Response to Mary Marcil: Art

My very last blog of my freshman year goes to the fantabulously scrumptulescent Mary Marcil, who asks: Will there be a point in which art ceases to grow?

Since art is created by humans, it will keep changing as long as humans keep changing. With every new historical event, new art forms are created--like when exiled Jewish artists wanted to find a way to portray the horror of the Holocaust. With every new decade, styles and art forms change--like with the creation of pop art. Humans as a species are perpetually developing new ideas, materials, interests, and perspectives. This makes art an ever-fluid and changing thing.

I do not believe humans will ever stop changing and developing. History teaches us otherwise. Even with every old style or fad that makes a come-back in our culture today, there are hundreds of new styles and fads. As a result, art will never stop changing and developing.

So, to answer Mary's question, I think the only point in which art will cease to grow will be when humans cease to populate the earth. Until then, it will not stop growing. I'm glad, though. I think it's a beautiful, wonderful thing. :)

Question in response (even though nobody will answer it because it's the last blog): What time period do you think had the most inspiring visual art?

So this Drag Queen Came to School...

She was performing at B-GLAD's 2010 Drag Dance. I went with a bunch of friends, not really knowing what to expect. I had never seen a drag queen up close. I mean, I've watched RENT a million times and love the character of Angel. Also, when I was living in Austin, Texas there was this guy named Leslie who was almost like a tourist attraction. Everyone knew him and joked about him and such. He would often walk down the street in leopard-print bikinis and other ridiculous outfits of the sort. I had never met him myself, though; I had only seen him in passing.

Anyway, Miss Sherry Vine is a New York City drag queen, and she was fabulous to watch and hang out with. She was at the drag dance to sing some parodies she had written. There were many of them that were redone Lady Gaga songs and then some Broadway tunes, with a few others mixed in. She was really funny and I enjoyed her performance, but lately I've been wondering...

People who write/perform parodies definitely have a certain level of artistic creativity. However, they are just redoing other people's songs. I suppose they should receive some credit, yes, but I think most of the credit should go to the original artist.

THAT train of thought got me thinking about cover bands--bands that just play other people's songs and add a few twists of their own. For instance, many modern punk-rock bands will redo songs of other genres and just make them a little edgier. I began to wonder if those people could really be considered artists and awarded credit.

Question: How much credit do you think parody performers and cover bands should receive, respectively? Can they be considered artists?

Glass-Blowing Blows my Mind

Glass-blowing is a very intricate process which involves taking a molten piece of glass and administering a small amount of air to it in order to inflate and expand it. This creates, essentially, a glass bubble which hardens as the glass cools down. The people blowing the glass--called glass-smiths--can shape and layer the glass by applying different amounts of air to different thicknesses of molten glass. Once cooled, they can then add color by either dyeing or painting the glass.

The above process is used to make many things, including sculptures, bowls, vases, beads, pipes and other pieces (yeah, I went there), and so much more. Each glass-smith has unique styles and techniques for blowing glass, and I find the process and the products fascinating. I definitely believe there is an artist element involved.

One thing we discussed in class is the difference between art and craft. We agreed as a group that things such as knitting and making oriental rugs were crafts--not art--because the products had a practical use and were not just meant to provide aesthetic beauty. The products of glass-blowing are definitely beautiful pieces, but many of them also have a practical use, as well.

Therefore, my question: Would you consider glass-blowing an art or a craft? Why?

Response to Marek Krawczyk: Dead in the Water

Marek asked, What's an instance of an art where the author or creator takes all the credit?

While Marek brought up a good point in his blog--that there are many forms of art that require collaboration and a distribution of credit--there are still many instances where there is one sole contributor of creative ideas, talents, skills, etc. Some artists work with others to complete a project, yes, and there are some art forms that simply cannot be completed without multiple people coming together to create the final project (for example, the majority of movies and theatrical performances). However, there are several artists in the world who choose to work alone.

I believe literary authors to be the best example of artists who take all the credit for their work. I exclude non-fiction from this group, as non-fiction works are often written by more than one author and I do not believe writing non-fiction is an art anyway; it is simply a retelling of facts. Many fiction writers and poets, however, compose books upon books of their own work without help from others.

Another example of artists who deserve all the credit for their work are those musicians who write, sing, and play their own music. While this is certainly a diminishing group of people in this day and age (thanks to technology and other factors that enable people of lesser talent to receive equal praise and adoration), there are definitely still people who can accomplish this feat. Chase Coy, for example, writes his own songs, sings his own lyrics, accompanies himself on the guitar, and--at 17 years of age--one was of the biggest self-produced artists on the rise. I would definitely say that he deserves all the credit for his work and then some, and there are plenty of other music artists like him in the world.

My question in response is this: Do you think it takes more effort to collaborate on a project with other artists, or to work individually to create something? Why?

Response to Skyla Seamans: Mirror Mirror on the Wall

Skyla asked, In what ways are mirrors revealers of the truth and is art just a mirror of nature, in your opinion?

Mirrors can reveal things to you that you would not have been able to see before. We would never know what we look like, for instance, without the use of mirrors. Furthermore, you can angle them to show you a new view of something that you had not been able to experience previously. Lastly, something in a mirror's reflection might catch your eye--a little detail you had not noticed yet.

Despite believing that mirrors can reveal the truth, however, I do not view art as a mirror of nature. Yes, a painted landscape resembles what the artist was viewing at the time of painting it, but it does not reflect it exactly. Even if an artist sets out to recreate something they see in nature exactly as they see it in nature, it will be different than that original scene. Every human is a unique person with his or her own individual perspectives, and the artwork that a person creates reflects this. There will be tiny discrepancies and nuances that reflect the artist as a person or their perspective.

While art can certainly be a good representation of a natural scene, it will never reflect it perfectly. Despite this, it can still open up a whole new world for the viewer and give them access to places and things they could not or have not experienced otherwise.

My question in response is: Why do you think artists find it necessary to capture scenes in nature? What is the benefit of recreating a natural scene?

Artistic Drugs Part One: The Viewer on Drugs

In my last post, I addressed the issue of artistic creators who were under the influence of drugs such as marijuana, LSD, etc. In this blog, I would like to discuss the viewer on drugs--the observer of artistic creations. After all, there are many people who go to concerts or art exhibits while they are in not-so-sober states.

If you researched drugs such as hallucinogens, you would find out that they have some interesting sensory side-effects. All of the most common hallucinogens--marijuana, magic mushrooms, and LSD--create differences in visual and auditory inputs. That is to say, when one is on these drugs, the things one is viewing appear more detailed, more colorful, and slightly to wildly warped (depending on the dosage of the drug). Sounds seem louder, more intense, and one will occasionally experience synesthesia; the sounds that are being heard manifest themselves visually (you can "see" the music you are hearing).

Hallucinogens are especially prevalent in the live music scene. People attending live concerts often do so while on some sort of drug. This creates a more intense experience; people feel the music deep in their bodies, and feel a deeper connection to it. People will also use drugs before going to movies, art exhibits, the theatre. It is believed that this leads to a deeper appreciation for the art people are seeing or hearing.

My question is: Do you think people who are under the influence while viewing a piece would still appreciate it in the same way if they were not drugged? Would they still be as moved?

Response to Aditi Kaji: Tragedy & Art

Aditi asked the following: Do you believe that artwork that depicts these things [conflict, depression, tragedy] is most effective? Is this perhaps why there is so much of it? Do you think art can exist without tragedy?

I am going to address these questions one at a time--though not in the original order (sorry if this bugs the OCD reader). I have to say that I am not sure if Aditi was asking if non-tragic works of art can exist, or if he is asking if art can exist without tragedy generally in the world. With regards to the latter, I do think that art works can exist without containing tragedy. We see this in every beautiful painting of a sunrise and every picture of happy smiling couples. I do not think, however, that such pieces could exist if there was no tragedy in the world. We need to have bad times in order to appreciate good times. Likewise, we need tragedy in the world so that we can look upon a painting of a dew-covered rose and think, "Wow. That is so beautiful."

I believe that artwork that depicts conflict or depression or tragedy can be more effective than other scenes of different natures--but it is not always. Negative emotions are easier to convey, just like it is easier to be unhappy with your circumstances than it is to be happy about them. Furthermore, people tend to have an easier time relating to such darker feelings.

As for why darker themes are more prevalent in art than lighter ones, I attribute this to a few reasons. First of all, darker depictions tend to receive more attention since, as Aditi said in his blog, it is human nature to revel over the morbid. Also, many people use art as an outlet for their emotions when they are having trouble coping or expressing themselves and it is less likely that happiness is what they cannot cope with, as opposed sadness.

My question in response is: Do you find yourself more affected by art depicting darker scenes or art depicting happier scenes?