In this chapter the issue of women in the art field is discussed and how it is harder for women artist to be fully recognized like the men of the industry. I think that this is an interesting issue to think about because it can sort of be related to different genres of study other than art. It has just been a commonality in history that women seem to have a harder time being recognized or credited with things. For example, women were not given the right to vote along with men at first, women were often thought of as just being there to take care of the home and children, and women today are still making less money than men in the same field of work. It is almost like women are always one step behind men.
This can be looked upon as being unfair to the female sex but some women stand up for what they believe in and fight against the stereotype. The Guerrilla Girls' Movement is a perfect example. With their saying "add women and stir," they started a movement. Some think that it is easier to put women artist in a separate category than men in order for their work to be highlighted and compared against one another. What the Guerrilla Girls were trying to do is say that if women wanted to be recognized as artist on the same level as men, then they needed to be shown and considered on the same level as male artist. Why should a woman's art work not be hung up next to a male artist's work in order for them to be compared? Why is it necessary for the women to be in their own category for them to be compared?
Maybe when it comes to something like the art world, having one's race, sexuality, or gender remain anonymous would benefit everyone. The viewer would look at the piece without having preconceived judgments on the artist or their personal views and the artist would be given an unbiased judgment whether they were male or female.
Questions:
1. Are the Guerrilla Girls still active in the art community?
2. Did their movement change anything in the art world based on gender?
May 4, 2008
April 28, 2008
Money & Museums
The beginning of the chapter discusses art museums and the location and geographical location of them. Freeland also talks about how "every group has (or wants) their own museums." She mentions the different museums that specifically relate to a certain group or point in time like the African American Art museum, Jewish museums, and the National Museum for Women in the Arts. I think that this is true. I had never really thought about all of the museums scattered around Washington, DC. There is even a museum devoted to spys!
Freeland then goes on to discuss how Pierre Bourdieu studied the relationship between class and taste in art, music, film, and theatre. He claimed that people with a lower class background preferred fewer classical composers than people in the high economic, professional, and educational brackets. I think that this is sort of a broad statement to make. It is very stereotypical. If someone were poor and living on the street, that does not mean that they do not enjoy classical music or theatre.
Freeland also talks about the effect of money on museums and art. Someone who is wealthy can show much support for a particular artist that appeals to their taste. Big corporations or businesses can also provide money for a certain artist or exhibit in order to boost their reputation and image. Basically, Freeland is saying that the art world can be effected by money in the way it is perceived by the public and artists. I think that this is somewhat true. Something like a Monet painting is know to most as being very expensive, therefor giving it more appeal.
Questions:
1. What do you consider to be the real relationship between class and artistic taste?
2. What is the most important effect that money has on the art world?
Freeland then goes on to discuss how Pierre Bourdieu studied the relationship between class and taste in art, music, film, and theatre. He claimed that people with a lower class background preferred fewer classical composers than people in the high economic, professional, and educational brackets. I think that this is sort of a broad statement to make. It is very stereotypical. If someone were poor and living on the street, that does not mean that they do not enjoy classical music or theatre.
Freeland also talks about the effect of money on museums and art. Someone who is wealthy can show much support for a particular artist that appeals to their taste. Big corporations or businesses can also provide money for a certain artist or exhibit in order to boost their reputation and image. Basically, Freeland is saying that the art world can be effected by money in the way it is perceived by the public and artists. I think that this is somewhat true. Something like a Monet painting is know to most as being very expensive, therefor giving it more appeal.
Questions:
1. What do you consider to be the real relationship between class and artistic taste?
2. What is the most important effect that money has on the art world?
April 23, 2008
Culture.
In today's readings, Freeland writes about how Dewey believes that "art is the best possible window into another culture." I think that Dewey's argument is totally true. The way different cultures represent their people and beliefs through sculpture, paintings, jewelry making, etc. is very interesting. This is a way that certain cultures can reflect on their past and present in a creative manner.
Freeland goes on to sort of disagree with what Dewey was saying by talking about post-colonialism and its effect on culture. I guess this is a valid point. Cultures do go through many changes and art can merely be showing the changes that they are going through at that particular time. I don't really identify strongly with one particular culture so I don't think that I have very much knowledge on cultural traditions or how the art of them depicts the people and events.
Freeland goes on to sort of disagree with what Dewey was saying by talking about post-colonialism and its effect on culture. I guess this is a valid point. Cultures do go through many changes and art can merely be showing the changes that they are going through at that particular time. I don't really identify strongly with one particular culture so I don't think that I have very much knowledge on cultural traditions or how the art of them depicts the people and events.
Shock Value
When first reading the article about how Yale student Aliza Shvarts used self induced miscarriages to create a sort of art, I was sort of shocked. Number one, abortion is a very serious and debatable topic in today's society. People take strong stands on either side and using a subject like that in art can be very controversial. And the fact that she was purposely miscarrying, something that has effected many women, seems morbid and hurtful.
After reading the second article and realizing that the whole thing was a lie was also somewhat surprising. Why would she just not come out and immediately say that all of the blood and video tapes were fake, just representing something, instead of playing that they were real. I think that she was going more for the performance art aspect rather than actual display. Although she claims that she was not going for the shock value of the piece, it is kind of hard to believe that when she was lying in order to people to react in shock and disbelief.
Why is using blood in artwork controversial? Is it the fact that it comes from something that we do not associate positive things with. Why do artist continue to use it? Is it for the shock value or the way that it actually looks in the artwork?
After reading the second article and realizing that the whole thing was a lie was also somewhat surprising. Why would she just not come out and immediately say that all of the blood and video tapes were fake, just representing something, instead of playing that they were real. I think that she was going more for the performance art aspect rather than actual display. Although she claims that she was not going for the shock value of the piece, it is kind of hard to believe that when she was lying in order to people to react in shock and disbelief.
Why is using blood in artwork controversial? Is it the fact that it comes from something that we do not associate positive things with. Why do artist continue to use it? Is it for the shock value or the way that it actually looks in the artwork?
April 16, 2008
That's Meaningful.
The readings this week talked all about the relationship that the artist has with his or her work that they create. Michael Foucault discusses the significance of the work to the artist. For example, one might create something to signify something that they find very important or meaningful to them whereas someone else might not have the same feelings towards the same subject matter. That tends to change the significance of a piece to different individuals.
Michael Baxandall goes into the interpretation of a piece of work. He explains that different viewers and artists view works of art differently than the creator of the art. When looking at something like Damien Hirst's Shark in a Tank, one viewer might think it represents something meaningful like embracing your fears, etc. but on the other hand one might look at it and simply think that it is just a shark in tank. It makes you wonder what the artist was trying to accomplish when they produced the artwork. Is there a certain message that they are trying to get across? What is the purpose of using this specific element in the work? It also makes you question what others think about the work that you create....
Questions:
1. Is the significance of a certain work of art always revealed to the viewer? How so?
Michael Baxandall goes into the interpretation of a piece of work. He explains that different viewers and artists view works of art differently than the creator of the art. When looking at something like Damien Hirst's Shark in a Tank, one viewer might think it represents something meaningful like embracing your fears, etc. but on the other hand one might look at it and simply think that it is just a shark in tank. It makes you wonder what the artist was trying to accomplish when they produced the artwork. Is there a certain message that they are trying to get across? What is the purpose of using this specific element in the work? It also makes you question what others think about the work that you create....
Questions:
1. Is the significance of a certain work of art always revealed to the viewer? How so?
April 14, 2008
Genius!
The readings this week talked about the subject of geniuses. What makes a genius? How does something that is commonly associated with educational subjects relate to art?
Immanuel Kant discusses genius as something that is hard to come by and is very valuable. He claims that it is something that can not be passed on to others nor learned. You are just born with the skills of a genius. You are naturally gifted. That is how it is related to art. Science and math can all be taught where as someone who is being creative and expressing themselves through art is using their own skills and knowledge. So someone who is considered an art genius creates things that exposes things and subjects that are often hidden. If what Kant is saying is true about not needing education to be considered a genius in the art word, then why are there some many colleges with students enrolled in the art programs.
Nochlin talks about the problem of schooling and genius when she argues that the problems stems from the manner in which artist are taught and molded in an educational setting. She goes on to discuss how women have had a hard time establish themselves in the contemporary art world because there have been no great women art predecessors. I think that this is an interesting point coming from a woman. Do you think that a male would feel the same way about a "female artistic genius"?
Overall, I think that when most people hear the word genius, they automatically associate it with someone like Albert Einstein or a famous doctor but many overlook the art world's geniuses. It is something that I think most people do not recognize, including myself.
Questions:
1. What qualifies someone as being a genius in the art world?
2. Who are recent art geniuses?
Immanuel Kant discusses genius as something that is hard to come by and is very valuable. He claims that it is something that can not be passed on to others nor learned. You are just born with the skills of a genius. You are naturally gifted. That is how it is related to art. Science and math can all be taught where as someone who is being creative and expressing themselves through art is using their own skills and knowledge. So someone who is considered an art genius creates things that exposes things and subjects that are often hidden. If what Kant is saying is true about not needing education to be considered a genius in the art word, then why are there some many colleges with students enrolled in the art programs.
Nochlin talks about the problem of schooling and genius when she argues that the problems stems from the manner in which artist are taught and molded in an educational setting. She goes on to discuss how women have had a hard time establish themselves in the contemporary art world because there have been no great women art predecessors. I think that this is an interesting point coming from a woman. Do you think that a male would feel the same way about a "female artistic genius"?
Overall, I think that when most people hear the word genius, they automatically associate it with someone like Albert Einstein or a famous doctor but many overlook the art world's geniuses. It is something that I think most people do not recognize, including myself.
Questions:
1. What qualifies someone as being a genius in the art world?
2. Who are recent art geniuses?
April 9, 2008
Apollinian vs. Dionysian
In the preface it discusses that the development of the theories of the aesthetic in Part Two concentrates on aesthetic pleasure, which it describes as general way of considering the experience of beauty. I think that this is going to be interesting considering what I consider to be the definition of aesthetics. When first thinking of the word aesthetics, I think of the common phrase "That is very aesthetically pleasing to me." I think that it will be interesting how they apply aesthetics to something tragic, terrible, or even horrific as they say in the preface.
Freidrich Nietzsche first thought of the Greek tragedy and how the experience arouses certain emotions. He talks about two types of categories of art that in turn, create two different aesthetic experiences. The first style, Apollinian, is a structured art that creates beauty of form. Things such as paintings and sculptures would be considered Apollinian because they display everyday things or scenes into something that the viewer can grasp and understand by just looking at it. The other category is Dionysian which is an art of participation where the viewer loses a sense of identity while experiencing it. This sort of art shows the brutal parts of life and tragedy. Nietzsche says that Greek tradgedy is capable of showing the pain and unfair emotions that are often associated with life. Dionysian art can often include dance or music that one loses themselves in the experience.
Questions:
1. In the two categories that Nietzsche describes, are the feelings that the piece evokes the only thing that qualifies it as a certain category?
2. What are some modern examples of the two categories?
Freidrich Nietzsche first thought of the Greek tragedy and how the experience arouses certain emotions. He talks about two types of categories of art that in turn, create two different aesthetic experiences. The first style, Apollinian, is a structured art that creates beauty of form. Things such as paintings and sculptures would be considered Apollinian because they display everyday things or scenes into something that the viewer can grasp and understand by just looking at it. The other category is Dionysian which is an art of participation where the viewer loses a sense of identity while experiencing it. This sort of art shows the brutal parts of life and tragedy. Nietzsche says that Greek tradgedy is capable of showing the pain and unfair emotions that are often associated with life. Dionysian art can often include dance or music that one loses themselves in the experience.
Questions:
1. In the two categories that Nietzsche describes, are the feelings that the piece evokes the only thing that qualifies it as a certain category?
2. What are some modern examples of the two categories?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
