The article, “What Is Art For?” Does a great job at re-describing the meaning and value behind the word “Art.” It brings art back to early stages of human development and compares our current basic societal view of art to a more complex and holistic approach. Although this approach seems wholesome and just, I do have a couple thoughts that challenge Dissanayake writings. Dissanayake explains that “Although behavior made special need not be aesthetic or artistic, when one exerts control, takes pains, and uses care and contrivance to one’s best the result is usually called artistic or aesthetic”(23) I think this definition can be applied to almost everything that we consider to be art.
However I do question what we consider a picture or image taken from a camera or online as, being art. Is it the act of taking a photo in a specific place and time that gives the definition of art? Or is it the subjects or images the photo is composed of that gives it a definition of art? For example, if someone were to take a picture of an Italian sports car with a backdrop of a beautiful sunset, would the car get the appreciation of art because of the time, care, and pain spent building it? Or would the fact that the photographer took time to capture that specific image of the car and sunset be the reason of credible artistic value. Also keeping in mind that an italian sports car alone to most viewers would probably be considered a work of art and craftsmanship. I don’t know if this picture’s association with being artistic could be granted to both aspects, but then again how does a simple picture of a beach seem more beautiful and artistic. Maybe there are more emotional ties to art than we think. The fact that we can appreciate a picture that simply captures a piece of nature in time makes me think that art is in a way almost impossible to define further than biological human interests and satisfactions.
I think there are many that would argue that this picture of the sports car overlooking the Italian vineyard IS more beautiful than a simplistic picture of the beach.
Art truly is in the interpretation and perspective. It has to do with what you value versus what the next person who becomes immersed in the piece. Art truly is in the eye of the beholder. Each person sees and experiences it differently. Nuances that jump off the page to me, could go unnoticed by you, and vice versa. The layout and color scheme that is bursting with resonance to me could be completely blase to you.
I do completely agree that emotions do come into play though and that they are an intrinsic part of who we are. They shape how we see and interact with the world and they often guide us when making decisions. Of course they would help us foster our connections with the art around us.
Hey Chris,
I like your comments very much. You think Dissanayake’s definition of art can be applied to many things that we consider to be art. The cool car connect sunset and field. The beautiful picture brings a sense of art to us. Your thought guide to me know the art in another way.Is this picture’s association with places, times and different objects? What leads to the picture becomes an art?
For my perspective, the picture is beautiful and everything can be beautiful depend on our emotion. Furthermore, the art guide people to sense it. Art is natural and talent behavior. As same as you said that “The fact that we can appreciate a picture that simply captures a piece of nature in time makes me think that art is in a way almost impossible to define further than biological human interests and satisfactions”. The art teach people to appreciate a picture or art thing. On the other hand, Dissanayake’s view also combines with the development of history. Even if the history opinion of art is different by the different background, the history just the good teacher to people how to know art deeply instead of the art is changed by time goes. Anyway, art is talent and natural factor for human being.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Xiaofeng
Hi there,
I enjoyed reading your post, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you in that I thought some of Dissanayake’s definitions can be applied too broadly to provide effectively create any understanding. I must respectfully disagree with your opinion of photography and how it relates to art. I think you may be discounting the degree of thought, involvement and creativity that can go into a single photo. I will agree, however, that a simple point and shoot photo is hardly artistic. Having said that, I think you are lumping all pictures together when in actuality photography is somewhat of a spectrum with various levels of thought and artistic properties. A photo can be artistic because of its composition, subject, style and the technical difficulties of creating such a photo. For example, the photo you shared is technical in nature because it follows the rule of thirds, a photography tool. It also creates an interesting comparison by contrasting the Ferrari, a man-made work of art, with natural beauty of a vineyard on a rolling hill at sunset. It would also be difficult to achieve the warm lighting in the picture because the photographer shot into the light. By doing so, most people would either under expose the car or over expose the sunset because of the difference in light. Simply put, I think you are underestimating the amount of effort and creativity that can go into photographs.
Cheers,
-Sam Allred
Hello!
I really enjoyed reading your critique to this week’s reading. I felt that your questions were all very valid and interesting.
In response, I would say that I think that art is made up of every action that results in a photo, painting, statue, etc. The psychological desires and thoughts that go into a piece of art result in the artist placing objects in a certain place and at a certain time and capturing that image. For instance, the photographer who took the photo of the red sports car chose to take a photo of the red car for his/her own reasons. The photographer then chose a beautiful vineyard and sunset to be the background. Every action that lead to the resulting photo had intention and purpose, including the act of positioning the camera in a certain place to capture light or color that was desired. I do believe that there are many emotional ties to art and that maybe to some, a photograph of a beautiful, natural beach could seem more artistic, but to others, the act of placing human objects in the forefront of a photograph could be seen as more artistic. Art requires the interpretation of the viewer and whatever the viewer deems to be interesting and satisfying could be viewed as a superior piece of art.