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.