Response to Skyla

"Who is your favorite artist and why do you consider him or her as such?"

Hmm this question is a little hard. My current favorite artist is probably Mt Eden dubstep, a dj, and a composer of music. I have him in the number one spot right now because i can relate to his music. He uses the same software, and genre of music i do. His music to me is both inspiring and beautiful. Manipulation of sounds, and the flow of the song show that he is an expert in his field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZnpikoHNWw

here s a beautiful song by him.

ENJOY!

Response to Lisa

"Do you think that the human form is in itself a form of art? Why or why not?"

That question stirs so much to say in me!

Human form is a beautiful thing, and arguably the most beautiful form of them all. Its contours, make up, colour, fine detail, they re all breathtaking and amazing.

Although human form does not follow the necessary conditions for an art form. I like to think of human body as a canvas that can be changed into a work of art. Intentional creation of aesthetically pleasing beautiful alterations.

but by itself its just a white canvas, created solely by none other then the nature. We are not born to aesthetically please, our existence does not constrict us to become a display object.

Even though the body might be beautiful and have some sufficient conditions of a work of art, it fails to fulfill the necessary conditions and it fails as a work of art by itself.

My definition of art

I took this approach to attempt to define what has been previously undefined in the wider sense of the category.

Art is not a static study, revolutions in art happen very often, and often push the boundaries outside of our comfort zone.

Lets start with some few basic necessary conditions:

-Must be an artifact

-Created with intention of being aesthetically pleasing

-must be recognized, and appreciated by at least one person

In the previous few conditions of what are is we can make a crude definition.

Art is an object, (including music, prose, language, form, acting and etc) or action performed or created with intention of display, aesthetically it has bring up emotions or feelings, and it must be recognized at least by one person as an art object.

critical thinking and warternberg

As much as i appreciate the diversity of theories and philosophies on what is art, some of them are just pretty speech with no real backbone. The use grandiose words and form, to convince us about art being this mystical thing, that we will never fully experience.

For as long as i can remember in the art and philosophy class we tried to categorize art with other disciplines, we tried finding guidelines and outlines, but in the end nothing really made sense. No theories were completely right, although some of them were or are hugely popular.

I understand that each theory has its flaws, that should always be evaluated, but also we have to notice the defects, we cannot just take the authors word for what he says. Tolstoy said that art's purpose is to communicate a message, and feeling from an author to a viewer. Many people agree they feel they have received a message from the author, upon reading text from Tolstoy, but in actuality, we constantly feel something, we are human beings after all.

Therefore i am sorry to conclude that Warternberg brings us theories about art, and fantasies of mad men/women. Line can be drawn between magical connections, and worldly facts.

1. Why did Wartenberg include such phantasmal theories in his text?

2.Were the most unrealistic theories more popular then the realistic ones?(in a public meaning)

response to tylers "Artist or Illustrator"

I believe that Rockwell is not an illustrator, he has immense skill of copying down the fine details of the reality but he should not be punished for exceptional skills.

He does not portray just how the world is, he creates his own vision, and puts his own point of view into the paintings!

none of his paintings are mere copies, they portray perspective, vision, planning, and intention.

dead in the water

Who deserves the credit of the art, the dancer or the choreographer?

The painted model pretending to be a statue or the provisioner who planned it out?

Original writer of the play or the director expressing himself in the play or should it be the actors?

We have talked about this quite a bit in class, with mixed results. We couldn't draw or agree on a solid line who should get the credit.

In my opinion everyone should get credit because play would be incomplete with out its actors who are expressing themselves, the play wouldn't happen with out the new director, and it would never began if the original author didn't express himself in the first place.

every one who contributes to the piece is an artist. because they are not robots, the do not just do things exactly as they re told, people express themselves and put emotion, and intention into their actions.

so now you tell me

whats the instance of an art where the author or creator takes all the credit?

Response to Tylers Response to Zach's response to Skayla's Post "plastic surgery".

I choose to carry this conversation on because it got me thinking! (doesnt happen often :P)

i agree with Tyler's point of view greatly. Although we as a society look down upon alterations of the body most of time, we also produce problems that lead to these radical alterations.

We pump our minds with marginal amount of people we label as perfect, just because of their near perfect appearance. or so it be believed.

We are capable of changing our bodies.

and if that means pleasing aesthetically, in order to improve once's life's performance i approve it.

How exactly people in different cultures view improving image of bodies aesthetically.

and how do other people react to it? what are the views of making ones body an art work?

Art the never ending sack of Sh--tuff.

When I think art, i think of objects, paintings, music, pottery, words, theater, film and gardening, but what if I am WRONG.

What is art is none of those, what if art is not a quality of an object, rather then the change, or relationship between, an object, the creator and perceiver.

The change of state not on cognitive, but purely emotional level. Attempting to put the exact feelings into words has never worked.

I ask you to listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJJmS-HY234

a piece that made me forget about cognitive thoughts, neat folders, cabinets, and the whole mess up there.

Understanding art comes from more primal part of us, the one closer to us, after all an art is emotive.

Universal structure?

I began to think, when we judge, enjoy, critique, and influence art do we have a set a values we always use.

As human beings, as social beings, do we have a universal structure of thought when it comes to judging art?

I am not talking about opinion, preference or critique, cultural differences or nurture.

I am talking about inborn sense, drive or instinct, similar to the one that makes us express ourselves in art.

Is it possible, that we all share something, something like an invisible structure that helps us to make sense of the work of art in front of us. To understand the concept, to understand the meaning and feeling of the painting, the artist implanted.

I can think of one such similarity, the need to interpret.

artifacts and art objects.

I cannot get my mind of the question, what makes an artisan different from an artist?

So i have done some research and came up with this:

The word artisan comes from Middle French word Artigiano, which in turn comes from artitianus from vulgar Latin. The direct translation means: To instruct in the arts, or skilled in the arts.

We all know a distinction of between an artist and artisan.

An artisan is a skilled manual worker, and an artist is someone who creates objects for purely aesthetic purposes.

But

Are those two tittles mutually exclusive?

Why cant someone create a purposeful object, with aesthetic properties?

People are many things, artists are not only artists in life, is it possible to create something both common and misplaced? Purposeful and purposeless?

should we take art seriously?

When I think of museum going, and painting viewing, i visualize a fat man, with a bald spot... smoking a cigar, and a monocle in a button up vest, with light dress jacket, and striped dress pants, holding glass of whiskey. what he does is sit in front of this giant painting and just sighs, raising his thick black bushy eye brows. figuring out the meaning of life, art, and blah blah blah.

I do not want to become like that, i want to look at an art from, a painting for an example, enjoy it and move on. Not dwell on it, analyze it, cavity search it... i just want to experience seeing it. I am no painter i cannot judge author's painting skills, i am no custodian or historian, i just am. I am a 20 year old college student wanting to simply see it.

So my question remains, should we be serious viewing an art.

Can we appreciate it, in a common-working man fashion, or do we all have to be stuck up a holes?

Response to Tyler's to "mareks response..."

I agree with Tyler and his argument, about getting sick of an art. It is true desensitization happens, it's a natural process we adjust, our bodies and minds seek balance, as so the water seeks to be on equal plane, as electric charges seek to neutral the positive and negative charges. We do it!

Although

through habituation we gain alternate view point on the matter. We become experts in that very field, we know what is and what is not suppose to be there. Expertise is given, and abstract awe sight is taken away.

Is art suppose to make us awe? Who's to say that we must view art in that plane. Art may be mundane and repetitive, as it can be striking and unique.

Tyler states that art is alive, and i believe him whole heartedly, but so are mundane things.

Mundane things become mundane because we preform them automatically. We can choose to look at 100 paintings and just look at their content, analyze them, with no emotion. We can make a Job of it. Not a hobby. The same goes for mundane things, next time take a look, pay more attention, change the routine, and do things with your mind in them, and you may notice, mundane things as artistic.

So can art be mundane?

Does have it be exotic, and thought provoking?

Can it be ordinary?

One art form to describe the other.

I was just wondering about the language, an art form in itself.

Language is an art form, skill, tool, and many more things but most importantly and art.

All this time we have been trying to describe concept of art, with one of the arts it self.

It's like trying to form a definition of a word, and having definiendum in the definiens.

Such circularity is endless.

Describing a variable with the same variable (x=x).

I would like to put out there, that whatever we come up with, is never going to describe all art, it merely will lay a crude template. But is that all that bad? After all we generalize, language is based on generalization of concepts, so why should the definition of art be specific?

Openness of art.

We ve discussed this subject, almost to exhaustion in class, but I'd like to add few things, that I thought of outside of class.

The 30 pots I mentioned in class... they all may be the same, created by skilled art-craftsman/woman. How is that when we see one, we think:

"Okay that's art, a lot of intention, creativity, and skill was involved into making that."

But when we see all 30 we go on label them as craft, mass produced, not unique, repetitive.

Author/Craftsman aside what makes the human creation an Art?

People make things constantly, they label them many things, but what exactly is it

Is Art a truth?

Is there a objective truth behind ART, solid answer, or universal meaning?

response to lisa's "Bell & Music."

Music... harmonic sounds. It says nowhere, they have to be made from instruments. Instruments specialize in creating sounds, which generally can be formed into groups, tones, etc.

Singing creates notes, that can also be generalized and formed into categories.

I think if an artists takes a mush of 7-8 instruments(counting vocals, back up vocals etc) or what ever the number and he calls it music, it is music. May be good or not so good... as we all know, we all have those "creative" friends that make unearthly sounds...

anyhow the mush of the sounds is an art.

I think a better question to ask is when singing turns into prose, or talking?

No black lines can be drawn, but it makes me wonder; are sounds ever not musical?

Response to Andrew Roiter "Observers as participants in art"

Andrew brought up an interesting point. How do external factors, or unintentional factors affect what art is.

Art is vague enough, controversial, and pretty much boundary-less.

So how would one interpret the crowd in the concert? Viewers viewing a picture?Bystanders in a groomed garden?

I believe these unaccounted for factors, add to the original art piece.

What would a Mona Lisa be if people didn't think it was beautiful?

Art is affected by its viewer, and viewer of the viewers.

Not a significant, permanent way, but in some temporary design.

Who is viewing who? when it comes to art?

can viewers be interpret as part of the art work?

Response to Aditi's "Purpose"

Interestingly i would like to raise a question

Were you aware that you drew that toaster?

From a Freudian point of view, one would say it is reflection of your past expiernces.

You were aware of this, and your subconscious was working its magic. The fixation of an object was in your mind, reflection some feeling, purposely.

when looking from a contemporary point of view, a more cognitive view, one would say that your toaster mexican, was nothing more than an accident, a relaxation doodle at best, no intention intended.

But who really knows ?

Even the best minds in the field are fighting like dogs in a pit for their theories.

I believe your purpose, was to draw, and you intended that.

how can unintended creation have a purpose?

how can we unintentionally create objects purpsefully!?

Response to Tyler's "Phantasies"

I agree with you on this matter. When I play the piano, i let it reflect my mood even though i play not my own stuff.

When I strike the keys, its not what I did as a child comes at me, its what i did that day, problems, worries, successes etc. I do not deeply dwell on my cognition when i was a child, i dwell on my day, feelings! I do not have flashbacks, montages, or any other kind of sudden source of memories, and feelings that i could care less about.

Although... Freud was not a cognition specialist. His theories were based on instinct, back brain, and past experiences.

Maybe Im looking in the wrong place bring cognition and feelings, but i do not feel as they are separate, having a feeling, and now dwelling on it, can be compared to tasting and elaborating on the sweetness of a food.

Can we mix those to things?

Would Freud think(haha cognition)/agree that cognition and feelings are compatible?

Response to Tyler's: "Arts Malleability"

If we follow Tolstoy's theory as a group of NAZI's, it is not art if the person is not gettin the right feeling from the piece. The communication has to be exact, correct, and precise. When I first read this theory, i thought i was reading about telepathy, but its just Tolstoy's theory nothing new.

If we apply his theory with respectable vagueness (look at what we re talking about ! ART it doesnt get more vague than that) the puppy, and the Aussie picture is still art. Because they evoke feelings, about the portraits.

Communication doesnt always happen correctly, it's not as simple as miscommunication, there are shades of gray, how much did you retain of it etc.

1.How is communication fail in art?

2.How did Tolstoy come up with communication theory?

3. Are we looking at the wrong level of communication, is it something broader Tolstoy intended?

I hope you got hit by a car aka Tolstoy

So tolstoy believes in art as communication. Noble belief interesting theory. but how can we communicate with something that can be interpreted in various ways? lets say i made a painting of glass of milk and people because i was thirsty, and people look at it, and say: oh i understand his emotions and feelings in this painting, its about his early childhood when he was a baby. HELL TO THE NO. effective communication in art is as reasonable as cutting your hair to make a wig out of it. the chances of actually communicating an exact expiernce and feeling through an art piece are as good as winning the lottery.

1. what are your chances of winning the lottery?

2. was tolstoy drunk when he wrote this theory?

Response to Andrew Roiter's Response to Nicole's "Canibalism"

I believe cultures have their own standards and their ethics.
It is all formed to help them survive in their enviorment, to keep together the human pack.

It may seem weird that some things are unaccaptable and outlandish but in scope of our own culture majority of the world is that way. I would like to point out that western media often exaggerates details, to make money. the other human cultures are less taboo than you think they are.

1.) What cultures are the most taboo ?

2.) how many exagurated detail is there in normal person's mind about cannibalism?

Imitation of original form.

First of let me define in which way i would like to use the word "imitation". Imitation in this blog will mean: attempt to copy and recreate and original form.

When workers, artisans, and regular people try to imitate original form, to make life more manageable. Our point of view on this matter is quite ironic frankly. We talk about original forms, and how we try to imitate them. We are original forms too, de facto.

If we stand on the same level as the objects we re trying to imitate(as does brother with a brother).

hence our imitations are not up to level with original form. we cannot create things equal to us (according to Plato's Utopia).

Art is a little more but mere a copy of artisans work. it includes given perspective to an existing form, it may be imperfect, but it evokes certain emotion, and feelings. it gives us a way to see how other people perceive this world.

1. Perfection in art, is it an abstract concept?

2. How can we (human race) be imitated?

Capturing the beauty of nature. aka making art.

Many times we ve seen pictures or paintings of nature and we do consider them art works, yet we re faced with a statement nature is not art. I agree with that statement, art is creation of human mind, and human emotions. Its a human made discipline, that nature has no intrest in. Something may be beautiful, but when we capture something with a camera lens, or stroke of paintbrush, we give it perspective, a subjective view. We may see it that way, and we may believe its how its true apperance looks like, but no two people will see the same image of our world. They may see similarities but not the picture, impression, or emotion. Hence my explanation of human captured images of nature being a perfect fine art material.

As subjective beings, we cannot help but to see the world uniquely, we are all different, and scenery of a sunset may be different, or it may invoke different feelings in all of us, the picture of setting sun already has framework set, and aims at invoking certain feelings.

1. How big is the difference between art in nature, and nature in art

2. how would different people from different cultures percieve a picture or a painting vs real thing.

response to aurora's "time and beauty".

I would like to take a different point of view on auroras "capture of time and beauty " thesis.

I would like to look at the current tense, the time we live in and music.

For this particular example im going to talk about classical piano music.

CPE Bach being my favorite composer his most famous show piece solfeggietto is perfect to discuss.

The tempo is very important for flow to be consistent, music to be harmonic, and for end result to be what the composer imagined.

We cant tell what time is it when we play strings of notes, or double forte, but the time is involved in the music. the amount time defines the show piece if it was meant to be played in the tempo of 180, 120 is not a true representation of its beauty.

the concept is hard to grasp and perhaps im not being clear, but the time it takes to play a show piece should remain the same to capture the beauty. For soffeggietto its about 56 seconds, and thats how it should be presented.

maybe time in painted works is something easier to notice than the flow of time in a active piece like piano show piece but the time still takes a great deal effect on the music, the consistency makes it beautiful.

1. is time necessary aspect of beauty?

2.how can we explain the pass of time and beauty? - flowers are only beautiful once a year.

Response to Andrew Roiter "Is there such thing a.."

I believe colors do really exist due to the fact that color properties are a result of a matter interaction. It is not as simple as: the sunlight hits the apple and it refracts the light and it appears red. If that would be a fundamental claim of a color theory, it would be discussed by kindergarten students.

Light is part of an electromagnetic spectrum, that consist of photons with different amounts of energy stored in them.

Photons are considered to have energy like qualities as well as matter like qualities in the world of physics.

If this argument should be discussed it would be best to take a linear approach from a standpoint of energy. Rating each light color with an amount of energy it carries. The reflected color should not be our concern, but the amount of radiation given off from the apple, the wavelength, and the frequency under each kind of color light. Based on that we could draw an accurate statement that apple reflects photons differently based upon their wavelength/frequency. The "red" apple reflects the most of the lowest possible wavelength we can see.. which happens to be red. Since the appearance.

Our senses are biased, they do not show the world from a true omnipotent standpoint, they show us a little snippet of what there really is. I base that claim on the spectrum, certain wavelength cut out we see, but in reality, science and reasoning has proven there are many more wavelengths which we cannot see.

Efficiency and joy in life

Efficiency and life were paired up from the beginning of human understanding of time. When we mentally understood that we are not immortal creatures, stress on efficiency became clear.

I myself believe such you can attempt any task using anything, any object. The efficiency varies depending on each object, and would you rather spend extra time trying to complete something, and use more effort to do an essential task or have it done by a tool made to be efficient at that given task.

An example can be given to support the claim of efficiency and life.

A starving man in the wild has to choose his weapon to hunt prey.

Hes given an option of a knife, bow, crossbow, and a hunting gun.

His obvious choice would be a hunting rifle, which would almost guarantee him a meal, because he would spend least amount of time getting the meal.

Hunting rifle is the most effective tool to hunt in that given scenario.

Knife is the worst choice, because it gives a low chance of killing the prey because it would prolong the hunt and would result in a least favourable time.

Correspondence theory is very vague about an example such as this due to rating.

Rating an object to be more effective at something is a pure coherence theorist view.

The rating between the weapons reflects the coherence between the weapons, and not the truth.