"I'm enough of an artist to draw freely on my imagination, which I think is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." -Einstein
I really like that Einstein was mature enough, as well as ok with himself, that he could admit this. I feel like it really shows that he actually understood the world outside of science, and recognized that you don't have to be a genius to be successful in this world. How smart you are does not determine happiness, nor does it determine where life will take you. Einstein was a lot wiser than people give him credit for sometimes, which is awesome.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Magnificent Artwork
Natalie asked the question on her blog:
What is the most magnificent work of art you have ever seen? Why?
For me, this would probably have to be the Trevi Fountain in Rome, Italy. I saw many amazing works of art when I traveled to Europe and visited Italy and Greece, but this was definitely my favorite. I saw it at the perfect time (nighttime) and with some of the best people. It amazed me that it even existed in the first place, and how absolutely magnificent it truly is. In fact, all the sites I saw while in Europe absolutely amazed me, especially with their size and detail, and just everything. The whole trip amazed me, and it was partially due to the history of it all, as well as the absolute beauty.
Does the history of something play a major part in why people enjoy art?
What is the most magnificent work of art you have ever seen? Why?
For me, this would probably have to be the Trevi Fountain in Rome, Italy. I saw many amazing works of art when I traveled to Europe and visited Italy and Greece, but this was definitely my favorite. I saw it at the perfect time (nighttime) and with some of the best people. It amazed me that it even existed in the first place, and how absolutely magnificent it truly is. In fact, all the sites I saw while in Europe absolutely amazed me, especially with their size and detail, and just everything. The whole trip amazed me, and it was partially due to the history of it all, as well as the absolute beauty.
Does the history of something play a major part in why people enjoy art?
Response to Kurtiss
Kurtiss asks on his blog:
Can everyday objects we find be considered art?
This is such a hard question to answer, and I'll be honest I don't know if my response will even make any sense. However, if you take say, a candy bar wrapper as an example and ask if it is art, this is a similar situation to the gristmill stone Kurtiss wrote about. I don't think that the actual object is the art, but the design and creation of the object is the art. The original idea is the art, but once it is made into that "everyday object," it loses its connection to art.
What do you guys think?
Can everyday objects we find be considered art?
This is such a hard question to answer, and I'll be honest I don't know if my response will even make any sense. However, if you take say, a candy bar wrapper as an example and ask if it is art, this is a similar situation to the gristmill stone Kurtiss wrote about. I don't think that the actual object is the art, but the design and creation of the object is the art. The original idea is the art, but once it is made into that "everyday object," it loses its connection to art.
What do you guys think?
Response to Kim
Kim asked on her blog:
How do you feel about art as a form of competition?
I do not believe that this is necessarily fair to any piece of artwork or artist. This goes along with the ongoing conversation about good art versus bad. The instance Kim talked about is much like essay contests. The human race is obsessed with competition, and has been since the dawn of time. Art competitions are just another example of the human necessity to be "better" than someone else. I am not a competitive person by nature, but there are always those instances when I get obsessed by the competition myself. I have always thought about sending in an essay for a competition, but since there is no way the judges could be completely subjective, I find it unnecessary. I do not believe that someone can really be "better" at an art form than someone else, their skill is just different. I will forever keep this view and try to get people to understand this and, hopefully, believe me as well.
What do you think? Can someone be better at an art form than someone else? Or is the skill just different?
How do you feel about art as a form of competition?
I do not believe that this is necessarily fair to any piece of artwork or artist. This goes along with the ongoing conversation about good art versus bad. The instance Kim talked about is much like essay contests. The human race is obsessed with competition, and has been since the dawn of time. Art competitions are just another example of the human necessity to be "better" than someone else. I am not a competitive person by nature, but there are always those instances when I get obsessed by the competition myself. I have always thought about sending in an essay for a competition, but since there is no way the judges could be completely subjective, I find it unnecessary. I do not believe that someone can really be "better" at an art form than someone else, their skill is just different. I will forever keep this view and try to get people to understand this and, hopefully, believe me as well.
What do you think? Can someone be better at an art form than someone else? Or is the skill just different?
Response to Christine
In Christine's blog she talked about Taming of the Shrew and how the final product was different to everyone, depending on how they understood it. She then asked the question:
How well can we gauge the success of a work of art if it really exists in the mind?
This is an idea that goes along with Piper's ideas, and with this example, I finally get it. I get what Piper was trying to say, that no matter how any kind of art form is presented, everyone will see it differently, and the true art is in the mind of the creator. With Taming of the Shrew, the art was in the mind first of Shakespeare, and then in that of Mary, the director. Each director of any play, not just Shakespeare, has a different vision of how the play should go, just as each choreographer has a different idea of what I dance should look like for a particular song.
To answer Christine's question though, I guess only the success could be measured by if each individual person is happy with the final product. Obviously, each person will have a different opinion, and success will not really be able to be full measured, but it can be measured on the individual level. Also, if the artist who had the vision and created is happy with it, I believe that it would be a success, even if it does not gain overall success to the world.
However, is success even applicable to art, if it is so subjective?
How well can we gauge the success of a work of art if it really exists in the mind?
This is an idea that goes along with Piper's ideas, and with this example, I finally get it. I get what Piper was trying to say, that no matter how any kind of art form is presented, everyone will see it differently, and the true art is in the mind of the creator. With Taming of the Shrew, the art was in the mind first of Shakespeare, and then in that of Mary, the director. Each director of any play, not just Shakespeare, has a different vision of how the play should go, just as each choreographer has a different idea of what I dance should look like for a particular song.
To answer Christine's question though, I guess only the success could be measured by if each individual person is happy with the final product. Obviously, each person will have a different opinion, and success will not really be able to be full measured, but it can be measured on the individual level. Also, if the artist who had the vision and created is happy with it, I believe that it would be a success, even if it does not gain overall success to the world.
However, is success even applicable to art, if it is so subjective?
On Collingwood...
I had so many questions when we were discussing Collingwood, that I don't even know where to start. So I guess for starters, he basically argues that you cannot express your feelings unless you fully understand them. So intsead of trying to explain how I understood him, I'll just post my questions I had during class, since there were way too many for me to pick even one.
- Do you have to understand your feelings before you can make art?
- Can you create before understanding? Is creation a step to understanding?
- Is art created for the satisfaction of the artist or the audience? If no one "sees" it, is it still art?
- Do you have to physically create something to become an artist?
- Is the art the expression or the final product?
- Is there one "right" interpretation of artwork? Can people actually be right or wrong about it?
- Do you have to understand your own artwork?
Response to Josh
Josh asked in one of his posts:
Do you believe that the need to express the emotion to the artist is greater than to the audience?
This is a bit like Brycen's question which I just answered. I do, in fact, believe that it is more important for the artist to express themselves than for the audience to understand what exactly is going on. Art can be a very personal, and sometimes private, thing where the audience is not always necessary or important. Art is about expressing the artist's emotions, and as we have talked about in class before, the emotion understood by the audience will never be exactly the same as the artist's anyways. Even if the artist views their piece again, it is not guaranteed that they will have the exact same emotions again as they did when they were creating.
What do you guys think?
Do you believe that the need to express the emotion to the artist is greater than to the audience?
This is a bit like Brycen's question which I just answered. I do, in fact, believe that it is more important for the artist to express themselves than for the audience to understand what exactly is going on. Art can be a very personal, and sometimes private, thing where the audience is not always necessary or important. Art is about expressing the artist's emotions, and as we have talked about in class before, the emotion understood by the audience will never be exactly the same as the artist's anyways. Even if the artist views their piece again, it is not guaranteed that they will have the exact same emotions again as they did when they were creating.
What do you guys think?
Response to Brycen
Brycen asked in his blog:
Can art be an expression of ideas without being able to communicate to the audience?
I believe that this can be true in certain instances. Some artists create just for the purpose of themselves, and whether or not other people "get it" is irrelevant. For some, art is about personal expression, and sometimes it never actually sees an audience. I know people who write poetry or draw, just to get out emotion and ideas they have, and then never tell other people about what the created or show them.
What do you think of those who create art for the soul purpose of showing other people?
Can art be an expression of ideas without being able to communicate to the audience?
I believe that this can be true in certain instances. Some artists create just for the purpose of themselves, and whether or not other people "get it" is irrelevant. For some, art is about personal expression, and sometimes it never actually sees an audience. I know people who write poetry or draw, just to get out emotion and ideas they have, and then never tell other people about what the created or show them.
What do you think of those who create art for the soul purpose of showing other people?
On Piper...
Piper was one of those weird chapters to deal with, where you know she is a really intelligent woman, but she has a hard time writing about her thoughts in a coherent way. Anyways, she believes that the world fetishizes art way too much, meaning that we believe that it should speak to us, otherwise it is bad art; we give art more power than it actually has.
She also believes that the artist is just as important as the art, which is true. A piece of artwork, whatever form it is in, would not exist if there was no artist to create it.
One idea of hers that confuses me a bit is that music, for example, only actually exists in the mind of the composer, and that no matter how intelligently and intently people listen, they will only hear a representation of the true music. Do you agree with this or believe that this could be true?
She also believes that the artist is just as important as the art, which is true. A piece of artwork, whatever form it is in, would not exist if there was no artist to create it.
One idea of hers that confuses me a bit is that music, for example, only actually exists in the mind of the composer, and that no matter how intelligently and intently people listen, they will only hear a representation of the true music. Do you agree with this or believe that this could be true?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)