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?

Artistic Drugs Part One: The Artist on Drugs

I brought up in my last post The Beatles and their drug habits. I wanted to expound upon this topic this week. After all, there are many artists in history who have been under the influence while creating magnificent artwork. Such artists include musicians, authors, painters, actors, etc. No field of art is untouched by the influence of drugs.

The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix all did hallucinogens such as marijuana, LSD, and magic mushrooms. Many beat poets such as Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac were also under the influence of marijuana. True, that was in the hippie generation of the 60s and 70s, and who didn't do some drugs then? What about today? The lead singer of Fall Out Boy confesses to frequent drug use, I've lost track of how many times Snoop Dogg has been arrested for possession, and there are photographs of Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz sharing joints. Clearly the artist on drugs is not a thing of the past.

Another thing to consider is that drug use is no longer such a taboo subject within the arts. The movie Pineapple Express was a huge box-office hit, and it is about a stoner and his dealer. When asked how he came up with the idea, writer and leading actor Seth Rogan answers that he got really high and started writing. This is a far cry from the times when drug use in movies was used purely as a warning of the peril drugs may lead to.

I do not think anyone can deny that drugs such as marijuana and LSD lead to increased creativity and have contributed to some great artistic works. The artist on drugs seems to be able to open their mind and let ideas flow more freely. My question to you all is this: Does the fact that an artist created his or her work while under the influence make the artist any less talented?

Response to Andrew Roiter: Ethical Dilemmas Degrading Art

Andrew asked, Is it morally right to separate an artist from his work if we find the artist's own morals questionable?

I would say that an artists' morals should not affect how we view their art. If one sees a painting and is filled with awe at its beauty, why would it become less beautiful if just because you found out something undesirable about the person who created it? For instance, The Beatles--one of the most popular bands of all time, if not the most popular--were under the influence of drugs while writing many of their songs. Despite that, many people who are anti-drug listen to their music because the message and and talent within the songs is so awesome that it doesn't matter to them what habits the artists had. Van Gogh was literally insane and cut off his ear, but he is also regarded as an influential and talented painter.

I will say as well, though, that it is possible for information about the artist to can cause a change in one's interpretation of the artwork, which can change one's opinion about it. I know that sounds a little convoluted, but don't worry--I will explain. Say, for instance, you saw and ancient Egyptian wall painting of a man holding a baby. You might look at it and think, "Wow, that's really cool." Then you find out that the painting was done by a man in support of killing Jewish infants by throwing them to crocodiles. Suddenly the you see the painting in a new light, and do not think it is as cool anymore.

My question in response is this: Why do you think people have so much trouble setting aside their morals so they can appreciate art? This seems to be a problem that has been present for centuries.

Simon Cowell: Art Critic or Asshole?

Simon Cowell is a big name in the music business. He is a television producer/music executive who owns a television and music production house, and is active on many well-known television shows. He is known for his blunt criticism as a judge on talent shows such as American Idol and Britain’s Got Talent. Many such criticisms have shocked and astounded both those receiving them and the viewers at home, and some insults have even caused tears and tantrums. In short, Simon Cowell is infamous.

Cowell has been critiquing aspiring artists for years now—whether that means dashing their hopes against the sharp pointed tips of his wit or handing them that golden ticket to Hollywood. We all know that music/singing is an art form and since he is critiquing such things, that makes him an art critic, right? But then again, he rarely gives any reasons for the judgments he passes; he just insults people. Further more, what really qualifies him to pass such judgments, and he is not really doing it for art’s sake—he is doing it because it is how he makes money.

So here is my question: Is Simon Cowell an art critic or just a wealthy asshole?

Response to Katherine Marchand: Qualities of an Art Critic

Katherine asked the question, Do people benefit from reading art reviews from critics who may have different tastes than themselves?

I think definitely believe that people could have a lot to gain by reading art reviews--both from people who have similar tastes and those who have different tastes. Before I took Great Monuments of Art last semester with Laura Thompson, this would not have been the case. I would have said, "Why do I need someone else to tell me about the painting I'm looking at right in front of me?" Now, though, I realize the importance of considering other views.

When I was in Great Monuments of Art, Professor Thompson would put an image on the projector and we would study it. She would then ask us what we saw. Every single time, somebody would notice something I didn't or interpret a detail in a different way than I did. This made me think about the artworks in new and different ways, and allowed me to learn that much more about them.

The same concept applies to other types of art, as well. When you watch a dance performance, you may interpret the dancer's emotions and movements differently than the person sitting next to you. Another listener may hear a different message in the song playing on the radio. We are all unique beings with our own points of view, and there is nothing wrong with sharing and learning with each other.

My question is response is: Do you find it easy to consider a point of view different from your own with regards to art? Why or why not?

Phallic Symbols in Architecture

Now I know some of you may not think that architecture is art. However, we studied such things in my art history class last semester, and I therefore considered it an art form. If you disagree, feel free to write a blog debating against me. The subject of THIS blog, though, is not whether or not it’s art; it’s about the phallic symbols within that art.

For thousands of years, buildings and statues have been created in the shape of an obelisk—the phallic symbol of the Egyptian Sun God, Osiris. Essentially, they look like giant penises (peni?). I included a picture of some examples. From left to right, the buildings are the Washington Monument in D.C., the Place de Concorde in Paris, and the Eifel Tower.

These buildings are symbolic of power and strength. It is almost like somebody was compensating for something. The bigger the phallus, the more potent your power is, I guess? To me this seems utterly ridiculous, since the vagina is much more powerful than the penis. After all, vaginas expand and contract to produce life itself, where as a penis is so puny it can get bent in half or broken just from one wrong move.

My question to everyone is this, Why are we not commemorating the female body in our architecture? I mean, the closest we get is half-naked women on the prows of ships…

Response to Jillian Covey: Significant or Irrelevant?

Jillian asked, Do you think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art?

Let's review some of the definitions of art we've come up with as a class. We spoke of intentionality--the intent to create art. Art that is created because of an assignment definitely falls into this category. Even if your intention is to create a piece of art to get a good grade, you still have the intention to create art.

Another definition of art we explored in class is the conveyance of an emotion. Even if the student in the class does not put much effort into his work of art, chances are he will still convey an emotion. Whether he actually feels that emotion while creating it, or it is just the viewer of the piece who picks up on the emotion, the chance of a piece of artwork having no emotional content is slim.

All in all, I would definitely say that artwork created in a classroom setting counts as art.

Question in response: Do you think that forcing our children to take art classes (as many elementary and high schools do) creates in them an appreciation of art, or does it cause them to resent it?

Who Has the Right?

In the 1800's, there was a new fad sweeping through the cities of France. Artists picked up their brushes and easels and flocked to the countryside, where they spent days observing the beauty of nature and trying to capture it in their work. These artists would soon be the cause for an entirely new and different way of painting: Realism.

Up until this time period, artists painted historical events or classical themes. The idea of painting what you see in front of you--instead of what has been known to happen--was a new concept. It was also a concept that many people in the art world frowned upon. Artists such as Theodore Rousseau and Charles Daubigny were not allowed to exhibit their work in the French Salon, as decided by the jury who ran it.

Realism was an important step in the development of art as we know it. Not only was it important an beautiful in its own right, but it also brought about Impressionism. Such artists as Claude Monet were part of this movement--and were kept out of the Salon. These new forms of artwork were deemed by the jury as unacceptable.

Hundreds of years later, we appreciate the works of the realists and impressionists. There are very few people, after all, who have not heard of Monet. However, during the time period in which this was all taking place, these artists could not display their works.

My question to you all is this, Who has the right to determine what is or is not art, and who should decide what works are displayed in museums, galleries, etc?

Response to Lisa Diamond: Analyzing Art

Lisa asked the following question: Do you believe that modern art is becoming more and more abstract, and therefore harder to interpret, or are art-viewers just getting lazier at piecing together the meaning behind a painting?

I believe it is true that modern art is getting more abstract as time goes on. There are, for instance, many more museums dedicated to modern art now than there were ten or twenty years ago. I also believe that, yes, some people have a harder time interpreting modern art. However, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with how lazy they are.

People's minds are not uniform; they work in different ways. The right side of your brain is the creative side, while the left side is more analytical. People tend to have either a stronger right side or a stronger left side (we learned all of this in psychology). This would affect the way people might interpret a painting.

Here's an example of how the strengths of the different sides of the brain can affect things. Most people are better at either algebra or geometry. This is because algebra--which is mainly analytical problem solving--is highly concentrated in the left side. On the other hand, people who are bad at algebra might be good at geometry--which involves a lot of visual puzzles and patterns. This is a more right-brain function.

The same can apply to art. Someone who is more analytical might appreciate a painting that has different clear components that can be put together to form a picture--such as a landscape. On the other hand, someone who is better at geometry and has a stronger right hemisphere might be more appreciative of abstract art.

My question in response: How much thought should psychological processes be given when considering philosophical matters?

Discrepancies

In my art history class last semester, we studied a pair of paintings that I personally found very interesting. These two paintings were titled the same thing, Judith Beheading Holofernes. However, one was painted by a man named Caravaggio in 1599 and the other was painted by a woman named Gentileschi in 1612. I included both paintings in this blog. The first is Caravaggio's and the second is Gentileschi's.

The beheading of Holofernes by Judith is a Hebrew story. It is about a man (Holofernes) who takes the Jewish people as his prisoners. Judith--a young Jewish woman--steps up to the plate and saves her people by killing her captor. This story is referenced both in the Torah and the Bible.

When the viewer looks at the two paintings side-by-side, there are obviously some discrepancies. Yes, they are both beautifully painted, with good figure and details and colors. However, the painting by Gentileschi has a very different mood. While Caravaggio's Holofernes lays limp under the dagger, Gentileschi shows him struggling for his life. The Judith of Caravaggio's piece looks almost meek and mild--even standing far away. Gentileschi's Judith is clearly relishing her task, and is getting down and dirty with it.

The thing about the discrepancies is that they are explainable. Gentileschi did her painting shortly after being raped by a man, and many people attribute the brutality of the piece to this fact.

My question to you all is this: How can one possibly decide which painting is a better representation of the historical event? What factors must be taken into account?

Response to Andrew Roiter: Mixers, Remixers and the Like

Andrew asked, Do you believe that there is a certain point at which a song becomes a new song? If so is it possible to locate this point?

I do believe that remixes can be considered their own songs, as long as the artist who is remixing it adds their own part. For instance, if an artist made a song comprising solely of several parts of different songs they are not creating a song; they are merely splicing together other people's creations. So I guess that is the point at which I think a song becomes a new song--when a new element is added to it.

Let's take for example the song "Hide and Seek" by Imogen Heap. I'm sure some of you have never heard of it, and some of you would only recognize it if you heard it. It is a regretful song about good times passing. There is a part towards the end of it (about 2:50 minutes in) that goes like this:

Mmmm whatcha say,
Mmm that you only meant well?
Well of course you did.
Mmmm whatcha say,
Mmmm that it's all for the best?
Of course it is.
Mmmm whatcha say?
Mmmm that it's just what we need
You decided this.
Whatcha say?
Mmmm what did she say?

Recognize it? Most of you probably do recognize it as the chorus of Jason Derulo's new hit, "Whatcha Say." His song is all about cheating, but wanting to put it in the past and move on. It's much more upbeat. While the songs have similar themes, they are very different. One is slow and one is fast. One is about moving on, one is about sticking together. See what I mean?

The question I want to ask in response is this: Say there is a famous singer, but they do not write their own music. Who then is the artist--the writer or the singer?

Art as a Teaching Tool

I want to talk today about art as a teaching tool. There are many paintings that depict historical events and are used to teach about historical events. Perhaps one of the most famous examples is the painting, George Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze. I included in this post (at right) so that whoever is reading this may refer to it as necessary. Basically, it depicts the noble founding father crossing the Delaware River to go do battle with the hated Red Coats.

Many schools and textbooks use this painting as though it is an actual photograph of the event it depicts. I think this is a rather silly thing to do. First of all, this painting was done in 1851--almost 100 years after the actual crossing of the river took place. How would Leutze know what it looked like? Furthermore, is it really likely that Washington could stand in such a straight, proud position with an obviously turbulent trip happening around him? There are other things wrong with the portrayal, but I don't want to bore you or shove my opinions down your throat.

In addition, I'm sure the scene looked very different to those on the opposing team (the British).

My question to you all is this, Do you believe paintings should be used to teach about historical events? Why or why not?

Response to Mary Marcil's Response to Me

Mary answered my question, Do you think famous artists produce better or worse work because of the pressures on them to keep being great? She then ended her blog with the question,What is an artist to do once they have reached the peak of their performance and can no longer improve?

I had an amazing dance and theatre teacher in high school, Jim Raposa, who taught me several very important lessons. One of the lessons he taught was that artists can always improve. Always. I have to say, I agree with him.

I'm going to look at this based on each separate field of art. Dance, theatre, visual art, and literature.

DANCE

Even the best dancers can keep learning new moves and perfecting the old ones. They also keep training their bodies and making themselves a little stronger or a little more precise.

THEATRE

There are so many different schools of theatre that there is always something new to learn. In addition, it is always possible to delve deeper into your character and make a stronger connection with the audience.

VISUAL ART

Even Picasso and van Gogh recognized that they had to keep perfecting their technique. In addition, there are perpetually new techniques emerging for artists to experiment with. There are also always new things to paint or draw.

LITERATURE

What do you do when you finish writing a piece of literature? You reread it and improve it where you can. A writer might reword a sentence to make it clearer, or they might alter their storyline. Like visual arts, there is always something new to write about.

My question in response to Mary's question in response to my question is this: Should artists focus more on perfecting one technique or should they focus more on trying several different techniques?

So while I was walking the other day...

I went down Davenport Street, and there was a house painted butter-yellow with dark green trimming. It definitely stood out, and not necessarily in a good way. However, this blog is not about the house itself and whether or not it could be considered aesthetically pleasing. It is instead about the basketball hoop that was mounted above the garage of this house.

You see, the people who owned the house had painted the garage to match. On top of that, they had also painted the basketball hoop. The backboard was painted that same dark green color as it perched upon the yellow of the garage wall. I was a little shocked, as I have never seen someone go to that extent to match.

My question is this, Do you believe that painting the basketball hoop to match the house can be considered art? After all, the artist has an intention, and was obviously trying to achieve some sense of aesthetic beauty.

Posers?

I was watching an episode of Bones yesterday, and one of the characters was this artist who lived near the Navajo in New Mexico. He was a white guy whose art was "based on" Native American designs. Basically, he was copying the Indians. There were a lot of insults hurled at him by the other characters about his copy-cat ways and how it is not really his art.

I think Native American designs are beautiful, but part of the beauty is all the culture and history behind them. Because of this, I agreed with the other characters that this artist guy was a poser ripping off hundreds of years of tradition. Some white guy producing the same images just feels wrong and false. I mean, haven't the white dudes done enough to those poor people without creating facsimiles of their artwork?

So I guess my question is, Do you agree or disagree that the white artist is in the wrong for producing Native American-style art? Why or why not?

Response to Jillian Covey: Phreud and Phantasy

Before I begin answering Jillian's post I would like to say that I am mainly doing so because of her phantastic title. It caught my attention because I found it so humorous. I think it gives us all something to strive for in our titling of things. Also, I liked her question, which is as follows: Do you think that any sexual fantasies should be considered "wrong"? How do you define or support what should be considered inapropriate vs. what is acceptable?

I think very few sexual fantasies are actually morally wrong, if that's what is meant by "wrong." Everything is just a matter of preference. I know some people might argue that slapping/hitting/whipping/suffocating/other stuff of the sort is barbaric/inhumane/immoral/phucked-up/[insert your word here]. I feel, however, that if everyone consents to such things and it's what people enjoy, then it isn't wrong. After all, the same sort of things are involved in ultimate fighting and whatnot and nobody frowns on those guys. The only difference is that fighters aren't (usually) getting sexual pleasure out of being beaten up, and they are instead receiving money--like prostitutes. If pain is what excites people, then they should explore it with other like-minded people. As I said before, if everyone consents and it doesn't go too far (like to the point of hospitalization) then I don't have a problem with it.

On the other hand, because I think everyone should consent to sexual activities in order for it to be okay, I do not think bestiality is okay. Animals cannot consent, and therefore should not be involved in a person's sexual pleasure. Likewise, rape is bad--statutory rape included. If the person you are having sex with is too young to know what sex is, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

So I guess that's my quick overview of what is okay during sex and what is not. To round off my monologue I would like to say that we should all be open-minded and not judge what other people are into.

Oh, and as for "supporting" what I find acceptable vs. unacceptable...mostly I support it by doing it. :-p

Response to Jenna Haley: Experimentation

Jenna asked the following: Do you believe that art is a way for an artist to experiment with emotion in order to present how they personally are feeling or do you think an artist doesn’t necessarily have to show what they personally feel, they just show it the way they want the audience to feel?

I think a lot of this comes down to sell-outs who are only trying to make money and artists who create things because they love to. If the former is true, the artist will focus on meeting the audience's wants and needs. That way, they will make more money because more fans will enjoy their work. A good example of this would be the Harry Potter series. Maybe it's just me, but it seemed like the entire seventh book was just J.K. Rowling giving the fans what they wanted. Her characters ended up in the couples that everyone was rooting for, none of the characters we were especially devoted to died, and good conquered evil once and for all. You can also find this problem a lot in the music industry. Avril Lavigne's song "Girlfriend," for instance. It doesn't have particularly good lyrics or any deep meaning, and the music itself isn't that intricate or amazing. However, it's a catchy beat and a relatable theme, so it gets stuck in people's heads and they request it more frequently on the radio and purchase the song and whatnot.

On the other hand, people who are creating art because it's what they love to do and they want to express themselves do just that--they express themselves. Art is a reflection of an artists' emotions, and I believe the best pieces are ones that come from such circumstances. Someone who has a broken heart would sing much more powerfully about it than someone who has never experienced true love or a breakup. I think too often feelings are manufactured and produced instead of just being FELT. I mean, how many fricking 12-year-olds are going to keep coming on the radio and singing about losing the love of their life?

My question in response to this topic is: Do you think famous artists produce better or worse work because of the pressures on them to keep being great?

Animals and Art

I realize that Emily Follin already touched on this subject a bit, but I wanted to discuss animal art as my underground art form of the week. That being said, this is not really a response to Emily, so much as it is an add-on.

There are a couple animals who create art--and not just because it is instinctual or because they need a home. Elephants are handed paintbrushes and use their trunks to paint actual pictures on paper. They do this for no other reason than to create a painting. You're probably familiar with this if you read Emily's post. The paintings that the elephants create are exhibited in some places.

Emily mentioned in her post that, "Elephants have a much more complicated brain and are much closer to humans mentally." On that note, there is another animal that creates art that is even closer mentally to humans than elephants are. What is this artistic creature? The gorilla. There have been many studies done on gorillas and their ability to learn and do tasks that were once thought to too complex for any lifeforms but humans. Scientists are teaching them sign language, for instance, and communicating with them. They are also studying the gorillas' ability to create art. Like the elephant, the gorilla is handed a paintbrush and paper and they create pictures.

While the paintings animals are creating are nowhere near Picasso level right now, it is possible that they might get there. My question to you is this: If animals were able to create art that is as complex as a human's, do they deserve a place in our museums?

An Unconventional Canvas

Underground art form of the week? Body-painting.

For those of you who don't know me very well, I am deeply immersed in the hippie culture. My boyfriend was raised in "the scene" and has dreadlocks and his mother had seen the Grateful Dead live over 800 times before Jerry died. It is their entire life, and it's a big part of mine.

Because I live in the hippie world, I go to a lot of music festivals and shows. One thing that stands out about these shows that is different from most concerts is the abundance of naked people. There are women and men in various states of undress--whether they're just topless or went ahead and removed EVERYTHING.

A lot of the naked women at these shows will paint their bodies. You see intricate designs of flowers with a breast as the center and vines wrapping around her waist, or Dead-Bear heads smiling at you with nipples as their mouths. Things like that. Some of the designs are crude, some of them are beautiful.

I view this as a similar expression as tattoos, but less permanent. I think it's a great way to express yourself if you are comfortable enough to do it, and it sort of supports the older art forms in the sense that it emulates the beauty of the human form--like the statues of the Greeks or the paintings of nude women that you see hanging in museums.

My question to you all is this: Do you agree or disagree that it is an appropriate form of self-expression and how do you feel about nudity in art?

Response to Skyla Seamans: Mother Nature

Skyla wrote in her blog, "What aspect of nature (whether it be a tree, flowers, the sky) do you find most appealing to view as a piece of art work and why?"

My answer is the sky. I love taking photographs of rays shining through big fluffy clouds (see images). I think sunsets and sunrises are beautiful to look at in person, paintings, or pictures, as well. They are bursting with beautiful arrays of colors and are always unique. Furthermore, the sunsets and sunrises look different from every place you go.

There are many different mediums within the art world. One person might use watercolors to paint the sky, while another chooses to use chalk. The sky can be painted, photographed, sketched, etc. Therefore, my follow-up question is such: What medium do you think is best for creating a representation of the sky? When do you think would be the best time to create it (sunrise, midday, sunset, nighttime, etc)?

Graffiti?

As I mentioned in my blog about tattoos, my first couple of posts are being focused on more controversial artistic elements. This week's subject is graffiti as art.

From the murals of Diego Rivera and Grandma Moses to the tagging of buildings in New York City by gang members, graffiti is an art form that has always been questionable. Some people say that it is no more than vulgar vandalism, while others believe it is as legitimate as any other painting. In some instances--as with the gangs of New York City--it is punishable by law. In cases such as Grandma Moses, however, it is condoned.

To complicate matters further, some museums are now exhibiting "tagging" on their walls. Many graffiti artists are speaking out about their art, saying that it is another way to express oneself. In fact, some graffiti artists are actually becoming legitimately famous for their work.

My question to you all is this: Do you consider graffiti a legitimate art form? Where does the line get drawn?

Response to Matthew Visser: Art the Immitation

Matthew asked the following series of questions: If art is just an imitation then why do we need art and not the real thing? What is the significance of even having art if it is just an imitation of something that we can have in real life like a chair? Whats the point of having a painting of a chair instead of the actual chair?

True, art is an imitation in some cases. In other cases, though, it is not an imitation. Some artists create entirely new images instead of painting things that already exist. I included an example of such a painting to the right. It is called "Hell of the Birds" and it was painted by the Jewish artist Max Beckmann. I seriously doubt any of you have seen anything like that in real life. This is part of the reason we need art--because art allows people to create spectacular images that no one has ever witnessed before.

On the other hand, there is a lot of art that is imitation. Landscapes and still life paintings, for instance. What reason do humans have for these works of art? There are two reasons, actually. The first is that these images can show us things we've never seen before. Although a person knows mountains exist, he may never have seen one. He therefore may want to view a picture or painting of a mountain. Like books, paintings can take us places we've never been.

The other reason that we need imitation art is because human beings are individuals with different views, feelings, and perspectives. If five artists set up their easels in a room and are instructed to paint a chair that is standing in the middle, they will all paint different paintings. The images they create will be different based on their feelings, perspectives, and mediums.

My question in response is as follows: What sort of feelings did the picture I posted here evoke for you? What do you think the artists' intention was?

REsponse to Jenna Haley: Rumors

In her blog, Rumors, Jenna asked: Do you think people believe a statement to be true solely because of who is saying it? Does their decision making depend on the popularity of the person saying it and/or where the statement derives from?

I think there is some truth to the theory that a person will believe a statement to be true depending on who is saying it. However, I do not think it is based on the popularity of the person who is making the statement. I believe it is based both on how much trust exists between the two people and how knowledgeable the person making the statement is on the matter.

For instance, say somebody you don't get along with tells you a juicy piece of gossip about people you're not very close to. "Andy slept with Kristen," they might share with you. You don't really know Andy or Kristen well enough to know if that's true, but know Kristen has a boyfriend who she is very in love with. "No way," you say to yourself. "That would never happen." You reject the gossip as nothing more that a false rumor and the person who imparted the information as nothing more than a twit.

Later, your best friend comes up to you and delivers the same news. "Did you hear that Andy and Kristen slept together?!" she squeals. This makes you start to question the information. Maybe they did sleep together after all? Your best friend certainly wouldn't lead you astray. However, she really isn't that close to Andy or Kristen either. "How do you know?" you ask her, still unsure what to believe. She tells you that she got the information from Julie, Kristen's best friend. It must be true, then, right?

After dinner you spot Julie outside and go over to her. You ask if the rumor you've heard is true, and she confirms that it is. At this point, you finally believe it. After all, Julie is Kristen's best friend, so she would know.

My question in response to this is, What do you believe is the best course of action if people are spreading a rumor about you that is not true?

First Blog of the Semester!

Are you excited? I know I am. Let's begin!

I've decided to cover some more underground art forms in my first couple of blogs, so on that note...today's topic is: body modifications.

I personally have two tattoos, multiple piercings in my ears, an eyebrow ring, and a nose stud. I view these body modifications as a form of self-expression. I know many people feel the same way and believe that tattoos are also a form of art. On the flip side, there are many people who believe such things are a way of defacing the human body and are not a proper outlet for artistic ability.

Let's look at this from both sides. On the one hand, tattooists are called "artists" for a reason. Being a tattoo artist takes a lot of skill, practice, and focus. They (usually...) create beautiful, intricate images--which are called "flash art." When those images on transferred onto skin, they become "body art." The person being tattooed is a canvas, the tattooist is an artist, and the tattoo gun is the equivalent of a paintbrush (just more painful). Is it not safe to say, then, that tattoos are art?

On the other hand, tattooing is a painful process involving the permanent alteration of a person's body. Unlike a painting or drawing--which can just be torn up or thrown away--there is no easy way to get rid of a tattoo. Many people end up regretting their decision to get one--whether it's years after a rambunctious teenage decision or the day after making a rambunctious drunken decision. Because of these factors, some people insist that tattooing sh0uld not be used as a form of artistic expression.

My question to you all is this: Do you believe that tattoos should be considered art, and would you ever get one?