Art As a Gateway to the Sacred

In the two millennia that Christianity has existed, art has played an ever vital role in the lives of the faithful.  Christian art developed early in the history of the church, with symbols, such as fish or lamb to  represent Christ and/or Christian communities.  However, once Christianity became an established religion, the world of Christian art exploded.  Many fine pieces of this early art remain today, such as mosaics and stain glass windows.  These impressive depictions were created to transport the worshiper from an earthly state to a divine experience, or heaven on earth.  Something we are all very familiar with, cathedrals, are considered to be some of the most impressive structures built to this day and they themselves are considered artwork. These churches were filled with statues and stained glass, not only to create a celestial atmosphere, but also to tell as story.  During the middle ages, an overwhelming majority of the population was illiterate, therefore churches began to teach through art.  These statues and stained glass are meant to tell the story of the Old Testament, Christ, and Church doctrine, making it easier for people to understand their religious beliefs.  I find religious art to be a fascinating addition to the art world.  It serves such an important role in the church and in many ways allows people to strengthen their faith.

Blog #12 Nov. 19th

Cultural Differences
      If there is one thing this course has made me do, that would be thinking about how other cultures differ from our own.  In what ways are they different than us?  What structure do they have for society?  How do they view things there in an aesthetic sense?  It is important to learn about other cultures because they give us a new window of opportunity of viewing other people.  I would like to see how those people see things like Worhols and Picassos.  Would these just be colorful confusing artworks, or would they see a universal meaning?  Would these people view these things and see something instantaneously without even thinking about it?  These are the things that could define someone as a genius.  Producing a universal image that is aesthetically pleasing to an audience, any audience.  Moving people from different: political, racial, geographic, and cultural backgrounds into seeing something they can understand even speaking another language.  Is this wrong?  My definition of genius at least?...any comments/suggestions?  

Blog #11 Nov. 7th

We had talked about a lot of different things in these couple weeks of class and still talking about the idea of genius and how one can be genius; whether it lies in the conscious or unconscious part of our mind.  I could say that I am a genius and it could mean nothing because in most ways I could not prove it, while an artist could display their skills and ability by creating something brilliant.  However, does that make them a genius?  If producing an amazing piece of artwork does not constitute you as a genius, then what does?  To be considered as one, you cannot be aware of it or try to create a certain thing because it would attract others...you have to do it because you do it (being guided or inspired to do a certain thing could give you the title of being a genius).  Not many people are satisfied with a piece that is an "original" (which might be why Sun Ra gained attention...but I digress).  People always want brand new and things never seen before.  People are trying though to give people what they want and in turn it is conscious of what they want to produce rather than letting it come naturally to them (unconscious).  If you ask me, I know who is a genius....Bob Ross (you may know him as the "happy tree" guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MghiBW3r65M

So is this guy a genius because he does his work frrr flowing with little thought at all?  You tell me.

Blog #10 October 31st

I'm an avid country fan...VCDC was not country.  I didn't know what to expect when I walked into the room.  I was really thrown off when things started to actually play together and flow.  I was shocked at how such weird noises could mash together and create such an interesting sound that was actually aesthetically pleasing to my ears.  I liked the abstract approach you have to take to listen to the music because it makes you realize how mainstream music is...I doubt they'll be making a VCDC based radio station anytime soon.   Nevertheless, I loved the complex sounds and atmosphere that they brought with their music because the audience acted differently than any concert I had ever been to.  My question would be what do we consider music and where is the line of what is and is not music?  What line do we draw?  This is an interesting thought because it would challenge possibly what VCDC is doing and the composition of songs.

Blog #9 October 24th

Sun Ra
      My dear god, we watched the Sun Ra video(s) in class and the guy was an absolute nut case!  His music was something nobody had ever seen and claimed he was from another planet come to shed his influence on everyone of Earth.  People enjoyed it because it was a statement and most people thought it was a black rights movement, this was not the case.  Although I don't enjoy the music, at all, I liked very much how humble he was about not needing to go to a bigger audience.  Sun Ra's documentary was really interesting thinking in the sense of being aesthetic  because they were all thinking about and trying out new methods, sounds, and genres of music.  It just amazes me that he made such an impact as an entertainer and an individual because he was so weird and outlandish with his music.  He was very consistent, very serious, and very passionate.  All about the cosmos and showing people a new way to view the reality we built up for ourselves. To me, that is very aesthetically pleasing.  I watched a few minuted of his movie "Space is the Place"....just...wow.  Pretty interesting though.

Blog #8 Oct. 17th

In class we talked about the components of genius...this tied with the topic of the week very ironically to me.  Egocentric artists are a real problem as we see that the up-and-coming artists are basically in it for the fame and money that comes along with their talents.  Talent is probably the best word for the ones that use their skill set to make profit off of it while the ones with the GIFT use it to take their style and revolutionize the way we (the general audience) views it.  By using their genius to change lives and viewpoints, pay should be irrelevant, as the master motive should be forever the way their audience views their work.  If they use their genius to produce a work of art that is reproduced for hundreds of years, or viewed and protected, then they probably lived the right way and used their gift in the right sense.  If an artist says they are genius, however, it creates a stir and makes others stereotype what genius is.  So then what exactly is genius? Is it ability, is it knowledge, is it a way of life?  Can someone be a genius if it is a conscious thing for them, or rather, is in an unconscious reality that comes about from their style of artwork?  I would personally like to think that it is all unconscious, but you never really know with artists these days.

This quote made me laugh thinking about artists that say they are in touch with genius:
“I'm a misunderstood genius."
"What's misunderstood?"
"Nobody thinks I'm a genius.” 
      --Bill Watterson

Blog #7 Oct. 8th

Picasso
We watched the Picasso video in class and what bothered me was the part where it shows him drawing a "masterpiece" on a translucent page so we could see the exact steps it took to get the finished product.  I'm not saying that the artwork he produced wasn't amazing and historical, however, I was not impressed to see how quickly he created an image and it looked somewhat cool.  His finished product in the video was not impressive to me.  That being said, we protect artists like him as if he had properties of a god.  This is a little bit too much for me to comprehend.  In my opinion, Pablo Picasso's works were somewhat of a cognitive overload for anyone looking at them.  The figures were very complex as well as the color he used to express the images.  This, to me, is something that makes art ugly or unappealing.  I have been yelled at multiple times for referring to his paintings as "cognitive overload" and said I can't respect good artwork.  I disagree (of course) because if it doesn't do anything to me aesthetically, then there is nothing I can really do to change the way that I view it.  If anyone says Picasso's works are better than Leonardo da Vinci's...we can have a nice discussion about it outside class.
I apologize, but this is just too much cognitive load for my brain to enjoy