that need to be read by the vocalist to convey the intentions of the writer just like a guitarist would play the notes they read?

Interpretations of Art Differing Through Generations

In order to perfectly understand history of a country we must learn about the culture of the people who were living there during the time.  Art is similar to this.  There is a pattern in history's great artists where they are misunderstood by people of their time but later are revisited and their posthumous fame is incredible.  What was happening during the time Van Gogh that was beyond the pail and caused him to not be famous until he was understood by younger generations?

If an artist is looking for fifteen minutes of fame they will jump right into what is popular at the time and have a short lived career and societies predecessors will not remember their name.  With this said it is easy to assess that anyone who is considered to be truly great will not be tagged with the statement, "They were ahead of their time," just by coincidence.

Clive Belle says: 

"In twelfth-century Europe a man might have been greatly moved by a Romanesque church and found nothing in a T’ang picture. To a man of a later age, Greek sculpture meant much and Mexican nothing, for only to the former could he bring a crowd of associated ideas to be the objects of familiar emotions."

He also mentions how the aesthetic emotion lies in personal experience, which is necessary to properly interpret a work of art.  Wouldn't this be a contradiction if the personal experience felt by the artist was different than their future admirers? How would we know without the knowledge of the intention of the artist?

Daydreaming out the Window into Another World

This post is a response to Skyla's post, "Daydreaming." The question was, "Do you agree with the idea that all daydreamers are dissatisfied with their lives and do you want all of your daydreams to become a reality? Why or why not?"


I do not agree with the idea that all daydreamers are dissatisfied with their lives.  I like to understand daydreaming as a way to channel out negative energy that I feel during the day.  For example if I were having a terrible day that was stressful and the day felt like it was dragging on, I will start to drift off and think about what I would rather be doing.  It motivates me to finish my work so I can spend time with my friends and family or play guitar and relax.  


And as far as my day dreams go I do not think I would want all of them to come true.  I would love the ones where I see myself playing guitar and being with loved ones to come true but there are others that I do not want to come true.  For example if I were sitting in bumper to bumper traffic and could not move I might daydream about getting out of my car and walking up to whoever is causing traffic jam and yell at them to get a move on.  But I know that wouldn't work in the real world because you can not act like that in public if you want to get anywhere in life but this is where art comes into play.  Watching a movie or reading a book where a character does overreact about a traffic and getting their way will make me laugh and happy about what dissatisfy me which is in this case a traffic jam.


We need art as a window into a fantasy world where life can be more uplifting and enjoyable but it does not mean that enjoying the art means that you are not content with your own life.

First Impressions

This post is a response to Aditi's response to Shawna's post on beauty.

When an observer first looks at a work of art they immediately have a first impression and, in this case, the impression is a emotion that is evoked. Be it, 'This is stupid,' 'This is beautiful,' or 'This is confusing," these immediate feelings we have are unavoidable.  But we can not just judge a book by its cover, we need to look into it, read the book or in this case, the work of art.
Using the example of the painting of a flower, if the observer looks at it and thinks, "Wow! That is a beautiful painting and I love it!" but the artist intended it to be ironic and that they found the flower hideous and hated it then the painting would not be doing its job.  And that job is to transport the emotion felt by the  artist to the observer.

Tolstoy Defines Art

"Through the use of such devices as color, sound and movement, art communicates to its audience a feeling or emotion that the artist has previously experience." This is Leo N. Tolstoys definition of art.   One can asses this and say that if what he says is true than the artist is using pathos (which is when the emotions are appealed to) in order for them to create their own definition of art.  This would mean that everyone's definition would be different.  But can one say that because we use far more emotions than we do logic that this is not valid?


Thank you for reading and I'd like to elaborate on this if anyone would like to say what they think about this.


Zach

Imitation of the Gods in Art

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/1400/1447/zeus_1_lg.gif
Imitation of an imitation is used to describe art. Well what would Plato make of works of art that depict the gods?  Above is a link to a drawing of Zeus, the Greek God of the sky, thunder and lightning and he is also the most important of all the other God's.  What would Plato say of this? It is an imitation of the artist's concept of the god, does it hold the truth it was meant to or would he take a route similar to the Muslim beliefs where depicting Muhammad is not allowed.

thank you for reading!

Comments

I was recently informed that my comment setting was set far too strict and no one was able to comment so I just changed it to anyone can comment.


On that note I'm looking forward to hearing from people!


thanks for reading!
-Zach

If someone were to believe that art is something we all have different definitions of and it is still true, then wouldn't the chances of two or more people's definitions of art contradicting each other to be very likely?  And because of this the corresponding theory of truth, stating that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, would mean that every definition would be false since it does not correspond with the how others in the world view the meaning of the word?
- This is something i found myself getting confused on while reading the text for class.. I would appreciate some input on clearing this up for me.


thanks for reading!!
Zach

If a painting falls off the wall in an abandoned museum does it make a noise?

My personal feeling on art is that anything can be a work of art to someone for any reason they have.  It is somewhat of a 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,' theory.  But once I started reading The Nature of Art by Thomas E. Wartenberg for class I realized that every theory is questioned.  So I would like to pose a question for not myself and anyone who reads it... If a well known artist were to paint a mural on a wall in a private room that they never allow anyone in is the mural still a work of art?  It is in the eye of the beholder (the artist) but no one else can see it.

Thanks for reading!
Zach

Questions About the Class

I am posting the following questions for the second part of the first assignment.

1. Will we be learning about the time the philosophers, whose theories on art we will study and discuss, lived in to help decipher what it was that influenced their thoughts and beliefs?
2. What sort of art will we look at?

• This question must be followed with yet another question: What is art and who is it that decides of the art is art or just obscene and beyond the pale?

“The Two Basic Competing Theories of Truth”

The two competing theories of truth are the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence theory of truth. The correspondence theory is believed by the philosophers who find a statement truthful if it corresponds with the way the world is. An example of this would be if one were to make the statement, “The bark is on the tree.” And there was physical evidence to prove that there is, in fact, bark on the tree being referred to. A weakness of this theory is that there are truths that cannot be proven with physical proof. For example there is truth in the way we know radio waves to work yet the waves cannot be seen by the human eye. The coherence theory of truth validates statements by backing them up by seeing how well it fits with other statements. An example of this would be a group of scientists matching up journals and verifying statements they have each made.