Unit – 3
In the reading for this week, the main focus of his passage would be the different perspectives of art that has come from generation to generation. As we move into modern society, it is seen that art is interpreted in a different way then before. To each person, art may have its own meaning; yet an important issue that is discussed is the question of “What is Art”. In order to understand and capture what art is, you must be a particular type of person. He says, “there is a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art—a disinterested attitude that is separate from ones own personal interest in the object, its utility, or its social or religious ramifications” (pg. 3). An appreciation for art is very significant due to its strong will to increase creativity and passion within the mind. As we veer towards our modernity, people are beginning to understand and respect the form that art has taken. I then ask myself questions as to what it would be like if there weren’t such a thing called art? Or what if Art was a completely different form of action.
The video that we watched for this weeks assignment was very interesting and made me actually they what I consider Beauty. In this TED talk, the man discusses all the different forms of beauty that us humans classify. There isn’t one specific thing that is beautiful; rather we find humans, human’s actions, entertainment, and personal skills beautiful. Beauty to me is in the eye of the beholder because what one my think is beautiful, the other does not. This came from Darwinian theory of beauty. Human beings are able to do so much; therefore when something is done well and up to status, we humans see it as beautiful.
October 17th, 2014 at 6:51 pm
I don’t agree with much of what you said, and not just because I don’t like your points because I think you were taking it in an interesting direction. However, we do live in a post modern era, and if you are trying to state that we are veering towards a new era, like a neo-modernism I don’t think that makes much sense because modernism and post-modernism only really make sense when juxtaposed to each-other. I still think it has yet to be seen that a new era is being ushered in as well, although one certainly could make a case for it with globalization and technology.
I don’t believe the author was saying that post-modern individuals respect art more, I think she was saying we believe everything to be art and try to include everything as having value or possibly being worthy of being deemed art, and that this isn’t an accurate way to look at art. She doesn’t think that every single piece of art has as much value as another, because she think there would be no point in making art then.
She does then go on to discuss some of the reasons for art, and how it is the physical bonding and emotional that go into these artistic rituals that have helped communities feel united.
The movie looks at art as being a sort of Darwinian notion, that humans like art because of what it can tell us about the person or if reflects desirable traits like fine motor control, the will power and intelligence involved in making a magical composition on the piano, etc. I believe this is true, but also that we use our past experiences to see the world in front of us now. If I was a war vet and a piano song had always played to soothe me back at the base, I will find other works of art with similar sounds to be absolutely beautiful. Versus someone who got tortured in the same war while listening to piano music. I think our genes and natural selection help us see what is good and what is not beautiful in art, but our experiences can dictate what we love versus just don’t care for as much, and in that sense beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
October 17th, 2014 at 10:58 pm
I enjoyed reading your paper and I fairly agree with your opinion but I’d like to answer your question. In my personal opinion, I cannot imagine that if there were not such things called art because art is very comprehensive, which also makes me confused. According to the reading for this week, the author says, “first, the idea of art encompasses all of human history (i.e. as far back as the Paleolithic or even earlier); second, that it include all human societies (i.e. is anthropological or cross-cultural); and third, that it accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects.” Moreover, even author says that arts are found prodigiously in ceremonial rituals. However, I think that things found in ceremonial rituals are not arts; they are close to religious ceremony. Just like the author of “What is Art?” I think there are many people who believe arts equal religions. Therefore, I cannot imagine that if there were not such things called art.
October 18th, 2014 at 4:26 am
I really agree that people must be a particular type of person to understand and capture a specific art. Art usually involves many different factors, so it may be hard for people to understand and appreciate it. However, we can put ourselves in a specific environment to understand diverse styles of art. A disinterested attitude is necessary for people to appreciate diverse art works. I think the author here is to emphasize a respectful attitude is very important for art appreciation and further art creation. If you just focus on what you interest or what relates to your own life, it will restrict you a lot on both art appreciation and art creation. However, it is hard to completely abandon what you already had in your mind and I don’t think you can’t put anything about your own on art, for example, sometimes, your own interest or experience can be a positive power to understand and capture art. Therefore, I think the main point and also the most difficult part is to find a balance between a personal attitude and a objective attitude towards art.
Like what I talked in my reading response that art is like mental food. It is a necessary factor for human being to survive and evolve. Along with human civilization’s developing, art’s role in our life and human being’s entire developing process get more and more important. Its role may not just mental aspect, but other areas, because it is complex and involves many different things. My answer to your question is that we can’t survive and evolve without art.
October 19th, 2014 at 10:10 am
Hi Bergs. In fact, I have the same question as you do for the reading. I asked myself while reading the article that “if there were not such a thing called art,” would our society fall behind? After reading the article again, I guessed my answer would be yes. It was difficult to imagine how human being could live without art since art started to play an important role in human being’s life from about a million years ago. Art was involved in religions, society and emotion delivery, etc. In addition, I think art itself is a combination of multiple actions, such as media and poetry. Art is not limited to drawing or painting. In your comment about the video, I definitely agree with the situation that “[you] think is beautiful, the other does not,” which comes out that it is difficult to judge which is beautiful. Darwinian theory was very reasonable that anything done well could be considered beautiful, which had been fitting in many real life examples. As you said, “beauty to [you] is in the eye of the beholder,” do you think it applies to fine arts? As far as I know, many fine arts were not appreciated by people before getting famous, what do you think?
October 19th, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Hey bergs. I enjoyed reading your blog. You come up with two points. One is that art is different in different generations. Another one is that art is different for different people. And you come up with two questions. Your first question is that what it would be like if there weren’t such a thing called art. Your first points can answer this question. In early generation, art belonged to small group of people. For example, “in medieval time, arts were in the service of religion. The renaissance artists gradually replaced God-centered with man-centered……” (p16) At that time, art is controlled by some of the artists. Most of people did not touch with art, even they did not know what art is. And your second question is that what if art was a completely different form of action. As you said art is different for different people. In modern society, individuals are free to do everything is needed for their livelihood. Everyone have a chance to be artists. (p21) So, as the society developed, art could be any form of things.
October 20th, 2014 at 1:28 am
Hey, Thanks for the response. I appreciate you clarify and giving your answers to the questions I provided. Its really hard to answer those as well because we really can’t speak on behalf of it since it has never happened. Art is such a big component of modern day society as well as in the past. It gives people feelings and emotions that can not be explained. When we think of art we mostly see a picture or painting, yet whats fascinating is that art is so much bigger then that. Art will always be here and continue to grow into something that we can even think of right now. In order to continue strengthening art, we must focus on how one interprets and creates a piece, why they consider it art, and how it can be applied to our everyday world.