You say "potato," I say "art." But just what is
art anyway?
In Chapter two, the text explores some major
aspects of the visual arts which shape
our understanding and appreciation of it.
The first issue that was raised in this
chapter has to do with the value of art.
I mean, think about it-- have you ever wondered
why some art is so much more valuable
than other art? The text talks about
this and and even then explores the very
definition of art. The term of art is a
bit loaded, and we all have our personal
expectations
of what we feel must be met for
something to be called "art" even if we're
not even aware of our bias. And so
this chapter looks at some of these
expectations and these ideas that are
often attached and surround this highly
debated term "art." The second major idea
affecting our definition of art involves
the notion of beauty
It seems like beauty is something that
people have come to expect and seek in
art, and I think the more you discuss
and analyze what makes a work of art
beautiful, the more you notice these
characteristics of beauty all around you.
Artists like the photographer Edward Weston
help us to appreciate beauty in
unexpected places, like in this photograph of
piece of cabbage. A true pioneer in the
art of food selfies, if you will.
The text's discussion on beauty also makes us
wonder if there's every time we think
the non beautiful would be preferred? I mean,
think about it, why would you
intentionally want to make something
ugly or cause feelings of disgust or
repulsion of viewers? Would there be ever a
reason for that? Something to ponder,
and perhaps we'll get a chance to
discuss that later on in the course.
Along with the discussion of beauty,
another major idea of art explored in
text involves a work of art's overall
appearance. I want you to try a thought
experiment
and look at these two paintings, and
think about which one you want award of
the blue ribbon to? Now usually when I ask
people which painting they prefer, it's
actually
typically, the first painting--the one on
the left. Which makes us wonder: why is
this?
Now, I think most would say this because it looks more
realistic and lifelike. And that
makes me wonder-- why is it that so many
people believe that art should aim at
representing nature more accurately? And
I think that maybe with people would say
that perhaps in this way is because it
looks like it took more skill and that,
perhaps, the artists on the left is more
talented than the artist on
the right. That's why it made surprise me
to find out that both of these paintings
were painted by the same artist. And his name
was Pablo Picasso and he painted the work
on the left when he was 14 and the work on the
right when he was
27. So why this change of style?
Why didn't Picasso-- this child painting
prodigy continue to paint
in the traditional manner, much to
the approval of mainstream society? In
order to understand that question, I
think you have to consider the time in
which is working. I mean, think about it, what
was invented in the 19th century that
change the role of representing
realistic images? I'll give you a hint
"say cheese!" The one of the reasons that the
camera was such a game-changer for
photography,
one of the main functions of the artist want to
record and commemorate and document
events and people, as realistically as
possible. And so when the camera was
invented it literally turned more art
world upside down. And maybe this is how
the artists were feeling, and so yeah,
with the camera a lot of artists began
to really think their role. After
photography took off,
Pablo Picasso famously said, "Well, now we
know what painting isn't" and so for
Picasso, painting was no longer about
anything for representation or
naturalistic appearances. Painting became a
means to achieve something else entirely.
And we'll discuss more about Picasso
genius later and why works like the one on
the right are considered a masterpiece
and sell for over a hundred million
dollars and why it would actually take a
lot of skill to create such a work.
But more on that later. The big idea is that just
because the work of art isn't lifelike
doesn't mean that it didn't require
skill or as much forethought. It usually just
means that have the artist had different
intentions and different goals. And we
see abstraction used for various reasons
throughout all of history, and we see it
becoming more mainstream and Western
cultures after the spread of photography.
And while some artists remained intent
on rendering the human body or nature
as naturalistically as possible for
their own reasons, other artists looked to
abstraction to best communicate their
ideas. Explorations of abstract art
eventually led up to what we call
"non-representational art" or, art that
doesn't necessarily depict a
particular thing from nature when some people
see works like this, they're often unsure what
to make of it,
or how to talk about it. To that, I would say
that it's important to realize that this
style of art also has the ability to
communicate thoughts, ideas, and feelings--
even if the imagery isn't directly linked
to something that we can recognize from
nature.
I think we would all agree that music doesn't
have to have words being sung in order to
communicate a mood or idea. And in the
same way, art shouldn't need
to have recognizable imagery in
order to communicate either.
Aside from mere appearances, another major
aspect of the notion of art has to do
with meaning. Now a lot of the videos in
this class discussing art will often
talk about the meaning of a work of art
and oftentimes, in order to understand a
work of art, it really is important to
look at the work's iconography-- or its use of
symbols in order to communicate. One of my
favorite paintings is this painting by
Jan Van Eyck. One of the things that I love
about it all of the amazing details, which
symbolize all different kinds of things.
I love it-- it''s like a novel that I could keep
reading for the rest of my life. Amazing!
The last thing I want to cover from this
chapter about understanding art is the
importance of a work's context. If you
didn't know about context behind the
sculpture,
yeah-- you could pose for a few moments
and admire the craftsmanship and style
But when you understand the fact that this would have been
originally been placed on a linguist's
staff in Ghana, Africa, it completely
changes the framework in which you view and
understand this work. So audience, beauty,
appearance, meaning, context..
these are all things that attach
themselves to the notion of "art." And I
think if you want to make the most of
your aesthetic experiences, these are some ideas
to really take into consideration. So that's it
for chapter 2. Until next time!