So far we have mainly spoken about aesthetics as the inquiry into the category of the beautiful and with the onset of the enlightenment sublimity was added to the definition (class notes 1/24). These questions focus on art. Almost obviously not all art is "beautiful" nor seeks it (sculptures in front of banks) , so is aesthetics all/only "beauty"...I reckon this raises the similar question/answer notion that failing art works are required to recognize that others are great and thus to what degrees of failure and the definition of such.
This is such a terrible question. It's really just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. I eventually went with "yes" but really I felt that decision in my "heart of hearts" about as much as if I'd flipped a coin. What in the hell does it even mean?
Suppose I am designing a bridge. Should a bridge "represent reality"? That makes no sense. It's an impossible question. It's like, "Should your oranges vote for Nader?" Uhm, I think there's some presuppositions there, just saying.
2. Can a work of art fail?
Of course this question begs, "To who?" But in general, I'd say, sure. If I want to build a bridge, I try to build a bridge, and the bridge collapses, yeah, I think I can say I failed.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
Yes. If my bridge is upside down, but still somehow works, that's pretty f'n avant-garde.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes. My bridge is better. Faster. Stronger. And also the subject of some awesome music videos. My bridge is made of win and your bridge is made of fail. Thank you.
1) no Art is an expression of our reaction towards reality. This expression can or cannot be realistic because there is no right or wrong when it comes to expression. Art CAN represent reality, but it should not HAVE TO represent reality.
2) yes Art is a method of communication from the viewpoint of who created it. However, some art is so obscure that the audience has trouble understanding what the artist is trying to communicate, and in the failure to communicate, the art fails. Some say that art is from the viewpoint of the audience, that whatever the audience thinks it is saying is what it is. Yet ultimately we trace meaning back to "what the artist is trying to say", so communication is at the root of art.
3) no Avant-Garde art by definition is art that employs experimental and unorthodox approaches. In order for something to be experimental and unorthodox, there would need to new elements that no one has approached before. However, how we approach something has already been influenced by what we have experienced, and so anything that is strange to us is not so much new and unheard of before as it is something that has been recycled and remolded from the past. Avant-Garde art is inevitably tied to what is and what has been.
4) yes Progress is a result of us changing our views and actions into a form we deem better. We change because we are influenced by particular things that change us in a particular way and thereby urge us to change our environment in a particular way. Because the nature of art progress is particular, there would need to be particular art forms that influence this. It is why we celebrate different art forms in different eras, because the individual progresses that happen are due to the focus on some art forms and not on others.
1- Should art represent reality? Yes. Art is a reflexion of what the artist sees and desires in his/her world. It does not necessarily mean that it will please or agree with everyone, but it translates a view where others do not manifest about it, but either speculate or criticize it.
2- Can work of art fail? No, if is a kind of art that does not affect people's lives directly, such as an abstract painting where only the creator of it seem to grasp its value and true meaning. But, if it is a type of art, such as the bridge mentioned previously by fellow "le creature de flames," where people's lives are at stake, of course it can fail. But that you already knew, right?
3- Is there such a thing as avant-garde art? Yes. The aqueducts, the Pantheon, Rome (largest single span dome for well over a millennium), the basilicas and perhaps most famously of all, the Colosseum speak for itself.
4-Does some art contribute more to progress than others. Yes. The same way Roman and Greek classic influences are still a constant (with their art, philosophy and architecture), present artists such as Jackson Pollock, who redefined how art was viewed in his abstract expressionism paintings and Francis Lloyd Wright, who is often considered the greatest U.S. architect, famous for "organic architecture," are constantly leaning towards that enlightenment window where the population is mostly benefited from.
1. Should Art represent Reality? Yes (?), but what is Art? What is Representation? What is Reality? If even we were to define these terms each in our own way, we would come up with even vaguer terms to describe those terms. We might end up somewhere more grounded and comfortable on that cliff face (to re use Dale's original analogy). At the same time, we could put ourselves in an even more precarious situation as we found ourselves sprawled out, clinging desperately to that cliff with our new choice of footholds. I think I got this idea from Dale in an earlier R20 class. But that aside, Isn't the reaction to Reality as it is happening in itself in essence a real event as well, broadly speaking of course? That is, when we try to represent that reaction to something, aren't we trying to represent a real situation that first existed at the time we were provoked. Shouldn't then that make the Art "real" in some sense?
2. Can a work of Art Fail? Sure why not? If it doesn't get the kind of recognition the author intended initially, then in that sense, it fails. If it is only rediscovered much after the author has forgotten about it, or dies, it still failed to reach its originally intended audience. That being said, the new audience is probably of a different generation with a different set of values and judgements about Art, so how they determine its 'fitness' to stand as a work of Art, may vastly differ from the notions of the generation it was intended for. I place more value on original intent and the artist's own aspirations simply because that is to him and those closest to his art what matters most. The audience, as we know, is an unruly beast, devoid of any sense of order, propriety, and maybe even sense (among a great number of other things). That probably goes in the face of everything we were taught about the "death of the author" in R10. But it seems to me that the author's own status in his community has some bearing on whether or not a work will be accepted. Take for example, those simple sketches, drafts if you will, that go for thousands and thousands of dollars, simply because it was by Picasso or Stein from such and such a period. How is that possible? Especially if the author himself considers it pedestrian, or devoid of any real value.
3. No, Avante garde is bullshit. Art takes inspiration from something that is already established. In that way, most and I will say all art is just a reinvention of the wheel.
4. Yes, some arts contribute more to progress than others. With the addendum that says: "...if you are looking at it from a certain historical period." That is, like I said earlier, some art will capture the attention of those the author intended it to, and thus it will contribute something for that generation. Other art may completely be thrown away or forgotten simply because it sucks or whatever. And because people will have felt cheated or wasted their time, they will say it didnt contribute anything to their lives. Also, those arts that are rediscovered later on, well that presents an interesting dilemma. Sure they failed their original intent, but they captured another generation, perhaps in some other way, and that could lead to progress. So is failure the first time the end of the work? Or better yet, does that even matter to those who study it later on? Or maybe I'm not even getting the point of what I'm trying to say, so I'll leave this discussion here and very much open to attack and debate.
[These questions took me by surprise. Here I am, at the introductory lecture, idly pondering the idea of ‘aesthetics’ (something that, save for a passing glance, I’ve never truly looked into), and I’m swiftly pushed into the deep end of the pool not knowing how to swim, whether the coping strategies that have served me well in the past are even applicable in this new context, whether what I’ve suddenly fallen into is actually highly corrosive acid. Which is likely to be the case, because, given what was mentioned about virtually all responses being problematic in some form or other, it doesn’t seem like it is possible to emerge from this coherently.
What’s more, the more I look into them, the more they spontaneously generate other questions that are each equally raucous with their cry to be answered. I suppose this could be extended to all forms of ‘art’ (literary and visual) as well: one has the choice of sufficing with little more than a cursory look at the object of their perception before passing judgment—say, seeing a depiction of a pipe in Magritte’s famous painting and moving on—or, of seeing the work as embedded in a cultural context, saturated with not only the personal history of the artist but as a materialization, a convergence of political, ideological, and sometimes even physiological factors… In short, of going into details and running the likely risk of losing oneself in them.
For instance, the last question (“Does some art contribute more to progress than others?”) can be responded more easily if one disregards the worrisome notion of ‘progress’ it evokes and what that implies and instead views it as essentially juxtaposing a work like Picasso’s “Guernica” with that of a generic watercolor of a vase with flowers hanging crookedly in a motel room. Seen in such a manner, it seems obvious that the latter is evidence for answering “yes”.
However, if one refuses to interrogate this particular troublesome word and attempt to make the question less cumbersome by paraphrasing it as a simplistic dichotomy (a widely recognized, original, invaluable masterpiece versus a mass-produced chintzy lithography) it seems that one loses sight of those works that were deliberately obscured or forcibly suppressed due to their potential to provoke revolutionary realizations, works verging on profane in contrast with the dominant values and sensibilities of their time. One loses sight of the elaborate matrix of power and influences underlying a minor ripple, let alone the concrete semblance of cultural betterment, or ‘progress’. ‘Progress’? Towards what? Does it further complicate things to note that the label of ‘art’ is often one placed as an indication of retrospection, reflecting more success than potential? that the “sublime”, the awe-inspiring only becomes so after one has taken sufficient distance from it?
Most significantly, progress-(stability?)-regress, like superiority-(sameness?)-inferiority, presupposes a criterion, a model, and prompts the question, “Does the aesthetic have a standard? Is there a benchmark for beauty?”
To me, the question ultimately translates to this: “Does some art contribute more to furthering one’s ends than others?” Can some art act more efficiently as an ideological bludgeon (especially when art is taken as an image—a representation—of some reality)? Yes. Does some art can contribute more to progress than others? Only if I can define ‘progress’ as merely being a reference to movement (rather than to some particular goal, as the word implied).
“Should art represent reality?”
(Reality? Should what is real be limited to those things with a concrete, physical existence, or can we also recognize the non-tangible, the psychological? If it is the former, can these words be said to have a real existence? Should my online activity, my interactions with other people, be considered as ‘real’, or can they never be so because they necessarily ‘virtual’? Is ‘war’ a reality? Is the state of reality something that we’re even capable of apprehending, as if from some detached viewpoint, something that consists of objective truths, or are we necessarily condemned to our perspective, despite what seems to be an insatiable desire for meaning? Or is reality simply that which is, distinct from considerations of truth and of authenticity? … )
Yes. Why shouldn’t all art be recognized as a reference to reality, rather than dissociated expressions lacking origin? It is the reflection of something, whether it has its analog purely within the artist’s imagination or somewhere more concrete and accessible.
To deny art’s (perhaps intrinsic) affinity with reality is to sever the connection between the representation and the represented. It is to risk detachment embodied by the idea of the existence of immutable order and necessary Truths, lose our grip entirely of that cliff-face we were just now scaling, to risk being sucked into a sort of (Cartesian? Platonic?) vortex and suddenly finding ourselves floating somewhere remote, vacuous, lost the orbit of objectivity.
All this, of course, is based on the assumption that art can represent reality, that there are no limits to language, and that everything can be subsumed under our conceptual vocabulary, categorized in reference to some “essential” quality. And if reality is to be taken to be some objective standard independent of however we may perceive it—if it is exclusive, rather than inclusive— then I would say that art absolutely shouldn’t be made to represent reality.
“Can a work of art fail?”
(Fail? To whom? At what? Whose voice is it that pronounces the final judgment of ‘failure’ or ‘success’? In whose esteemed hands do we place this privilege and responsibility? Who is the audience whose gaze elevates it to sublime and beautiful, or condemns it to the rubbish heap? The academic aesthete? The artist herself? Does an object, deemed aesthetic, have an end or purpose, or is it considered an end-in-itself and ultimately transcends simplistic considerations of success and failure? As a work of art, can it be considered in terms other than its aesthetic appeal—that is to say, as an instrument, a tool used dynamically to shape influence various mediums?)
If the only way in which one could evaluate art is in reference to emulation (classicism and naturalism come to mind) —then yes, it could be said that a work of art can fail. I don’t think that is the case, though; I believe that the ways in which a work of art can delight or disappoint are equally numerous and entirely contingent on the expectations of the beholder. (For instance, when the aesthetic verges on the practical, like a few people have already mentioned, it becomes easier to assess it in terms of success/failure.) However, can a work of art fail completely? Perhaps the vital question to be answered is: can a work of art be said to only have one goal?
“Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?"
Like the question about potential contribution to progress, here surfaces another difficulty with the idea of forwardness, of ‘modern’, of ‘postmodern’, of ‘new and improved!’, of art ‘ahead of its time’ … However, the question rephrased: Do I believe that art can be transgressive? Most definitely. And such does not entail that the piece must necessarily be entirely original.]
1. Should art represent reality? No-Art CAN represent reality, but it is almost always through the lens of the artist's interpretation of reality. More often that not, art is a representation of a reality that many observers cannot understand or relate to and may even be viewed as unrealistic. Art is capable of representing infinite interpretations of reality, but need not constricted to this and can represent pure fantasy or impossibility.
2. Can a work of art fail? Yes- Regardless of who believes it has succeeded, there will always be someone, sometimes even the artist, who believes the work falls short in some way and fails.The infinite amount of different opinions of success and failure in the world make it possible for anything to fail by some standard.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art? Yes- There are projects that push the boundaries of the norm. As long as a cultural norm and freedom of expression exist, there will be avant-garde art trying to innovate and go against culturally accepted art forms.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others? Yes- This question depends heavily on the definition of progress. Art is a medium which can be used to express a variety of ideas, emotions, or causes. If the definition of progress is physical progress and development, art has the ability to persuade when used as a tool. For example, a painting of a planned park when posted in front of the raw land can inspire people as they are able to better see the potential this land holds. This art can influence people to begin to develop this as reality by demanding funding for the project or starting to work on it themselves. This painting will contribute to the physical progress of land development more than an a painting which expresses anger. If the definition of progress is regarded on a more personal, individual level, then the painting expressing anger can change someone's life. If an observer sees the anger painting and has shared the artist's emotions, they may feel as as through they have solidarity with the artist. This can bring the observer greater inner peace and happiness knowing that they aren't alone because some else has felt the same burning rage they have. This is a type of progress of the soul, but it may allow this observer to perform better in society leading to other types of progress.
Art "should" not do anything. As a personal expression its meaning and purpose comes from the artist. It has the ability to represent reality, but this is certainly not a defining factor in its definition as art.
2. Can a work of art fail?
Yes.
A better question is "to whom?" and in what sense. Most art probably fails to do something, depending on what it is being asked to do. However, from the perspective of the artist, his or her art has a purpose, a reason for existing and having been created, (Why else would he have created it?) and even if this purpose is the eschewal of a conception of purpose, that itself is a purpose. In that sense, art that does not fulfill its purpose has, of course, failed.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
No.
All art is based on what has been done before. All art (of quality) is also somehow new, somehow the original creation of the artist. To say that a work of art came before its time seems asinine and has less to do with the art itself than with its reception by others.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes.
Of course some art is more interesting, better, than others. Copying the style of another artist is obviously not contributing much to progress. In question 3 the problem is the classification of art as being progressive enough to fall into a category that defines it outright as progressive.
1) Art most definitely represents reality. Reality is not limited to our tangible universe, but encompasses our feelings, thoughts, dreams, and desires. I don't think anyone can argue that love is not real, that it does not affect us in very real ways. Any work of art is a manifestation of an artist's perception of the reality of our condition. Not only SHOULD art represent reality, but it must.
2) A work of art can fail in at least two ways. First, it can fail to convey the message that the artist seeks to convey to the world. I think it would be very difficult to find an artist who sends a piece out into the world with no intentions or expectations at all. Second, a work of art can fail to inspire thought in the minds of the audience. Even if a piece is interpreted differently than it was intended to be, it should at least add something of value to the world as we know it. Otherwise, it has no aesthetic or social value, and has failed.
3) Art can be avant-garde when it explores mediums or subjects that have hitherto remained untouched. Artists who establish distinct schools of art undoubtedly venture into novel space. It isn't pretentious to claim avant-garde status. I think it's pretentious to claim that no art can be avant-garde.
4. My argument for this question runs along the same lines as the previous question. Some art breaks out of established norms to inspire more creativity and innovation while other art simply follows the conventions of the age. By deliberately breaking rules to make statements, works of art can make not only artistic progress, but social, religious, and political progress as well.
What is art? What does it mean to represent? What is reality? These questions lie beneath the surface of the question and guides my response. If we accept reality as the physical world around us, the tangible, then art shouldn't represent reality. Emotions and thoughts--intangible--lie outside "reality" in the physical sense. Yet if we shift the meaning of reality, then the answer changes. As already suggested in class, these questions already begin on unstable grounds.
2. Can a work of art fail?
More importantly, how can a work of art fail? If art can fail, then an understanding of how art fails must exist. Or rather, someone creates a criteria to determine which art fails.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
Avant-garde to me seems to be an experience in categorizing in hindsight. In other words, critics place art in the avant-garde. If to be avant-garde means to be chic, and we take chic as a form of success, then avant-garde art is successful. And if art can be successful, then it can also fail. And if art can fail, then art which fails isn't avant-garde.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
We return to questions of denotation posed in my answer to the first question. How art contributes to progress often falls into the hands of others. The "artists" which make it into the curriculum or into museum imply success and contribution in the context of our society which prefers hierarchy.
These questions, of course, provoke and antagonize. They prompt, indeed, invite disagreement, confusion, complexity, etc. Yet they offer an introduction into the class which I appreciate.
To the first question, my first thought was that all art represents reality in that any art is produced within the reality of existence.
I feel that one can derive an interpretation of 'reality' from any work...whether it's a painting on a wall, a well designed website, or a child's performance of the ABCs.
Not trying to be weird, I just don't interpret "reality" with a limited understanding. To me, reality is just as much what is *not* present as what is.
So I answered yes, but not because it "should" do anything, just because for me, everything is reality. Everything that exists should be subject to interpretation because it is a part of reality.
1. Yes. This by no means implies that art should only represent reality. I find it somewhat elitist and contradictory to confine art to that which is strictly imaginitive and unrepresentable in reality. Such art would eradicate the significance of real events - however breath-taking and wonderfully ironic they may be - by pure virtue of the absence of their representation in art.
2. Yes, though I'm very compelled to believe otherwise. And, contrary to popular belief, not everything can be art. As goes for most things, I suppose one must consider contextual frames before making such an absolute assertion - in which case, any exception to the rule may infinitely prevent the making of such an assertion. "Art" falls into a category, which, although is an idea that varies widely from person to person, must be separated in some way or another from other disciplines that fundamentally are not "art" (i.e., history, a hospital, a trashcan). That is not to say that non-art things cannot resemble and/or liken themselves to art.
3. No. Art is still an expression of human thought and emotion - it is contrived, ironic, politically-charged, heart-breaking, sexual and unrelenting. That is, Art is in some way a reflection of human life - no matter how imaginitive and forward it may seem - because it ultimately stems from the human spirit. So, what I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as avant-garde art because that which falls into the aforementioned category of art is, by definition, an encapsulation of a humanity that is at once uninhibited and powerful and progressive - thus, the essence of the avant-garde.
4. No. I still believe that art is far from equal in its individual contributions, but their contributions are partial and variegated. Measuring one piece of art's contribution against another's is comparing apples to oranges; there is no hard-set standard by which to measure such contribution because no two pieces of art will ever, in my opinion, contribute in exactly the same way.
1. Should art represent reality? No. Art CAN represent reality, but it shouldn't have to represent reality. Art should be free to represent whatever the artist wants it to represent.
2. Can a work of art fail? Yes. Art can fail when it becomes something the artist doesn't want it to.
3. Is there such a thing as avant garde art? Yes. Some art is more thought-provoking and unorthodox than others.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others? Yes. Some art is meant purely for entertainment, fun or enjoyment, while other art is meant to stimulate progress. That is not to say that art meant for entertainment does not contribute to progress.
1. Works of art provide the framework for, or are expressions/extensions/manifestations of a given reality.
2. Thus, no work of art can fail. It can only be a manifestation of a reality that is dissonant with someone else's reality.
3. Some realities can be more dissonant than others, and can thus be labeled avant-guard. Anything can be labeled anything, I suppose.
4. If progress is the betterment of the reality that is common to us all, then art can certainly pave the way. Art can be innovation, art can be devastation, art can be both and be beautiful. Art should be beautiful.
1. Should art represent reality? I agreed with le creature de flames....the question itself is a bit difficult, however with that in mind........No. Art as a physical or intellectual property is real. It is reality. It may represent certain aspects of the artists choices (medium, color, artsy stuff here) but it takes an overall quality based on the interaction between the viewer and the piece itself...sans artist. Art is what it is and represents nothing more than its physicality and the interpretation the viewer brings.
2.Can a work of art fail? No. Again, to me, art is what it is....the rest in viewer interpretation so can art fail whom? My poetry does not fail me. Does the piece of paper with words on it set in rhyme fail because someone else does not connect with it? Does the art fail or does the viewer fail in his understanding of the artists intent?
3.Is there a such thing as avant-garde art? Yes. but my poor laymen self simply answered yes because I have seen shows advertised as such and I feel strongly if an artist represents himself in a certain genre then who better than he to decide if such a thing exists. So as the artist acknowledges the genre....so shall I.
4.Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes. I feel that animation technology is an excellent example of art leading to and/or contributing to progress. The things being done with robotics, prosthesis, pacemakers, painpumps and items of the like are a testament to progress and art.
Hey in my eyes the work being done in the medical field to restore limbs and functionality to lives is nothing short of artistry. Potato potato. :-D
Should art represent reality? Yes. I feel art should represent reality by its very nature. It is a creation of the human mind. The human mind understands things within the constraints of reality. The human mind thus creates things according to the same principles. Art, then, is a part of reality, and thus should represent itself as such in the same way as a human, or a flower, or a piece of metal, represents itself as part of reality. Because it is a creation of the human intellect, which is a product of reality, and also produces things within laws of reality, art should represent reality. Because it is a production of a human's own mind which can be manifested in many forms (scientific, architechturally, poetically), art is, by its creation, a representation of reality.
2. Can a work of art fail? No. I feel that a work of art cannot fail because it has been created by an artist for whatever internal reason drives the artist. Its creation and existence is a representation of the fact that has not failed. External criticism of the object may make it less popular than others, yet it cannot fail completely. Some inherent qualities of its "artness" has qualified it, in some way or another, as a work of art. Thus, it has succeeded in its intention on some level.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art? No. There is no such thing avant-garde art because such a work only begets such a tag after the fact of its criticism. Prior to the labeling, it is just as potentially "cutting edge" as any other piece of art may be. It is only the collectively formed response to it that creates it as "avant garde." In its purest, unjudged form, it is art like any else.
4. Does some art contribute to progress more than others? Yes. Some forms of art result in society changing directly because of that creation. For example, there are new bridge technologies that employ revolutionary concepts or works by artists, like Matisse, that captivate and attract viewers from all over the world. They cause more permanent and relevant changes in the world than other forms of art, and are thus viewed by humanity as more progressive. It sticks out in the minds of the populus more than others as a more affective influence. This kind of art challenges humanity to understand the very meaning of progress.
1. Should art represent reality? I tossed this one back and forth, but eventually I had to go with yes. It seems as though whatever a piece of art depicts, no matter how “unrealistic” it may be, it is at its core representing some real quality to which we can relate. As every human being can only experience through their senses what is real, art must signify something which can be traced back to this initial translation of object to thought or feeling.
2. Can a work of art fail? A piece of art can fail to convey the idea the artist intended, a piece of art can fail to evoke any significant thought, interest, or emotion in he who perceives it, and it can fail to be recognized by the society into which it is placed. I’d like to be able to say no, if an example of art exists than it has necessarily succeeded, but I must wonder in what has it succeeded?
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art? If we recognize that there are certain patterns that can be traced through art history, that different movements which spanned nations had a linear progression from one style to another, then it seems that there can be such a thing as avant-garde art because he who is first to utilize a particular technique that is eventually adopted by his contemporaries or even his successors has pioneered a new avenue down which art then continued. However, if the question were “is there such a thing as avant-garde in the present?” then I would have to say no. Without the historical context following the creation of said art how can one know if it represents the future movement of art? One can, however, create an argument for why they believe it to be “avant-garde,” though it will not prove to be so until others have agreed that it is/was/has been…something like that
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others? My first impulse was to say yes, and I think I’m going to stick with it. Through the lens of the human perception of linear time, gradual changes over the course of years can be seen leading form one distinct form to another. Assuming that this change is “progress,” then it can be said that some art will be more influential on the direction the community at large will take. Generally, those who had this greater effect are recognized in the canon of that field, whether it be literature, sculpture, or experimental black-box guerilla night-cam reality game show theater.
18 comments:
So far we have mainly spoken about aesthetics as the inquiry into the category of the beautiful and with the onset of the enlightenment sublimity was added to the definition (class notes 1/24). These questions focus on art. Almost obviously not all art is "beautiful" nor seeks it (sculptures in front of banks) , so is aesthetics all/only "beauty"...I reckon this raises the similar question/answer notion that failing art works are required to recognize that others are great and thus to what degrees of failure and the definition of such.
1. Should art represent reality?
This is such a terrible question. It's really just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. I eventually went with "yes" but really I felt that decision in my "heart of hearts" about as much as if I'd flipped a coin. What in the hell does it even mean?
Suppose I am designing a bridge. Should a bridge "represent reality"? That makes no sense. It's an impossible question. It's like, "Should your oranges vote for Nader?" Uhm, I think there's some presuppositions there, just saying.
2. Can a work of art fail?
Of course this question begs, "To who?" But in general, I'd say, sure. If I want to build a bridge, I try to build a bridge, and the bridge collapses, yeah, I think I can say I failed.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
Yes. If my bridge is upside down, but still somehow works, that's pretty f'n avant-garde.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes. My bridge is better. Faster. Stronger. And also the subject of some awesome music videos. My bridge is made of win and your bridge is made of fail. Thank you.
1) no
Art is an expression of our reaction towards reality. This expression can or cannot be realistic because there is no right or wrong when it comes to expression. Art CAN represent reality, but it should not HAVE TO represent reality.
2) yes
Art is a method of communication from the viewpoint of who created it. However, some art is so obscure that the audience has trouble understanding what the artist is trying to communicate, and in the failure to communicate, the art fails. Some say that art is from the viewpoint of the audience, that whatever the audience thinks it is saying is what it is. Yet ultimately we trace meaning back to "what the artist is trying to say", so communication is at the root of art.
3) no
Avant-Garde art by definition is art that employs experimental and unorthodox approaches. In order for something to be experimental and unorthodox, there would need to new elements that no one has approached before. However, how we approach something has already been influenced by what we have experienced, and so anything that is strange to us is not so much new and unheard of before as it is something that has been recycled and remolded from the past. Avant-Garde art is inevitably tied to what is and what has been.
4) yes
Progress is a result of us changing our views and actions into a form we deem better. We change because we are influenced by particular things that change us in a particular way and thereby urge us to change our environment in a particular way. Because the nature of art progress is particular, there would need to be particular art forms that influence this. It is why we celebrate different art forms in different eras, because the individual progresses that happen are due to the focus on some art forms and not on others.
1- Should art represent reality?
Yes. Art is a reflexion of what the artist sees and desires in his/her world. It does not necessarily mean that it will please or agree with everyone, but it translates a view where others do not manifest about it, but either speculate or criticize it.
2- Can work of art fail?
No, if is a kind of art that does not affect people's lives directly, such as an abstract painting where only the creator of it seem to grasp its value and true meaning. But, if it is a type of art, such as the bridge mentioned previously by fellow "le creature de flames," where people's lives are at stake, of course it can fail. But that you already knew, right?
3- Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
Yes. The aqueducts, the Pantheon, Rome (largest single span dome for well over a millennium), the basilicas and perhaps most famously of all, the Colosseum speak for itself.
4-Does some art contribute more to progress than others.
Yes. The same way Roman and Greek classic influences are still a constant (with their art, philosophy and architecture), present artists such as Jackson Pollock, who redefined how art was viewed in his abstract expressionism paintings and Francis Lloyd Wright, who is often considered the greatest U.S. architect, famous for "organic architecture," are constantly leaning towards that enlightenment window where the population is mostly benefited from.
1. Should Art represent Reality?
Yes (?), but what is Art? What is Representation? What is Reality? If even we were to define these terms each in our own way, we would come up with even vaguer terms to describe those terms. We might end up somewhere more grounded and comfortable on that cliff face (to re use Dale's original analogy). At the same time, we could put ourselves in an even more precarious situation as we found ourselves sprawled out, clinging desperately to that cliff with our new choice of footholds. I think I got this idea from Dale in an earlier R20 class. But that aside,
Isn't the reaction to Reality as it is happening in itself in essence a real event as well, broadly speaking of course? That is, when we try to represent that reaction to something, aren't we trying to represent a real situation that first existed at the time we were provoked. Shouldn't then that make the Art "real" in some sense?
2. Can a work of Art Fail?
Sure why not? If it doesn't get the kind of recognition the author intended initially, then in that sense, it fails. If it is only rediscovered much after the author has forgotten about it, or dies, it still failed to reach its originally intended audience. That being said, the new audience is probably of a different generation with a different set of values and judgements about Art, so how they determine its 'fitness' to stand as a work of Art, may vastly differ from the notions of the generation it was intended for. I place more value on original intent and the artist's own aspirations simply because that is to him and those closest to his art what matters most. The audience, as we know, is an unruly beast, devoid of any sense of order, propriety, and maybe even sense (among a great number of other things). That probably goes in the face of everything we were taught about the "death of the author" in R10. But it seems to me that the author's own status in his community has some bearing on whether or not a work will be accepted. Take for example, those simple sketches, drafts if you will, that go for thousands and thousands of dollars, simply because it was by Picasso or Stein from such and such a period. How is that possible? Especially if the author himself considers it pedestrian, or devoid of any real value.
3. No, Avante garde is bullshit. Art takes inspiration from something that is already established. In that way, most and I will say all art is just a reinvention of the wheel.
4. Yes, some arts contribute more to progress than others. With the addendum that says: "...if you are looking at it from a certain historical period." That is, like I said earlier, some art will capture the attention of those the author intended it to, and thus it will contribute something for that generation. Other art may completely be thrown away or forgotten simply because it sucks or whatever. And because people will have felt cheated or wasted their time, they will say it didnt contribute anything to their lives.
Also, those arts that are rediscovered later on, well that presents an interesting dilemma. Sure they failed their original intent, but they captured another generation, perhaps in some other way, and that could lead to progress. So is failure the first time the end of the work? Or better yet, does that even matter to those who study it later on? Or maybe I'm not even getting the point of what I'm trying to say, so I'll leave this discussion here and very much open to attack and debate.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[These questions took me by surprise. Here I am, at the introductory lecture, idly pondering the idea of ‘aesthetics’ (something that, save for a passing glance, I’ve never truly looked into), and I’m swiftly pushed into the deep end of the pool not knowing how to swim, whether the coping strategies that have served me well in the past are even applicable in this new context, whether what I’ve suddenly fallen into is actually highly corrosive acid. Which is likely to be the case, because, given what was mentioned about virtually all responses being problematic in some form or other, it doesn’t seem like it is possible to emerge from this coherently.
What’s more, the more I look into them, the more they spontaneously generate other questions that are each equally raucous with their cry to be answered. I suppose this could be extended to all forms of ‘art’ (literary and visual) as well: one has the choice of sufficing with little more than a cursory look at the object of their perception before passing judgment—say, seeing a depiction of a pipe in Magritte’s famous painting and moving on—or, of seeing the work as embedded in a cultural context, saturated with not only the personal history of the artist but as a materialization, a convergence of political, ideological, and sometimes even physiological factors… In short, of going into details and running the likely risk of losing oneself in them.
For instance, the last question (“Does some art contribute more to progress than others?”) can be responded more easily if one disregards the worrisome notion of ‘progress’ it evokes and what that implies and instead views it as essentially juxtaposing a work like Picasso’s “Guernica” with that of a generic watercolor of a vase with flowers hanging crookedly in a motel room. Seen in such a manner, it seems obvious that the latter is evidence for answering “yes”.
However, if one refuses to interrogate this particular troublesome word and attempt to make the question less cumbersome by paraphrasing it as a simplistic dichotomy (a widely recognized, original, invaluable masterpiece versus a mass-produced chintzy lithography) it seems that one loses sight of those works that were deliberately obscured or forcibly suppressed due to their potential to provoke revolutionary realizations, works verging on profane in contrast with the dominant values and sensibilities of their time. One loses sight of the elaborate matrix of power and influences underlying a minor ripple, let alone the concrete semblance of cultural betterment, or ‘progress’. ‘Progress’? Towards what? Does it further complicate things to note that the label of ‘art’ is often one placed as an indication of retrospection, reflecting more success than potential? that the “sublime”, the awe-inspiring only becomes so after one has taken sufficient distance from it?
Most significantly, progress-(stability?)-regress, like superiority-(sameness?)-inferiority, presupposes a criterion, a model, and prompts the question, “Does the aesthetic have a standard? Is there a benchmark for beauty?”
To me, the question ultimately translates to this: “Does some art contribute more to furthering one’s ends than others?” Can some art act more efficiently as an ideological bludgeon (especially when art is taken as an image—a representation—of some reality)? Yes. Does some art can contribute more to progress than others? Only if I can define ‘progress’ as merely being a reference to movement (rather than to some particular goal, as the word implied).
“Should art represent reality?”
(Reality? Should what is real be limited to those things with a concrete, physical existence, or can we also recognize the non-tangible, the psychological? If it is the former, can these words be said to have a real existence? Should my online activity, my interactions with other people, be considered as ‘real’, or can they never be so because they necessarily ‘virtual’? Is ‘war’ a reality? Is the state of reality something that we’re even capable of apprehending, as if from some detached viewpoint, something that consists of objective truths, or are we necessarily condemned to our perspective, despite what seems to be an insatiable desire for meaning? Or is reality simply that which is, distinct from considerations of truth and of authenticity? … )
Yes. Why shouldn’t all art be recognized as a reference to reality, rather than dissociated expressions lacking origin? It is the reflection of something, whether it has its analog purely within the artist’s imagination or somewhere more concrete and accessible.
To deny art’s (perhaps intrinsic) affinity with reality is to sever the connection between the representation and the represented. It is to risk detachment embodied by the idea of the existence of immutable order and necessary Truths, lose our grip entirely of that cliff-face we were just now scaling, to risk being sucked into a sort of (Cartesian? Platonic?) vortex and suddenly finding ourselves floating somewhere remote, vacuous, lost the orbit of objectivity.
All this, of course, is based on the assumption that art can represent reality, that there are no limits to language, and that everything can be subsumed under our conceptual vocabulary, categorized in reference to some “essential” quality. And if reality is to be taken to be some objective standard independent of however we may perceive it—if it is exclusive, rather than inclusive— then I would say that art absolutely shouldn’t be made to represent reality.
“Can a work of art fail?”
(Fail? To whom? At what? Whose voice is it that pronounces the final judgment of ‘failure’ or ‘success’? In whose esteemed hands do we place this privilege and responsibility? Who is the audience whose gaze elevates it to sublime and beautiful, or condemns it to the rubbish heap? The academic aesthete? The artist herself? Does an object, deemed aesthetic, have an end or purpose, or is it considered an end-in-itself and ultimately transcends simplistic considerations of success and failure? As a work of art, can it be considered in terms other than its aesthetic appeal—that is to say, as an instrument, a tool used dynamically to shape influence various mediums?)
If the only way in which one could evaluate art is in reference to emulation (classicism and naturalism come to mind) —then yes, it could be said that a work of art can fail. I don’t think that is the case, though; I believe that the ways in which a work of art can delight or disappoint are equally numerous and entirely contingent on the expectations of the beholder. (For instance, when the aesthetic verges on the practical, like a few people have already mentioned, it becomes easier to assess it in terms of success/failure.) However, can a work of art fail completely? Perhaps the vital question to be answered is: can a work of art be said to only have one goal?
“Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?"
Like the question about potential contribution to progress, here surfaces another difficulty with the idea of forwardness, of ‘modern’, of ‘postmodern’, of ‘new and improved!’, of art ‘ahead of its time’ … However, the question rephrased: Do I believe that art can be transgressive? Most definitely. And such does not entail that the piece must necessarily be entirely original.]
1. Should art represent reality?
No-Art CAN represent reality, but it is almost always through the lens of the artist's interpretation of reality. More often that not, art is a representation of a reality that many observers cannot understand or relate to and may even be viewed as unrealistic. Art is capable of representing infinite interpretations of reality, but need not constricted to this and can represent pure fantasy or impossibility.
2. Can a work of art fail?
Yes- Regardless of who believes it has succeeded, there will always be someone, sometimes even the artist, who believes the work falls short in some way and fails.The infinite amount of different opinions of success and failure in the world make it possible for anything to fail by some standard.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
Yes- There are projects that push the boundaries of the norm. As long as a cultural norm and freedom of expression exist, there will be avant-garde art trying to innovate and go against culturally accepted art forms.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes- This question depends heavily on the definition of progress. Art is a medium which can be used to express a variety of ideas, emotions, or causes. If the definition of progress is physical progress and development, art has the ability to persuade when used as a tool. For example, a painting of a planned park when posted in front of the raw land can inspire people as they are able to better see the potential this land holds. This art can influence people to begin to develop this as reality by demanding funding for the project or starting to work on it themselves. This painting will contribute to the physical progress of land development more than an a painting which expresses anger. If the definition of progress is regarded on a more personal, individual level, then the painting expressing anger can change someone's life. If an observer sees the anger painting and has shared the artist's emotions, they may feel as as through they have solidarity with the artist. This can bring the observer greater inner peace and happiness knowing that they aren't alone because some else has felt the same burning rage they have. This is a type of progress of the soul, but it may allow this observer to perform better in society leading to other types of progress.
1. Should art represent reality?
No.
Art "should" not do anything. As a personal expression its meaning and purpose comes from the artist. It has the ability to represent reality, but this is certainly not a defining factor in its definition as art.
2. Can a work of art fail?
Yes.
A better question is "to whom?" and in what sense. Most art probably fails to do something, depending on what it is being asked to do. However, from the perspective of the artist, his or her art has a purpose, a reason for existing and having been created, (Why else would he have created it?) and even if this purpose is the eschewal of a conception of purpose, that itself is a purpose. In that sense, art that does not fulfill its purpose has, of course, failed.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
No.
All art is based on what has been done before. All art (of quality) is also somehow new, somehow the original creation of the artist. To say that a work of art came before its time seems asinine and has less to do with the art itself than with its reception by others.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes.
Of course some art is more interesting, better, than others. Copying the style of another artist is obviously not contributing much to progress. In question 3 the problem is the classification of art as being progressive enough to fall into a category that defines it outright as progressive.
I answered "yes" to all four questions.
1) Art most definitely represents reality. Reality is not limited to our tangible universe, but encompasses our feelings, thoughts, dreams, and desires. I don't think anyone can argue that love is not real, that it does not affect us in very real ways. Any work of art is a manifestation of an artist's perception of the reality of our condition. Not only SHOULD art represent reality, but it must.
2) A work of art can fail in at least two ways. First, it can fail to convey the message that the artist seeks to convey to the world. I think it would be very difficult to find an artist who sends a piece out into the world with no intentions or expectations at all. Second, a work of art can fail to inspire thought in the minds of the audience. Even if a piece is interpreted differently than it was intended to be, it should at least add something of value to the world as we know it. Otherwise, it has no aesthetic or social value, and has failed.
3) Art can be avant-garde when it explores mediums or subjects that have hitherto remained untouched. Artists who establish distinct schools of art undoubtedly venture into novel space. It isn't pretentious to claim avant-garde status. I think it's pretentious to claim that no art can be avant-garde.
4. My argument for this question runs along the same lines as the previous question. Some art breaks out of established norms to inspire more creativity and innovation while other art simply follows the conventions of the age. By deliberately breaking rules to make statements, works of art can make not only artistic progress, but social, religious, and political progress as well.
1. Should art represent reality?
What is art? What does it mean to represent? What is reality? These questions lie beneath the surface of the question and guides my response. If we accept reality as the physical world around us, the tangible, then art shouldn't represent reality. Emotions and thoughts--intangible--lie outside "reality" in the physical sense. Yet if we shift the meaning of reality, then the answer changes. As already suggested in class, these questions already begin on unstable grounds.
2. Can a work of art fail?
More importantly, how can a work of art fail? If art can fail, then an understanding of how art fails must exist. Or rather, someone creates a criteria to determine which art fails.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
Avant-garde to me seems to be an experience in categorizing in hindsight. In other words, critics place art in the avant-garde. If to be avant-garde means to be chic, and we take chic as a form of success, then avant-garde art is successful. And if art can be successful, then it can also fail. And if art can fail, then art which fails isn't avant-garde.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
We return to questions of denotation posed in my answer to the first question. How art contributes to progress often falls into the hands of others. The "artists" which make it into the curriculum or into museum imply success and contribution in the context of our society which prefers hierarchy.
These questions, of course, provoke and antagonize. They prompt, indeed, invite disagreement, confusion, complexity, etc. Yet they offer an introduction into the class which I appreciate.
To the first question, my first thought was that all art represents reality in that any art is produced within the reality of existence.
I feel that one can derive an interpretation of 'reality' from any work...whether it's a painting on a wall, a well designed website, or a child's performance of the ABCs.
Not trying to be weird, I just don't interpret "reality" with a limited understanding. To me, reality is just as much what is *not* present as what is.
So I answered yes, but not because it "should" do anything, just because for me, everything is reality. Everything that exists should be subject to interpretation because it is a part of reality.
1. Yes. This by no means implies that art should only represent reality. I find it somewhat elitist and contradictory to confine art to that which is strictly imaginitive and unrepresentable in reality. Such art would eradicate the significance of real events - however breath-taking and wonderfully ironic they may be - by pure virtue of the absence of their representation in art.
2. Yes, though I'm very compelled to believe otherwise. And, contrary to popular belief, not everything can be art. As goes for most things, I suppose one must consider contextual frames before making such an absolute assertion - in which case, any exception to the rule may infinitely prevent the making of such an assertion. "Art" falls into a category, which, although is an idea that varies widely from person to person, must be separated in some way or another from other disciplines that fundamentally are not "art" (i.e., history, a hospital, a trashcan). That is not to say that non-art things cannot resemble and/or liken themselves to art.
3. No. Art is still an expression of human thought and emotion - it is contrived, ironic, politically-charged, heart-breaking, sexual and unrelenting. That is, Art is in some way a reflection of human life - no matter how imaginitive and forward it may seem - because it ultimately stems from the human spirit. So, what I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as avant-garde art because that which falls into the aforementioned category of art is, by definition, an encapsulation of a humanity that is at once uninhibited and powerful and progressive - thus, the essence of the avant-garde.
4. No. I still believe that art is far from equal in its individual contributions, but their contributions are partial and variegated. Measuring one piece of art's contribution against another's is comparing apples to oranges; there is no hard-set standard by which to measure such contribution because no two pieces of art will ever, in my opinion, contribute in exactly the same way.
1. Should art represent reality?
No. Art CAN represent reality, but it shouldn't have to represent reality. Art should be free to represent whatever the artist wants it to represent.
2. Can a work of art fail?
Yes. Art can fail when it becomes something the artist doesn't want it to.
3. Is there such a thing as avant garde art?
Yes. Some art is more thought-provoking and unorthodox than others.
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes. Some art is meant purely for entertainment, fun or enjoyment, while other art is meant to stimulate progress. That is not to say that art meant for entertainment does not contribute to progress.
1. Works of art provide the framework for, or are expressions/extensions/manifestations of a given reality.
2. Thus, no work of art can fail. It can only be a manifestation of a reality that is dissonant with someone else's reality.
3. Some realities can be more dissonant than others, and can thus be labeled avant-guard. Anything can be labeled anything, I suppose.
4. If progress is the betterment of the reality that is common to us all, then art can certainly pave the way. Art can be innovation, art can be devastation, art can be both and be beautiful. Art should be beautiful.
1. Should art represent reality? I agreed with le creature de flames....the question itself is a bit difficult, however with that in mind........No. Art as a physical or intellectual property is real. It is reality. It may represent certain aspects of the artists choices (medium, color, artsy stuff here) but it takes an overall quality based on the interaction between the viewer and the piece itself...sans artist. Art is what it is and represents nothing more than its physicality and the interpretation the viewer brings.
2.Can a work of art fail?
No. Again, to me, art is what it is....the rest in viewer interpretation so can art fail whom? My poetry does not fail me. Does the piece of paper with words on it set in rhyme fail because someone else does not connect with it? Does the art fail or does the viewer fail in his understanding of the artists intent?
3.Is there a such thing as avant-garde art? Yes. but my poor laymen self simply answered yes because I have seen shows advertised as such and I feel strongly if an artist represents himself in a certain genre then who better than he to decide if such a thing exists. So as the artist acknowledges the genre....so shall I.
4.Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
Yes. I feel that animation technology is an excellent example of art leading to and/or contributing to progress. The things being done with robotics, prosthesis, pacemakers, painpumps and items of the like are a testament to progress and art.
Hey in my eyes the work being done in the medical field to restore limbs and functionality to lives is nothing short of artistry. Potato potato. :-D
Should art represent reality?
Yes. I feel art should represent reality by its very nature. It is a creation of the human mind. The human mind understands things within the constraints of reality. The human mind thus creates things according to the same principles. Art, then, is a part of reality, and thus should represent itself as such in the same way as a human, or a flower, or a piece of metal, represents itself as part of reality. Because it is a creation of the human intellect, which is a product of reality, and also produces things within laws of reality, art should represent reality. Because it is a production of a human's own mind which can be manifested in many forms (scientific, architechturally, poetically), art is, by its creation, a representation of reality.
2. Can a work of art fail?
No. I feel that a work of art cannot fail because it has been created by an artist for whatever internal reason drives the artist. Its creation and existence is a representation of the fact that has not failed. External criticism of the object may make it less popular than others, yet it cannot fail completely. Some inherent qualities of its "artness" has qualified it, in some way or another, as a work of art. Thus, it has succeeded in its intention on some level.
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
No. There is no such thing avant-garde art because such a work only begets such a tag after the fact of its criticism. Prior to the labeling, it is just as potentially "cutting edge" as any other piece of art may be. It is only the collectively formed response to it that creates it as "avant garde." In its purest, unjudged form, it is art like any else.
4. Does some art contribute to progress more than others?
Yes. Some forms of art result in society changing directly because of that creation. For example, there are new bridge technologies that employ revolutionary concepts or works by artists, like Matisse, that captivate and attract viewers from all over the world. They cause more permanent and relevant changes in the world than other forms of art, and are thus viewed by humanity as more progressive. It sticks out in the minds of the populus more than others as a more affective influence. This kind of art challenges humanity to understand the very meaning of progress.
1. Should art represent reality?
I tossed this one back and forth, but eventually I had to go with yes. It seems as though whatever a piece of art depicts, no matter how “unrealistic” it may be, it is at its core representing some real quality to which we can relate. As every human being can only experience through their senses what is real, art must signify something which can be traced back to this initial translation of object to thought or feeling.
2. Can a work of art fail?
A piece of art can fail to convey the idea the artist intended, a piece of art can fail to evoke any significant thought, interest, or emotion in he who perceives it, and it can fail to be recognized by the society into which it is placed. I’d like to be able to say no, if an example of art exists than it has necessarily succeeded, but I must wonder in what has it succeeded?
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
If we recognize that there are certain patterns that can be traced through art history, that different movements which spanned nations had a linear progression from one style to another, then it seems that there can be such a thing as avant-garde art because he who is first to utilize a particular technique that is eventually adopted by his contemporaries or even his successors has pioneered a new avenue down which art then continued. However, if the question were “is there such a thing as avant-garde in the present?” then I would have to say no. Without the historical context following the creation of said art how can one know if it represents the future movement of art? One can, however, create an argument for why they believe it to be “avant-garde,” though it will not prove to be so until others have agreed that it is/was/has been…something like that
4. Does some art contribute more to progress than others?
My first impulse was to say yes, and I think I’m going to stick with it. Through the lens of the human perception of linear time, gradual changes over the course of years can be seen leading form one distinct form to another. Assuming that this change is “progress,” then it can be said that some art will be more influential on the direction the community at large will take. Generally, those who had this greater effect are recognized in the canon of that field, whether it be literature, sculpture, or experimental black-box guerilla night-cam reality game show theater.
yes
yes
yes
yes
Post a Comment