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?