What's in a Price?

Hey fellow philosophy students! The British graffiti artist Banksy recently had a month-long (unofficial) residency in New York that attracted the attention of a lot of major media outlets. One such story that came out of the coverage (and believe me, there were a lot of news-worthy headlines from the duration of Banksy's trip to NYC) talked about a $50 thrift shop painting that Banksy modified. After Banksy had touched the art, it's value skyrocketed to somewhere around $310,000. We recently talked in class how just a piece of art's association with an artist that collector's deem worthy can increase it's inherent value. Granted, the funds from the painting are being donated to charity, but does the art really deserve that price tag? Is the name behind a piece more important than the actual art? I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts, so feel free to respond below.

Here's the link to the article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/banksy-thrift-store-paint_n_4181196.html

"The Banality of the Banality of Evil" (Banksy 2013)

The "graffitied" piece in its natural habitat

Pop Culture

   Society has changed drastically in the last few years, so has our culture. Pop art has become the new trend, and has changed our expectations of art completely. Music, specifically, has become a huge part of that expectation. One of my inspirations (no matter how many people laugh at me) is Lady Gaga. Her music has always had some underlying message that many people don't bother to notice. She is creatively disturbed in a sense, which I would assume Scharfstein would refer to her as a "genius" because she holds a certain view of things. She proves these views through her actions and art.

   Some people would protest this by claiming she auto tunes her voice, and doesn't actually sing. I would like to raise the question, that if VCDC can tune the keyboard and give it different sounds, isn't that relatively the same as changing someone's voice? In both cases you are tuning it to give it different sounds and evoke different emotions. So why is pop culture so roughly criticized, since it is being done in other parts of the world and looked at as beautiful?

Copies

     Supposedly, copying art ruins the aesthetic value. The more times it is duplicated, the more it ruins its authenticity. Right? Well take the example of movies that have been made based off of books. They recreate the entire book, using actors that resemble the characters almost exactly. Then they recreate the scenes and the plot, etc. to the point of complete copying (the good ones anyway).
   
     Now take the example of video games or plastic toys based off of comic books, or movies. Again, they recreate the characters, the scenes, or at least the concept. So if directors and producers can recreate things and make different versions of it, and it can be socially acceptable (sometimes), then what is the difference when other artists recreate paintings. Most of the time they do it to preserve something, or to interpret it differently. Same goes for when movies or video games are copied off of something else. The do it to preserve something or to recreate it. Like how the classic black and white movies are re-made into modern times. . .

Hunger Games Reviews

     With the new Hunger Games movie Catching Fire coming out this week, I thought it would be interesting to see what the official movie critics had to say about it. See, when I think of art, I picture a painting; I tend to be very narrow minded like that. But what I've come to realize is that art is in everything, even movies. Now, I am a big Hunger Games fan, so to think that movies nowadays are considered "art", is pretty exciting.
     New York Daily News says, "The good news is it comes very close, and does it without sacrificing its soul. Despite its sense of been-here-slayed-that, director Francis Lawrence expertly delivers thrills, ideas and spectacle." As of now, there haven't been many negative reviews reported on Metacritic, but then again the movie is not open to the public right now. My point is that it hasn't even been released to the whole world yet, so how can we base our judgments off of a few paid movie critics. I would like to place emphasis on the word "paid." Are these opinions biased? Who's to say they aren't? So then how can we base opinions off of someone else when we don't know them personally. I have a hard time with sites like this, because of the fact that I don't know if  I can trust these people. What makes them a reliable critic when they may have been obligated to say good or bad things?
     This is especially key when it comes to deciding to see a movie. I personally don't like to follow what critics say, because I like to form my own opinions first. I believe that everyone is entitled to that privilege, with the exception that they don't shove it down other people's throats. I have noticed that when serious critics get heated, this becomes an issue. Many people get so passionate about their points that innocent listeners or readers can often be scared into believing the review is accurate. So in a way, we have to use the review as a form of advice, not just a complete opinion.


http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hunger-games-catching-fire

Who is fit to criticize?

Critics are everywhere.

Every aspect of art is immersed in criticism. People make a living off of criticizing works of art.

Isn't criticism merely ones opinion? Why is it that some people get paid for their opinion while others do not?

In every criticism, no one critic can be purely objective.
The human element is always present in a critique, which always leaves a criticism open for bias.

The main thing about criticism to me is, why is one person worthy of telling others what is good or not?

I will say that critics, at least professional ones, seem to have more experience and knowledge of all of the works they've critiqued over time. This knowledge, expertise, and art wisdom cannot be ignored, but the overall criticism is still based off of one persons opinion formed by initial reactions, contemplations and even past experiences.

That being said, criticism will be different for every person because these factors will always be different. I personally believe critique should stay at a personal level. If a piece is beautiful to you, or has some sort of meaning, then let it be beautiful and meaningful. Don't attempt to force your views on other people and get angry when they can't see what you see. Even more so, don't let the opinion of "professional" critics change what a piece means to you.

The only critic in my life is myself, if i enjoy something, that's for me and no one else can change it.

Agree? Disagree? let me know :)

Video Games are Art

I’ve never really been interested in video games until recently. I use to think that they were a waste of time and didn’t do anyone any good. Lately though, I’ve been obsessed with playing the video game Halo along with other games and I’ve wondered whether people thought they were art or not. The idea that some people consider it art is relatable to myself. I personally believe that all video games are, in some way or another, art. However, there have been debates on whether or not people should consider video games a work of art. They might argue that games shouldn’t be art if, in the same sense, magazines and other similar objects have alike qualities such as visual elements and because they have such elements does not make it art. I would argue that the characters, the story, and everything else that people had to put thought into is considered art. Someone is expressing their ideas in the same way that an artist would; only difference is that the person expresses it through a video game instead of on paper. Just because someone else doesn’t like it, doesn’t mean that it’s not art.  

What does it take to be a Genius?

Geniuses have been around for an extremely long time now, however, it is difficult to say what exactly classifies someone as being a genius. For example, many directors and authors nowadays are writing/directing things that have already happened in the past; only problem with that is that it’s not original. In my opinion, I think something has to be original in order for that creator to be considered a genius. This word is basically used as a guide for life. As Coomaraswamy put it, it’s a “guiding spirit.” Some will thrive to be one because it’s the best that a person can be even if everyone doesn’t reach that level. In others words, we all have the aspect of becoming a genius, but only the ones who have experienced intellectual people before or have been in front of their work of art can become one. Therefore it could be possible that writers and directors these days have genius, but they aren’t geniuses.