Emotional Connection

We discussed in class today the connection between a persons emotions how this can effect what they decide or how they perform. Everyone has different emotions due to the life experiences that they have faced, this can play a role in how they may view something or perform as we discussed in class today. However to a certain degree I think that a choreographed routine is just that completely choreographed, the people in it may have somewhat different facial expressions but not much; they went through training and work to perform a piece that is matched and in unison. So therefore although everyone can experience different emotions I think that it is still possible for them to perform the same after working together. Do you agree with this idea, do you think that there is a possibility for people to perform synchronized although people have different emotions?

Fetish

Since we have begun to read about Piper we have discussed how certain works of art can suddenly become viewed as fetishes to us. Or perhaps they were a fetish to that particular person all along. Needless to say, that isn't the intention of art. It is meant to be enjoyed and respect the intent that the artist had. However for something to become a fetish is not quite a good idea because that is when it just because an obsession. Do you think that a fetish with art is ever a good thing?

Unique

Today in class we talked about a certain unique object being less rare or less unique as time goes on. I don't think that this is something that I agree with, while the initial appeal of its uniqueness may be gone but for instance if it were a "one of a kind" item then it would be unique for entirety, it would be unique to the owner and to all who see. The only difference is how comfortable we become with an object during a particular time which can change how we view the uniqueness of an object. Do you think that a work of art that is once viewed as not "unique" can suddenly become it?

"Status"

Today in class we addressed the subject of status when it comes to who determines what is art and where it should be placed. But who determines how these people acquire the status that they have received? Dickie calls the art world one of formality and uses words such as social institution, this only makes sense though considering that people of status are the only ones who choose the art that view, listen to or read. But once again I ask the question who chooses those people and do you think that this "status" description that Dickie talks of plays a negative role on the art world?

Imagination

Children have vivid imaginations and often can visualize something different than what an adult would see. However over time this imagination that many had can be interpreted differently or not even recognized. Leading to different interpretations of the same thing. The interpretation of something brings one back to the phrase that really it is all in the "eye of the beholder". Do you think that it is possible for adults to gain the imagination that children have? And therefore also gain their creativity?

Art?....

The beginning of the chapter on Danto starts off with the phrase "was there anything that could not be art?". Now not only are we trying to define what is art, but we are also trying to determine the certain parameters there are. This chapter used Andy Warhol as an example a lot and I think that was an excellent example because his art work does look like something that one could see in everyday life. So how do you determine the difference between art and real objects then?

Change

When we are confronted with change or things that are different people often become uncomfortable. Change is inevitable, people so often speak of evolving and that it is necessary but when we finally reach that final outcome that is what makes people uncomfortable. Change is needed though and we can't all be the same, it is necessary for there to be differences among people and and for some things to change. Do you think that there is no need for change?

Layers

Today we discussed Goodman's theory that the layers of an onion can be applied to the layers of the world. The layers are peeled away but there is actually no core. I think that this can be applied to people. When people first meet each other they generally don't tell everything about themselves. They slowly let out certain things little by little. However this is not to say that people are an empty core because that they are not, it is just to say that there are many layers Do you agree with this statement by comparing people to the onion statement, in terms that we also have many layers?

Ethical

When looking at art does one also apply an ethical viewpoint? Art can always be aesthetically appealing but if there is a message with it then one can question whether the piece is moral or immoral. So therefore does that mean that from now on we have to look at art and view it as both aesthetically and ethically appealing? Or can we just view art for art?

Critics

We spoke in the last couple of classes about what can be defined as a critic. Who can be determined to judge a particular work of art? After discussing this I think that in a way we are all critics in our own way, whenever we go to a museum and look at something, or listen to something, or read something. One is bound to criticize some of this. We contain our opinions and while we listen to the criticism of others for their opinions at times, this is not always correct. Do you think that every every critique on something is right just because someone told you so?

Opinion

Throughout our lives we are always told not to let the opinions of others to influence our decisions or even so far as to say be peer pressured. But really opinions play a huge role in society when it comes to art. Today in class we said that others opinions are what determine what is a great work of art or not. So if we don't let an opinion influence us then we will never know what is great or not, or according to what group. Even though throughout our lives we have been told to not be influenced by others, like many other things there are exceptions. Do you think that if an artist didn't find the opinion of their work of art it would be interpreted the same?

Descriptive

Art is descriptive, the artist intends to convey a meaning to the observer. Whether or not the observer receives the same message as the artist intended is questionable. For numerous classes we have been trying to define "art" but this is something that I think can't be defined. Art is something that is broad and can't be defined, but rather just something that is judged based on a more visual aspect. So therefore I don't think art can ever be defined, but I don't think it is meant to be because it is something that is meant to make us think. We are meant to go outside of our comfort zones and I think that some pieces of art do that. Do you think that art will ever be defined? Or do you think that it should be?

Characteristics

At the beginning of Weitz the differences in characteristics is addressed. This is particularly looked at through family portraits. I thought that this was interesting because so often people look for what is similar they don't look for what may be unique to an individual. While there can often be similarities, it is the differences that make something what it is. People aren't the same so art shouldn't be either. Do you agree with Weitz when he says that are evolves?

Experience

There are so many different things that can be classified as an experience, a walk on a nice day, a talk with a friend, viewing a painting, watching a movie. This is a broad viewpoint, so therefore I would suggest that it is from the observers perspective what is to be classified as an experience for them. For instance sometimes a talk with friend can be an experience (I didn't say it is always a good experience). So where do you determine which experiences are good and which are bad? Are you supposed to classify them as well because they are an experience all the same that will shape us into who we are.

Artist and Observer

How art is viewed through the perspective of the artist or the observer is a subject that we tend to keep returning to. An observer can often have many different ideas what something can be, some very off course than what the actual work of art is. In class today we discussed that we as observers often want to fill in any blanks ourselves, however this can distort a meaning. Therefore when possible it is best to get the artists interpretation. Do you think that misinterpretation of certain works of art primarily applies to abstract or do you think it can go into other categories as well?

Tired

Today in class we spoke of the possibility for one to get tired of a certain art form over time. This is a statement that I agree with. People change their mind about the types of music that they like to listen as they grow up or as music evolves. It only makes sense for someones opinion to change over time as they grow older because they are now seeing things from a different perspective than they did when they first heard, read or saw something. Do you think that it is possible for someone to be consistent in their feelings towards a particular piece of art though? Meaning not change the interpretation at all in the slightest.

Abstract Art

Abstract art is an art form that I have never really fully been able to grasp. After reading the chapter with Clive Bell I still don't fully think I have come to terms with it. But after class the other day I now better understand the importance of interpreting the meaning of what the artist had intended, especially considering that there is so much emotion put into such a piece of work. Like any piece of art there are many different ways to interpret it. I feel that abstract art leaves more space though for interpretation. Do you think abstract art or perhaps even art provides a lot of room for interpretation of the emotions and the meaning behind it?

Mood

When an artist creates a piece of art they may obviously be in a particular mood and this piece of artwork can depict that emotion. However if an observer were to go look at it when they were happy, sad or angry would this play into how they view the piece of art? I feel as though it would somewhat because our emotions sometimes cloud our thoughts and judgments. If someone were to go look at the same piece of art feeling one emotion one day and then go and look at the same piece feeling a different emotion another day I think they would view the piece from two different viewpoints. Do you agree with the idea the mood and emotion effect one's perception of art?

Generalizations

In class the other day we spoke of how much Freud used generalizations and was harsh towards women. While this is a statement that I do agree with. In today's society we have to take a step back and ask ourselves if any of us have ever not made a general assumption about someone. About someone's race, religion or anything else that may have shaped them into the person that stands before you. Because that person is who makes the art, not the generalizations. People often talk about a world where everything is equal and everybody is treated equally, do you think that this is the world we live in right now? And if not do you think that we will ever be successful at accomplishing that?

Presentation

I went to a restaurant the other day and the presentation of the food before me was beautiful, some may have considered it almost too beautiful to eat. But well I wouldn't go that far because I obviously wanted to enjoy the food presented in front of me as well. But it was spectacular looking, the garnishes, the layout was just so, the proportions. Can food be considered art? Where is the limit of what can and can't be considered art?

Communication

According to Tolstoy art is used as a form of communication. Considering the amount of emotion put behind a work of art this would make sense. However going back to our longstanding discussion of nature and art, does this mean that nature communicates something to us? A sunset is beautiful to me so therefore I think that is an expression of some form of art, or what about a vase of flowers they were intentionally placed that way and some consider it art. Is nature what Tolstoy had in mind when he spoke of art?

Beauty

When someone looks at a work of art and says that is "Beautiful". That phrase I believe is and always will be in the eye of the beholder. Because one person can look at something, going back to the blank canvas, and they can say that is beautiful art. Where as another person may look at it and simply its nothing it needs color. Everyone has a different interpretation of what is beautiful and therefore what should be considered art. Do you personally believe that beauty in the eye of the beholder? Or do you think that it is something more than this?

Utopia

People often speak of perfect society, or utopia, and what it would be like. In a society with no problems, nothing to make people sad or angry. All of this sounds good on paper but is very unrealistic. Our emotions and the experiences behind those emotions shape us into the people that we are. If we lived in a Utopian Society it would be like pressing the easy button. Life and the art around us would become boring it would all seem like we are just going through the motions. With all of this said and although I personally wouldn't want to live in a Utopian Society, would you? Do you think that there are any hidden benefits to living that way?

Emotions

Today in class we touched on the subject of how emotions can be related to art, some in a positive way and some in a negative way. The colors of a painting can show if the artist was angry or sad. However the person observing it may not feel the same way, for they may look at a painting that was intended to be bright and cheerful and it could make them sad. Everyone's interpretation of something is different, this isn't necessarily a bad thing though it gives different perspectives. But it just means that we may not always be looking at something with the same "emotion" as the artist had intended. Have you ever looked at something and you thought it carried one particular emotion, but then when you go back and look at it you realize something different about it?

Art

There are so many different subjects that can fall into the category of art. Then with this comes the subcategory for many of these. Photography is one of the more interesting of the list. Everything with photography is about capturing that one particular moment and doing so just right, and in order to do so the photographer has to be ready and quick. For if they don't capture it then it may never happen again for them to photograph it. Once a picture is taken then the image can also be distorted different ways into various colors. A photograph is truly art and the photographer the artist. Do you think that even candid pictures or family pictures can be viewed as art?

Knowledge

While there may be times when you can exhaust a certain subject. One can never have a reason to not continue learning anymore, for that is something that we should constantly be doing because the world around us is constantly changing. Do you agree with the statement that because the world is changing we should be increasing our knowledge? And if you you don't agree with this how do you know when is the proper time to stop "learning", I guess for better use of words?

"Seeing is Believing"

Throughout most of our lives many of us were taught that if you can see then it is real. Now as we grow older we come to learn that not all things are real, and that we can't believe everything we see. As children we latch onto ideas easily because someone simply has said it is that way, this could in fact be the complete opposite. Although seeing may not really be believing, for many it probably helps associate an idea the best way possible.