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?