What is Art?

After hearing multiple theories of what we can consider art. I still ask myself where the qualification begins and when do we exclude certain aspects. I found a video which you will find at the top of this page. This man, in an attempt to explain art, seems to take views from Coomeraswamy, Scharfstein and others and create a view of art I like to relate to. Let me know what you think.

Looking for Art in all the Wrong Places

     One thing that has continued to puzzle me about art is the question of how much does a work's history and social setting influence how we view the work.  What I mean is, will a masterpiece still be considered a masterpiece if it is taken out of the museum and shown to an audience who has no knowledge of the piece or the artistic tradition from which it comes.  This is important to me because I wonder if some artists have become famous not because of their own merits, but because a lot of under-educated art collectors have championed them.
     There is an interesting way to test the effects of showing art to an unknowing audience.  In the following video a New York contemporary artist, I am not familiar with his work but apparently he has quite the following, attempts to sell some of his art on the street.  These paintings that, in the right circles, would fetch a handsome sum, here bring in just a few hundred dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdlZtH2zTJU

     The interesting thing is that after the video was released, a "fake Banksy" sold fakes in the same spot and completely sold out.  In this case the celebrity of the stunt made fake paintings very valuable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCZ0SXRXuI

     I think we can clearly see that the works' fame is definitely what is driving the sale.  This sort of experiment was conducted a few years back in Washington DC where a world famous violinist went into the subway to play some of Bach's most difficult pieces on a antique violin worth several million dollars.  He did not even make the kind of money from tips that a normal busker would.  Take a look for you self and tell me what you think.  Is all fine art the construct of a pretentious "in-crowd?"  (For the record I love the arts, and Bach.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

Poetry

Art is just a way of expression, right? Anyone who is creatively insightful is considered an artist. I think that poets and writers are all artists in their own way. Because they express their feelings in a creative fashion, while viewing world in different lights. Poets have made the way we feel universal, becasue seeing the written word is sometimes easier than attempting to interpret a painting. Sometimes "letting the art speak for itself" is impossible, and poetry makes it easier. It stands out on its own, and tells the aidience what it is meant to say. The only interpreting that needs to be done is understanding what the writing means to the audince.

In a lot of countries writing is a sacred art. If you can write beautifully and with expression then you are considered a genius. Yet, here in the U.S. writers are unsupported quite often. They are not given the proper attention becasue writing is not condidered a fine art.

Thoughts... opinions?

Destructive Art

I think that art that happens by accident is some of the best kind. It comes off as a suprise when you arn't sure what the end result will be. Take paint darts for example. The best part of the project is the excitement you get when the dart hits the balloon and paint explodes everywhere.

Another example could be when artists smash things into tiny pieces, or throw things and make them shatter. Destructive art could be used in many ways, but is it purposeful? What would critics say about art like this?

Art and Religion

Some cultures across the world do not involve humans or other living things in their religious paintings. One culture in particular is Islam. The purpose of this is to portray the meaning of the painting, and what it speaks about, rather than the physical form of it. The religious Islamic art portray geometrical designs as visions of certain things, instead.

I found this interesting because when it is compared to Catholic art, the human form is extremely prominent, because beauty is seen in humans. A lot of Catholic art portrays women surrounded by angels, or men on high pedestals, as a symbol of the standpoint of human nature.

This also says a lot about the parts of the society in general. American culture objectifies humans as greater parts of the world because of the "closeness to God," while Indian cultures sees themselves as lesser humans compared to animals and Holy objects (maybe statues for example.)

Natural vs. Artificial Beauty

  Cultures have changed drastically over thousands of years, and so has the expectations of beauty. Let's take the example of the picture below. In the 1800's women who were curvier, and wore more conservative clothing were admired and treasured. They wore very little makeup, considering it was a rarity and available exclusively to people who could afford it.

 

 

Now that society has evolved, so has our vision of what women should look like. The wealthier parts of America have become superficial, and have gained the expectation that women should be flawless. Women who are skinny, and small are ideal in some areas of the world. Nowadays, magazines for high end fashion objectify women to sell clothes to certain people. The idea is if the women associated with the product is beautiful, then whoever buys the product will be beautiful too.

 

The debate is the line that is being drawn between natural and artificial beauty. Are photo shopped women better because of the commercial purpose, or not? The problem is the standard this sets for young women seeking self esteem. When the ideal is what is on the cover of a magazine, then what impact does that halve on young girls? Then when society demands that natural beauty is better, it hurts the advertising market. Where can the line be drawn?  

 

 

Michael Phelps vs. Michelangelo

“World records for runners and painters are set in equally unequivocal media, for the runners in clock times, and for the artists in denomination if U.S. dollars and other currencies.” 377

As a runner and an artist I found this quote very interesting. The fame of a runner or athlete is not much different to the fame of an artist. Scharfstein talks about how the prices of particular pieces fluctuate as well as the times on the clock for the runners. However, in that particular time of an auction, the price is set. As well as if a runner runs a particular race, the time on that clock is final and cannot be changed.

I would have never thought about comparing a famous athlete with a famous artist. When we look at Michael Phelps versus Michelangelo we may see more things in common than we think. Both had to establish their work ethics and practice and perfect what goals they intended to accomplish. They had to establish themselves as well, they had to make a name for themselves and prove to others that they are worthy of the fame. For example, Michael Phelps and Michelangelo didn’t come out of nowhere and become famous painters or world record-breaking swimmers. Michael Phelps had to work hard and prove himself to his coaches and countless Olympic trials to get all those medals. Michelangelo had to work with other artists and learn how to become someone who could be a working artist. He had to do many apprenticeships and many projects before accomplishing his most famous commissioned works. Both of these extraordinary people had to work for their fame.