I'm currently working on a masters degree in art education and I've been thoroughly enjoying my classes. Here is a fascinating RSA animation on changing education paradigms. This idea goes hand in hand with many concepts I've been studying. If you've never seen one of these animations then you should definitely check it out. The style of visual communication in this video is just as compelling as the ideas presented.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
#7 - Conclusion
Art in its most meaningful sense is a classification in the mind that allows the viewer to perceive a disclosure of something in a work. This revelation is truth. Successful art is determined by the presence, importance, quality, or quantity of the truth.
Monday, March 26, 2012
#6 - Commodity, Cult or Ritual Value, and Other’s Opinions
In this series I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming.
A man’s relative view of beauty is closely related to his taste in any art form. In a world where most art forms are reproduced to allow for mass participation, a man’s view of an art form is always affected by the reception the art form has received by those he knows. Unfortunately, it seems that Adorno is right in his observations about how elements of the art are fetishized and become commodities. Although Adorno addresses music specifically, I can see the same patterns in visual art. A man’s circle of friends could become interested in color-field painting. The man would then be more likely to enjoy color-field paintings and may find himself wanting one in the same way he wants a pair of bell-bottomed jeans that are in style. The style of color-field painting would be the commodity. A well known artist's name could similarly become a commodity. When art is functioning as a commodity it could still reveal truth, but the judgment of the work loses some of its sincerity. I think the art world is largely affected by the commodification of certain elements of artworks. This clouding of taste does not have a positive influence on artists who seek to make successful works of art that communicate truth. I believe that the art world often has a negative effect on artists who leave their sincere search for discovery in favor of popular styles that appeal to critics or art professors.
Walter Benjamin talked about the ritual or cult value of artworks that has existed in the past. In the age of technical reproduction this cult value is being replaced by the commodity value of works. I view both the commodity value and the cult value of an artwork as a means of displacing an artwork from everyday life and allowing it to be considered as an artwork in the Heideggerian sense. For example, if there is only one statue and it can only be seen in a certain place then the man who puts forth the effort to confront the statue on its terms will enter the space predisposed to consider the statue in the artistic sense. Thus the ritual value of the work affects the man’s perception of it. The cult or ritual element of the work can be created by its inclusion in a gallery or museum setting, or by it's framing and presentation.
I also think Adorno was speaking accurately when he said that a consumer who pays a premium price for a performance to a show pretty much guarantees the success of the performance in his mind as he reflects the exchange-value onto his taste. Similarly, a man who pays $2,000 for a limited edition print will have elevated the value of the thing in his mind. He will then consider the print to be more than just a copy of something or a piece of decorative equipment. Instead he will likely consider the print in the artistic sense (as Heidegger has described). I do not intend here to confuse the value a man places on an artwork with the artistic (aesthetic?) experience, but rather to claim that when a man holds a work in high esteem he may be more likely to think on it deeply. I suppose there is another possibility that the man will never truly consider the work because he has already pre-judged it. I expect both cases occur frequently.
The commodification of art conflicts with our idea that fine art is a thing that is made for its own sake (the communication of truth) rather than for its utilitarian or commercial value. Art that is produced to sell and panders to the tastes of a certain clientele is less likely to include meaningful pieces of truth and more likely to include trendy elements. It seems this happens among the most high brow circles in a similar way that it does with Thomas Kincade paintings. This is where the distinction between fine art and other arts is gray for me. Illustrations could definitely be perceived as art in the Heideggerian sense on occasion and it would be foolish to think that famous contemporary artists never consider the potential response of their audience.
One last thought on this topic pertains to the way in which we learn to appreciate new art forms. New styles, media, methods, and concepts often carry the ability to communicate truth. Sometimes a viewer isn’t willing to consider the new form until it has been endorsed by someone they know or whose opinion they trust. So although it may be a disadvantage to let others' opinions mold one's own taste, it is likely an advantage to listen with open ears to their opinions and critiques. It is then the responsibility of the viewer to accept or reject their ideas. The conversation about art can go a long way toward helping us discover truth where it is in the work. After we learn to see a certain way we may find we can do so without help. A well-taught literature class or book group would be an example of this.
A man’s relative view of beauty is closely related to his taste in any art form. In a world where most art forms are reproduced to allow for mass participation, a man’s view of an art form is always affected by the reception the art form has received by those he knows. Unfortunately, it seems that Adorno is right in his observations about how elements of the art are fetishized and become commodities. Although Adorno addresses music specifically, I can see the same patterns in visual art. A man’s circle of friends could become interested in color-field painting. The man would then be more likely to enjoy color-field paintings and may find himself wanting one in the same way he wants a pair of bell-bottomed jeans that are in style. The style of color-field painting would be the commodity. A well known artist's name could similarly become a commodity. When art is functioning as a commodity it could still reveal truth, but the judgment of the work loses some of its sincerity. I think the art world is largely affected by the commodification of certain elements of artworks. This clouding of taste does not have a positive influence on artists who seek to make successful works of art that communicate truth. I believe that the art world often has a negative effect on artists who leave their sincere search for discovery in favor of popular styles that appeal to critics or art professors.
Walter Benjamin talked about the ritual or cult value of artworks that has existed in the past. In the age of technical reproduction this cult value is being replaced by the commodity value of works. I view both the commodity value and the cult value of an artwork as a means of displacing an artwork from everyday life and allowing it to be considered as an artwork in the Heideggerian sense. For example, if there is only one statue and it can only be seen in a certain place then the man who puts forth the effort to confront the statue on its terms will enter the space predisposed to consider the statue in the artistic sense. Thus the ritual value of the work affects the man’s perception of it. The cult or ritual element of the work can be created by its inclusion in a gallery or museum setting, or by it's framing and presentation.
I also think Adorno was speaking accurately when he said that a consumer who pays a premium price for a performance to a show pretty much guarantees the success of the performance in his mind as he reflects the exchange-value onto his taste. Similarly, a man who pays $2,000 for a limited edition print will have elevated the value of the thing in his mind. He will then consider the print to be more than just a copy of something or a piece of decorative equipment. Instead he will likely consider the print in the artistic sense (as Heidegger has described). I do not intend here to confuse the value a man places on an artwork with the artistic (aesthetic?) experience, but rather to claim that when a man holds a work in high esteem he may be more likely to think on it deeply. I suppose there is another possibility that the man will never truly consider the work because he has already pre-judged it. I expect both cases occur frequently.
The commodification of art conflicts with our idea that fine art is a thing that is made for its own sake (the communication of truth) rather than for its utilitarian or commercial value. Art that is produced to sell and panders to the tastes of a certain clientele is less likely to include meaningful pieces of truth and more likely to include trendy elements. It seems this happens among the most high brow circles in a similar way that it does with Thomas Kincade paintings. This is where the distinction between fine art and other arts is gray for me. Illustrations could definitely be perceived as art in the Heideggerian sense on occasion and it would be foolish to think that famous contemporary artists never consider the potential response of their audience.
One last thought on this topic pertains to the way in which we learn to appreciate new art forms. New styles, media, methods, and concepts often carry the ability to communicate truth. Sometimes a viewer isn’t willing to consider the new form until it has been endorsed by someone they know or whose opinion they trust. So although it may be a disadvantage to let others' opinions mold one's own taste, it is likely an advantage to listen with open ears to their opinions and critiques. It is then the responsibility of the viewer to accept or reject their ideas. The conversation about art can go a long way toward helping us discover truth where it is in the work. After we learn to see a certain way we may find we can do so without help. A well-taught literature class or book group would be an example of this.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
#5 - Beauty
In this series of posts I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming. One post each day will continue the discussion.
Beauty has often been discussed as an important element of successful art. Although beauty is sometimes viewed as being connected to revealing truth, I find it more useful to distinguish beauty as a separate and formal characteristic of a work of art. I believe the presence of beauty in an artwork can be an instance of truth by itself, but I don’t think that every communication of truth is necessarily beautiful. Kant’s discussion of the sublime is a good example of a potential communication of truth that isn’t beautiful. Beauty can enhance an artwork but is not necessary for the work to be successful in revealing truth. The simplest way to view beauty is to think of it as the pleasing visual quality of an image. Kant says beauty is simply our mental response to something that produces that satisfaction. Although Kant views beauty as disinterested satisfaction, I have not been able to leave the idea that beauty is relative to the viewer as proposed by Hume. Through discussion and critique I have been able to see beauty in places where I hadn’t before. I’ve also had times where something that once seemed beautiful has ceased to produce the satisfaction. It is my perception and not the objects that changed in these cases. But there do seem to be trends, if not constants, in the classification of beautiful things. Particularly these are apparent in social circles. I think the way beauty is perceived by a man’s culture, family, or friends is a big influence on that man’s perception of beauty.
Continued in the next post...
Beauty has often been discussed as an important element of successful art. Although beauty is sometimes viewed as being connected to revealing truth, I find it more useful to distinguish beauty as a separate and formal characteristic of a work of art. I believe the presence of beauty in an artwork can be an instance of truth by itself, but I don’t think that every communication of truth is necessarily beautiful. Kant’s discussion of the sublime is a good example of a potential communication of truth that isn’t beautiful. Beauty can enhance an artwork but is not necessary for the work to be successful in revealing truth. The simplest way to view beauty is to think of it as the pleasing visual quality of an image. Kant says beauty is simply our mental response to something that produces that satisfaction. Although Kant views beauty as disinterested satisfaction, I have not been able to leave the idea that beauty is relative to the viewer as proposed by Hume. Through discussion and critique I have been able to see beauty in places where I hadn’t before. I’ve also had times where something that once seemed beautiful has ceased to produce the satisfaction. It is my perception and not the objects that changed in these cases. But there do seem to be trends, if not constants, in the classification of beautiful things. Particularly these are apparent in social circles. I think the way beauty is perceived by a man’s culture, family, or friends is a big influence on that man’s perception of beauty.
Continued in the next post...
Saturday, March 24, 2012
#4 - Truth
In this series I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming.
Part 2: What is Good Art?
Beauty, truth, and the commodity or cult value of art are important elements in this part of the discussion. Plato claimed that truth in art is superior to that which gives pleasure. Heidegger’s view of truth that has been mentioned is the most important measure of how successful an artwork is in my understanding. Artworks are more successful when they are able to help us see things in a slightly new way or make a connection or come to a realization that we hadn’t before. In literature these truths are often themes about human nature or society. I think Aristotle was referring to this kind of experience (though he didn’t speak of it in this way) when he said that poetry shows us what might happen rather than what has happened. He said that it then becomes a philosophy that investigates what such a kind of person would do in such a situation. Sometimes a poem is worded just right to make me say, “Hey, that is the way the world is.”
The disclosure doesn’t need to be a dramatic revelation to be truth. Hegel also viewed art as a search for truth. For Hegel the truths that were communicated reflected mankind’s progression in obtaining spiritual knowledge. I don’t think that the truths art communicates need to be as grand as that. Hegel thought that art had made itself dialectly obsolete as man reached a point of considering abstract and spiritual concepts in accurate ways and art could no longer reveal such truths. I don't agree with this “death of art” as he calls it. I think a physical art like painting is often able to reveal abstract ideas and that something like poetry is very well suited the task (a hierarchy Hegel perpetuated). Art continues to play an important role in the communication of truth, if not necessarily in its discovery.
The truth that is communicated is often related to that part of a work that is being exemplified. Goodman does a good job of telling how this works. He discusses exemplification as a sampling. A sample is only a representation of some of the characteristics of the original. Similarly, not every characteristic of an artwork is important. That part which the work exemplifies should be given prime consideration. In a landscape painting it might be the landscape's color or form that is being exemplified. In a minimalist sculpture it might be the precision of construction. In photorealism it might be the uncanny similarity between the hand painted surface and a photograph. In my view, it is the exemplified traits that concern a viewer who is seeking to obtain the communication of truth in an artwork. It is possible for a work of art to exemplify a thing the artist doesn’t intend. Even so, it is useful to consider an artist’s intent when searching for what is being exemplified. As such, art should be generally judged according to its intended purpose. Abstract painting is exemplifying something different than Roman statues and should not be expected to communicate truth in the same way.
In simple terms, successful art is that which is able to communicate truth. To further establish the success of an artwork it is helpful to look at the truth that is being revealed. Some truths are more meaningful than others. Truths about human nature might be more meaningful than the truth of orange paint for example. Sometimes the truth is deep and often the artwork that leads us to it requires a greater amount of exertion on our part to perceive it. Other times the truth is particularly profound, such as religious truths. In these cases it can be difficult for the artist to communicate the truth in a way that the viewer feels like they are discovering the thing rather than having it forced upon them. Truths that are forced overtly can be seen as cliché, kitsch, or sentimental nonsense. In these instances there may be no art as the idea isn’t so much discovered as it is a stated and the statement may be nothing new. Artistotle said that man’s greatest pleasure is learning. I think the pleasure we receive when recognizing truth in an artwork is closely related to the pleasure of learning.
Goodman made an attempt to qualify the nature of what an artwork has to offer when he wrote about the five symptoms of the aesthetic. What I like from his attempt (although these aren't the terms in which he spoke of it) is simply the idea that artworks that convey greater truth (the exemplified element), whether in quantity or quality, are more successful. He claimed that artworks should not arrive at a cognitively empty experience. They should appeal to the understanding and not just to the senses. Some truths can seem so complex that we only glimpse them briefly. Occasionally these collapse when it is discovered there was no substance behind the complexity, but other times the experience of perceiving truth is enriched by the complexity. Matthew Ritchie is an example of an artist that works on this end of the spectrum. His concepts are often so complex as to be indecipherable, but the glimpse of truth that can be seen are consequently richer.
Part 2: What is Good Art?
Beauty, truth, and the commodity or cult value of art are important elements in this part of the discussion. Plato claimed that truth in art is superior to that which gives pleasure. Heidegger’s view of truth that has been mentioned is the most important measure of how successful an artwork is in my understanding. Artworks are more successful when they are able to help us see things in a slightly new way or make a connection or come to a realization that we hadn’t before. In literature these truths are often themes about human nature or society. I think Aristotle was referring to this kind of experience (though he didn’t speak of it in this way) when he said that poetry shows us what might happen rather than what has happened. He said that it then becomes a philosophy that investigates what such a kind of person would do in such a situation. Sometimes a poem is worded just right to make me say, “Hey, that is the way the world is.”
The disclosure doesn’t need to be a dramatic revelation to be truth. Hegel also viewed art as a search for truth. For Hegel the truths that were communicated reflected mankind’s progression in obtaining spiritual knowledge. I don’t think that the truths art communicates need to be as grand as that. Hegel thought that art had made itself dialectly obsolete as man reached a point of considering abstract and spiritual concepts in accurate ways and art could no longer reveal such truths. I don't agree with this “death of art” as he calls it. I think a physical art like painting is often able to reveal abstract ideas and that something like poetry is very well suited the task (a hierarchy Hegel perpetuated). Art continues to play an important role in the communication of truth, if not necessarily in its discovery.
The truth that is communicated is often related to that part of a work that is being exemplified. Goodman does a good job of telling how this works. He discusses exemplification as a sampling. A sample is only a representation of some of the characteristics of the original. Similarly, not every characteristic of an artwork is important. That part which the work exemplifies should be given prime consideration. In a landscape painting it might be the landscape's color or form that is being exemplified. In a minimalist sculpture it might be the precision of construction. In photorealism it might be the uncanny similarity between the hand painted surface and a photograph. In my view, it is the exemplified traits that concern a viewer who is seeking to obtain the communication of truth in an artwork. It is possible for a work of art to exemplify a thing the artist doesn’t intend. Even so, it is useful to consider an artist’s intent when searching for what is being exemplified. As such, art should be generally judged according to its intended purpose. Abstract painting is exemplifying something different than Roman statues and should not be expected to communicate truth in the same way.
In simple terms, successful art is that which is able to communicate truth. To further establish the success of an artwork it is helpful to look at the truth that is being revealed. Some truths are more meaningful than others. Truths about human nature might be more meaningful than the truth of orange paint for example. Sometimes the truth is deep and often the artwork that leads us to it requires a greater amount of exertion on our part to perceive it. Other times the truth is particularly profound, such as religious truths. In these cases it can be difficult for the artist to communicate the truth in a way that the viewer feels like they are discovering the thing rather than having it forced upon them. Truths that are forced overtly can be seen as cliché, kitsch, or sentimental nonsense. In these instances there may be no art as the idea isn’t so much discovered as it is a stated and the statement may be nothing new. Artistotle said that man’s greatest pleasure is learning. I think the pleasure we receive when recognizing truth in an artwork is closely related to the pleasure of learning.
Goodman made an attempt to qualify the nature of what an artwork has to offer when he wrote about the five symptoms of the aesthetic. What I like from his attempt (although these aren't the terms in which he spoke of it) is simply the idea that artworks that convey greater truth (the exemplified element), whether in quantity or quality, are more successful. He claimed that artworks should not arrive at a cognitively empty experience. They should appeal to the understanding and not just to the senses. Some truths can seem so complex that we only glimpse them briefly. Occasionally these collapse when it is discovered there was no substance behind the complexity, but other times the experience of perceiving truth is enriched by the complexity. Matthew Ritchie is an example of an artist that works on this end of the spectrum. His concepts are often so complex as to be indecipherable, but the glimpse of truth that can be seen are consequently richer.
Continued in the next post...
Friday, March 23, 2012
#3 What Art Does and When Art Is
In this series I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming.
Martin Heidegger gives a compelling description of what art does. More accurately, he describes our response when we experience art. For Heidegger, the work of art is determined by your relationship to it and by the way you categorize the thing in your mind. As a phenomenologist, Heidegger describes the way that we perceive a work of art in contrast to the way that we perceive a piece of equipment. A piece of equipment or a tool is something that we don't think a lot about when it is functioning properly. If there is something about a piece of equipment that draws our attention outside of its intended use then generally that is viewed as a flaw, i.e. a hole in a sock. An artwork on the other hand is something that we consider in great depth. The work of art reveals something to us. In Heidegger's mind this revelation or unconcealing constitutes truth and thus the object is a work of art when it is communicating truth. (Throughout this paper when I use the word truth I am using it in this sense. Truth is the coming-to-light of a thing. It is an unconcealing. I am not referring to absolute truth in the religious sense.) Artworks change our perception of how things are, if only slightly. Later, Goodman adds a little to this idea by pointing out that a thing could function as a work of art at some times and not at others. This prompts the question “When is art?” as opposed to “What is art?” I find that an illustration of this idea is helpful.
If I came upon Duchamp's Fountain in a men's restroom I would never give it a second thought. It would be functioning as a piece of equipment. But if something happened to the urinal to make me consider it as a work of art then that could change. Potentially all that would need to occur is for that urinal to be placed in an art gallery and be signed by an artist or given a title. At that point I would begin to wonder why it was in the gallery. I might consider the form of the urinal and the delicate shadows that play on its surface. I might think about the urinal on a pedestal and the metaphor that follows. I might begin to wonder if the urinal could possibly be a work of art and what it would mean to the world of art if it was. At this point there is some kind of revealing or unconcealing that is occurring. In this way the object is functioning for me as a work of art and not as a piece of equipment (although I have not made the claim that it is a good work of art). Alternately, I could take a painting out of a gallery and use the canvas as flooring in a tree house. The flooring that had previously been art would be unlikely to function as art in that context.
This idea of art is one that rings true for me. When I am in the right frame of mind and am able to stand before an artwork I have had experiences similar to what has been described, that is the perception of a revealed truth. I have also passed by an artwork hanging on a wall fifty times without giving it a second glance. Surely it served no higher purpose than decoration at those times. This experience of art is not only limited to the visual arts. I have had these kind of moments while reading poetry or listening to music. I like to think that at those moments when something is revealed that I am experiencing art. This answers many questions I have had about art and its purpose. It makes sense to me now that most people don't want something that I would consider to be great art hanging on their wall all the time. They don't want to have that kind of interaction with the art object regularly, and often the kind of work I appreciate doesn't serve well as decoration. So people will often prefer a work of art that doesn't require effort on their part, something that will decorate their home and match their couch. These objects will most likely be functioning as a decoration tool for the overwhelming majority of the time and as such will not be functioning as art. Even if I hang something I consider to be a great work of art on my wall it would only function as art for a minority of its time there. Much of the time it would go unnoticed as life moved on around it.
In summary there are two major ways to think about the definition of art that are particularly useful. Art today is an artifact that fits in the narrative of the history of art and is recognized as art by the art world. More meaningfully, art is a thing that we consider that communicates truth in that it reveals something to us. The nature of the thing as art is not constant and a thing can function as art at some times and not at others.
Continued in the next post...
This idea of art is one that rings true for me. When I am in the right frame of mind and am able to stand before an artwork I have had experiences similar to what has been described, that is the perception of a revealed truth. I have also passed by an artwork hanging on a wall fifty times without giving it a second glance. Surely it served no higher purpose than decoration at those times. This experience of art is not only limited to the visual arts. I have had these kind of moments while reading poetry or listening to music. I like to think that at those moments when something is revealed that I am experiencing art. This answers many questions I have had about art and its purpose. It makes sense to me now that most people don't want something that I would consider to be great art hanging on their wall all the time. They don't want to have that kind of interaction with the art object regularly, and often the kind of work I appreciate doesn't serve well as decoration. So people will often prefer a work of art that doesn't require effort on their part, something that will decorate their home and match their couch. These objects will most likely be functioning as a decoration tool for the overwhelming majority of the time and as such will not be functioning as art. Even if I hang something I consider to be a great work of art on my wall it would only function as art for a minority of its time there. Much of the time it would go unnoticed as life moved on around it.
In summary there are two major ways to think about the definition of art that are particularly useful. Art today is an artifact that fits in the narrative of the history of art and is recognized as art by the art world. More meaningfully, art is a thing that we consider that communicates truth in that it reveals something to us. The nature of the thing as art is not constant and a thing can function as art at some times and not at others.
Continued in the next post...
Thursday, March 22, 2012
#2 - What Art Is Today
In this series of posts I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming. One post each day will continue the discussion.
I think the best description of the way art is viewed in contemporary culture is described by Noel Carroll, but the concepts were first fleshed out by Danto and Dickie. Danto and Dickie both arrived at definitions of art that include the important role that an art world plays. They both note that for the largest chronological portion of art history men were operating under the imitation theory of art. Basically art was seen to be an imitation of something else and better imitations made for better art. According to Danto the sub-theories that make up imitation theory gave way to a reality theory under which artworks are viewed as new realities themselves rather than being copies of something else. This makes sense to my mind and I consider each work of art I make to be a new creation that often references other things that exist, but does so in a new way and is certainly not simply copying. It seems to me that even photography includes a selective process, a framing, and a recontextualization that makes its subjects into a two dimensional new reality. The subsequent popular idea (cited by Carroll and Dickie as coming from Weitz) that art has no specific conditions and cannot be defined is completely unacceptable to my mind. Surely the lack of some defining characteristics to a word limits its linguistic value. The concept effectively turns art into a meaningless joke.
Carroll and Dickie were able to give a definition that allows for new art forms to be added to the idea of art and thus does not limit the creativity and innovation that must necessarily be a part of art’s description. Carroll successfully described art as a cultural practice. I especially like his description of the way the theater has evolved as a cultural practice in which the actors and the audience both understand their roles and their relationship to the stage. I agree that art is a cultural practice. It then makes sense that those who are familiar with the practice would have the ability to determine what can or cannot be a part of the practice. This group is simply called “the art world.” It is made up of the many individuals that involve themselves with art. This would include artists, art collectors, critics, and museum curators among others. Because art is a cultural practice it is not surprising to see that some people are more influential than others at discussing and defining or introducing new concepts and that there are necessarily divisions among the various arts and styles.
Carroll’s description of the way new arts are introduced into the art world is logical. New art forms are compared against art forms that are already accepted in the canon of art through history. New forms can amplify, repeat, or repudiate ideas or forms that already exist. A member of the art world then would need to know something of the history of art to be able to make the comparison and accept or reject the new form. A narrative of the history of the cultural practice helps to describe why and how new art forms are indeed art. There is then an unlimited potential for innovation in a discipline that demands it. This idea makes so much sense to me because I have always found myself turning to the narrative of art history to describe surprising art concepts to those who scoff at them. It is important to note that this definition of art allows an artist to use any form that art has taken in known history. A painter could potentially paint representationally, abstractly, or make conceptual social references with a few words. There is a huge variety of art forms available to today’s artist under this theory. I agree with Carroll’s description of what art is today in our society. But although this definition helps me understand the view of art today, it doesn’t do much to help me form judgments of artworks, nor does it tell me why art should be important as anything more than a history lesson. To do that it is important to understand how art works or what art does.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
"What Art Is" #1- Clarifying the Scope
In this series of posts I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming. One post each day will continue the discussion.
Part 1: What is Art?
Arthur Danto said that coming up with a definition for a concept is really just trying to find words to express what we already know. We are already masters of the language and know what the word means. But Danto points out that it has become different with art. People don't fully understand the word and all that it implies. To describe my position on the definition of art I first need to make a distinction between the various uses of the word. George Dickie explained three different “senses” of a work of art. When we use the word in an evaluative sense we are doing so because there is an excellence in construction, craft, or beauty that begs the title “art.” Thus the turkey at Thanksgiving is “a work of art.” Next is the derivative sense. This is when an object exhibits some quality or other that we expect to find in artworks. In this way a beautiful landscape or sunset might be labeled “art.” According to Dickie, the last sense in which we evaluate a work of art is the classificatory sense. In this case we label something as actually being “art”. It is this classificatory sense of art that I am concerned with defining.
There is a second distinction that is important for our definition, namely the difference between fine and applied arts or crafts. At the time of Plato and Aristotle there was no distinction between the two, but in the present day they have become separate ideas. The difference will become obvious as I state my position, but here at the outset let me just say that generally an applied art or craft is created primarily for its utilitarian use. This could serve purposes ranging from house construction to the illustration of medical textbooks. A work of fine art is created with some other discovery in mind. This could be a search for beauty, truth, self expression, or something else. Generally, money would not be the primary motivation for creating fine art (though surely my definition will include cases where that has occurred). There is probably a large gray-area in between the fine and applied arts that is frequently crossed by artists or even artworks.
Now that I have limited my search for a definition to fine art in the classificatory sense I will describe two different definitions that have been suggested for art with which I am sympathetic. The first definition is useful in describing the way art is viewed in our contemporary world. The second definition is useful for describing art in terms of what it does. I find both definitions to be important.
Continued in the next post.
Part 1: What is Art?
Arthur Danto said that coming up with a definition for a concept is really just trying to find words to express what we already know. We are already masters of the language and know what the word means. But Danto points out that it has become different with art. People don't fully understand the word and all that it implies. To describe my position on the definition of art I first need to make a distinction between the various uses of the word. George Dickie explained three different “senses” of a work of art. When we use the word in an evaluative sense we are doing so because there is an excellence in construction, craft, or beauty that begs the title “art.” Thus the turkey at Thanksgiving is “a work of art.” Next is the derivative sense. This is when an object exhibits some quality or other that we expect to find in artworks. In this way a beautiful landscape or sunset might be labeled “art.” According to Dickie, the last sense in which we evaluate a work of art is the classificatory sense. In this case we label something as actually being “art”. It is this classificatory sense of art that I am concerned with defining.
There is a second distinction that is important for our definition, namely the difference between fine and applied arts or crafts. At the time of Plato and Aristotle there was no distinction between the two, but in the present day they have become separate ideas. The difference will become obvious as I state my position, but here at the outset let me just say that generally an applied art or craft is created primarily for its utilitarian use. This could serve purposes ranging from house construction to the illustration of medical textbooks. A work of fine art is created with some other discovery in mind. This could be a search for beauty, truth, self expression, or something else. Generally, money would not be the primary motivation for creating fine art (though surely my definition will include cases where that has occurred). There is probably a large gray-area in between the fine and applied arts that is frequently crossed by artists or even artworks.
Now that I have limited my search for a definition to fine art in the classificatory sense I will describe two different definitions that have been suggested for art with which I am sympathetic. The first definition is useful in describing the way art is viewed in our contemporary world. The second definition is useful for describing art in terms of what it does. I find both definitions to be important.
Continued in the next post.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Outliers: The Matthew Effect
In our society we tend to believe that successful people earned the success through hard work. Malcolm Gladwell makes the argument that there are many other factors that are often significant. One place this can be easily seen is in sports. In Canada there is an uneven distribution of birth months among professional hockey players. When it comes to the best of the best, most hockey players are born in the first half of the year and the last quarter of the year is very poorly represented. The conclusion has been drawn that the phenomenon is connected to the age cutoff date for junior hockey players (Jan. 1st). Gladwell says that kids born early in the year are often significantly more physically mature than those born later. The eleven month difference between January and December is a big deal when your ten. The mature kids get recognition. They are invited to play in advanced leagues where they have more access to hockey rinks and better coaching. Then they really do improve until they are the best.
This same pattern repeats in other sports in other places. It repeats in education. Students are more likely to get into college if they were older in their school year. I am one of the many people who just sort of thought that the difference evens out over time. I see now that people are being influenced to a great degree by the structures we impose on them. Is it possible that some of the greatest artistic talents of our schools are lost because they haven't had the opportunities that others enjoy? How does the hierarchical organization of art classes affect who ends up excelling? What opportunities and attention do I give to students that further entrench perceived differences in skill level?
This same pattern repeats in other sports in other places. It repeats in education. Students are more likely to get into college if they were older in their school year. I am one of the many people who just sort of thought that the difference evens out over time. I see now that people are being influenced to a great degree by the structures we impose on them. Is it possible that some of the greatest artistic talents of our schools are lost because they haven't had the opportunities that others enjoy? How does the hierarchical organization of art classes affect who ends up excelling? What opportunities and attention do I give to students that further entrench perceived differences in skill level?
Monday, March 12, 2012
Wasteland
Photo by Vik Muniz
Katy and I just watched the documentary Wasteland. It's about a contemporary artist named Vik Muniz who is famous for recreating famous paintings out of unusual materials. He might use green army men or chocolate syrup to get his values and then photograph the installation from above.
The documentary follows Muniz as he engages in a new series of work. He travels back to Brazil and goes to the largest landfill in the world. At this landfill people called "pickers" search through piles of refuse for recyclable materials which they collect in barrels that they drag behind them. These are the honorable poor- those with no better employment who are unwilling to enter into a life of prostitution or drug trafficking.
The artist gets to know a few of these pickers. It was eye opening to see their lives and the pride they take in work many would consider lowly. Eventually he orchestrates the creation of huge portraits of the pickers themselves (see above). The pickers place their recyclable materials in patterns on the floor of a warehouse to create the images. Muniz photographs them with a large format camera from above.
In the end he is able to sell the work around the world and give some $250,000 back to the pickers. Contemporary art is often about much more than pigments smeared on canvas. Art addresses social issues, confronts problems, educates viewers and changes individual's worlds.
Bonuses Make You Worse
I'm currently reading Drive by Daniel Pink. Citing many studies, Pink makes the argument that rewarding achievement doesn't always improve achievement. He says it only works when tasks are simple and straightforward. If a task is creative or requires a high level of problem solving then performance can be reduced. Paying a bonus for quickly digging a hole will help. Paying a bonus for quickly painting a painting will hinder.
This interests me as an art teacher. What am I supposed to do with grades? Surely I can grade mechanical skill and technical merit (You colored in the lines!). But the creative side of art that is its true value may be something that shouldn't be assessed. That's not surprising to me since my grading rubrics never include "creativity" as a category. The problem is that students focus too much on shading in the lines since that's what will get them an 'A' and that's why they came to school this morning anyway. Huh.
This interests me as an art teacher. What am I supposed to do with grades? Surely I can grade mechanical skill and technical merit (You colored in the lines!). But the creative side of art that is its true value may be something that shouldn't be assessed. That's not surprising to me since my grading rubrics never include "creativity" as a category. The problem is that students focus too much on shading in the lines since that's what will get them an 'A' and that's why they came to school this morning anyway. Huh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
