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.