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…