This post is dedicated to SamE. God bless his soul.
So, going off the idea of EE, I feel that I owe it to all of you to present to you the possibility of deciding whether or not something is art. Andres Serrano's Piss Christ has raised more controversy than any other single art piece in the last century (keep in mind that Mapplethorpe's X-Portfolio was just that, a portfolio. 15 photos). I think it is art. It follows the vast majority of the elements and principles of design, and despite that it is still being argued over--admittedly less religiously than before. I say we recreate 1989 right here, and supply evidence for both sides of the argument.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PHS IB TOK at Play!
The purpose of this blog is to open a discussion forum for ideas, ramblings, debates, and random thoughts that pass through the heads of the students presently in Poudre High School's Theory of Knowledge Program.
PHS IB TOK at Play!
Post Conversation Threads and Ideas from PHS
Community Agreement
As you post and comment as a member of this classroom blogging community, consider the following...
1. Read for Understanding
1. Read for Understanding
2. Challenge Ideas, not People
3. Use TOK Skills to Justify Arguments
3. Use TOK Skills to Justify Arguments
4. Expect the same from your peers
5. Show what you "Know"
5. Show what you "Know"
Links
Labels
- african american (1)
- Arcadia (3)
- Art (4)
- black (1)
- Blog (4)
- Crash (5)
- ethical standards (7)
- ethics (4)
- Faith or Intuition (1)
- first family (1)
- Justificaton (3)
- Language (6)
- Logic (1)
- Media (3)
- obama (1)
- Perception (3)
- Photography (2)
- Politics (3)
- Psychology (1)
- Sensory perception (2)
- Slang (2)
- Symbols (1)
- Technology (1)
- TOK (1)
- Truth (3)
- Truth Fallacies (1)
- War (1)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(140)
-
▼
September
(39)
- 'Give us this day our daily mask'
- Equal or not?
- Perfect Clone Theory: Fate vs Free Will
- Dress code/Religious symbols
- Symbols
- Love
- Faith vs Intuition
- Footnote for spoof raises awareness
- Spoof raises awareness
- Communist leaders
- Blog Posting
- Art
- Protesters Uprising
- One Nation Under Surveillance
- Slavery and Truth
- Language of Faith
- Gun Control
- Ugliness
- Just Words
- Laughter in the Classroom
- As much as I hate bringing MySpace into this...
- What Determines A Legacy?
- Talking Nonsense
- 9/11's Around the corner...
- What's On the news
- Creative Limits?
- Illusion or Reality?
- Truth through Art
- Stereotypes and how to avoid/analyze using TOK
- A Generation of Voyeurs?
- Sexism
- Truth
- American role models
- The Un-Raw Carrot
- The Meaning of Life
- War and Peace
- Cultural Death Ceremonies
- This may be volatile...AIM
- Insane Tv Ad
-
▼
September
(39)
17 comments:
I don't see Serrano's Piss Christ as art. I do see Mapplethorpe's photos as art however, because I don't believe that he just wanted them to be provocative (i don't mean that in a sexual way, I mean it in an antagonistic way). It may be blind faith, but thats just how I see it.
I disagree however that for it to be defined as art it must adhere to the elements and principles, and thats just personal feeling. I'm not going to attempt to define "art" because its such a broad term and it differs for many people.
I was rereading My Name is Asher Lev and there's a part where he specifically says that he doesn't mean to blaspheme with his art. "-I stared at the geometry of the stone and felt the stone luminous with stranger suffering and sorrow. I was an observant Jew, yet that block of stone moved through me like a cry, like the call of seagulls over morning surf, like-like the echoing blasts of the shofar sounded by the Rebbe. I do not mean to blaspheme. My frames of reference have been formed by the life I have lived. I do not know how a devout Christian reacts to that Pieta. I was only able to relate it to elements in my own lived past. I stared at it. I walked slowly around it..." This made me think of how I believe that Serrano is purposefully trying to antagonize the Christian faith, and blaspheme seems to be the primary purpose. I know that art is meant to express feeling, however, I don't think that art should be abused in this manner.
All of my beliefs when it relates to art in this manner are based on faith, and my own experience/self-awareness. This is obviously biased, however I don't think art can be discussed in this manner without bias.
Faith is undeniably a part of the interpretation, and it is through faith that Pat Buchanan said, on April 27, 1990, "To most, if not all, Christians, the Cross represents Christ taking upon Himself our sin. So in addition to the terrible physical agony of a crucifixion, there was a spiritual agony of what our sinfulness and rebellion had heaped upon Him. Therefore the shocking picture of a crucifix in urine can be interpreted as a faithful portrayal of the shocking, outrageous, offensive reality of our sinfulness heaped upon Him. What is blasphemy to certain Religious Right leaders was to the artist a vivid statement of spiritual reality."
I think with art pieces such as this it rather depends on the meaning behind it. As Piss Christ seems to actually be trying to make a statement, it could actually work as a piece of art. My oldest brother stabbed a cross through a Bible and covered it in blood as one of his HL Art pieces. It was supposed to represent the difference between realism and idealism, and the bloodshed over the two. It worked as an art piece in my perspective. I think this is much the same, whether the artist is making a statement for or against Christ, it seems to have more meaning then just that he felt like drowning Jesus in his piss. I agree that faith is a large part of interpretation, but I'm not sure if I agree with Dani that it's abuse. Slander can be in and of itself an art form, it depends on how you do it and how well you present it. If it's just the artist's views, I don't really have a problem with it. This is all based on self-awareness and perception and whatever justifications go along with that, since we're supposed to justify these things. And I find the quote Wolf posted to be very interesting...
I don't think we should be discussing whether or not the "Piss Christ" is art or not. Who cares if it is or isn't? Art is just a word that you can interpret a million different ways. What we should be discussing is whether or not it's worth acknowledgement. Personally, I don't think something deserves acknowledgement unless someone actually put effort into it. Did the guy just decide to urinate on a crucifix just for the heck of it, or did he really take the time to create and arrange the piece so that it conveyed a deeper message? If he did the latter, then the piece is worth acknowledgement. I'd like to think that this claim is based on empirical evidence (A teacher will most likely value an intricatly done and well-thought out project rather than something that clearly took 5 minutes to throw together). Obviously, my argument is incredibly flawed becuase how are you supposed to tell if someone really put work into something or just threw it together? I can't answer this question, which is why I usually admire something that blatantly took a lot of time rather than something abstract that could go either way.
I think this is all very interesting. I personally think it doens't matter whether he put a ton of effort into it or not but it is obivious that he thought about it. Art pieces don't come in seconds, one has to think about it for a period of time. I get this knowledge from evperience making paintings. Yes, I'm sure my paintings take way more time than this piece of work but he, from my point of view which i think doesn't hinder my knowledge is an art piece worth considering an anyalyzing. I find this so interesting and so up raising that I wish too to maybe make a movement because personally art work also means change to have the viewer, not neccecarly do something but think nabout what the piece is saying, and this is sayign something isn't it? I'm so glad that Mr. Pseudonym brought this up because it really is a good issue to discuss. I also would like to say that I'm Christian and truely I don't think my faith actually changes my opinion on this in the least.
I would think that people who see it as art would consider it worthy of acknowledgment. It seems logical to me.
Also, sometimes the best "art" is created spur of the moment, and not thought and planned out. At least, in my personal experience because that confidence seems to come through in a better piece. Thinking and planning may work for some, but sometimes emotion is best conveyed in the heat of the moment.
I'm not saying spur of the moment things aren't good. On the contrary, they're what most masterpieces come from. However, I don't think that a spark is worth much by itself. If you really want to turn it into something, you have to take the time to develop it. This sounds really lame, but it's like an idea. So you have an idea, that's great! Now what are you going to do with it? It's not going to change anything unless you make it into something more.
I think both of you are corrsct personally from experience but I think that this art piece personally demonstrates both!
I think both of you are corrsct personally from experience but I think that this art piece personally demonstrates both!
I think whether or not it should be considered art is a valid subject to discuss, as well as whether or not it is acknowledgeable. And I believe that this did take some sort of thought, because it did have a great impact on people. And I agree with Kelly...
If we do plan to discuss if it is art, then we first have to decide what art is. This is going to be difficult becuase we're probably all going to have different definitions for it. Personally, I think that all we'll end up proving is that it fits into some people's definitions of art and it won't fit into others. That's why I think we should just focus on whether or not it's worthy of praise.
If we go by the Elements and Principles of Design as defining weather or not something is art, let me give my interpretation through a few of them about it's values and implications.
Value: The contrast between the subject and background bring the focus forward onto the crucifix. The lack of real defining contrast on the figure itself is representative of the way we often view Jesus, on our own. The artist didn't make it well defined to make it more personal. The aura of light around the top of the crucifix is a representation of the Halo, possibly suggesting actual appreciation of Jesus by the artist, as opposed to just vulgarity.
Line: The line along the left side of the image is used again to bring the eye to the figure, and make the focus on the act of the crucifixion. The heavy use of vertical lines give a sense of strength and honor, despite the location. The radial lines from Jesus' head are again representative of the halo.
Form: The forms in the image are irregular and uncommon, with little focus, except for broad shapes. The most well defined form is Jesus' head, bringing the focus again to him.
Movement: The radial lines bring the eye to Jesus' head, the line of his sight toward the lower right, intersecting the lines of bubbles. These bring the eye down and left to the end of the image, then back up and right. The helix shaped set of bubbles brings the image to the upper right, then straight across and left where the eye is again caught by the radial lines from Jesus' head.
There, those are some of the things I feel make this piece arty.
Well, in art, generally, looking at the authority elments and principles if foundi s considered art. I think all of our opinions branch off of experiences and what our intuition is on the matter. I totally agree with Mr. Pseudonym when it comes to what each element/principle is present.
So how does art play a role in knowledge, tok wise (sorry, just playing devel's advocate)? I would say that as it can provide insight into emotion, faith, and belief, art can bring an amount of aquaintance knowldege. For example, a lot of artists go through a variety of phases throughout their artistic careers. Examining those periods can provide insight to their lives, inspirations etc, and lead to an overall improved understanding of their perspective on life. Its limitations, however, are just that: perspective. Art, like literature, history, and many other intellectual areas, is up to interpretation. What one person gains knowledge-wise from a piece can differ from what someone else gains. So is their any complete truth to art? Is the artist's intent the only true meaning?
To each person art is going to mean something differently. One could argue that art could be defined by the pragmatic theory. People will believe something is art because it is more convenient to think so.Other will believe it is art because of consensus. Since so many people think it's art, it has to be. This also could be considered authority as well.
I don't really know what art means to me. So, I'll just explain on of the many definitions that are swirling through my head at the moment.
Art, needs to create an emotion or a response within the person. However, it can't just be that, for it to be art, it has to also interest the person. If you read a book and have no interest in finishing it, then it is not art to you, it's just garbage. However, some one else may think the book is very interesting and loves reading it, to that person it is art.
With this piece of art in question, it does create an emotion within me, one of confusion, surprise and maybe a slight bit of anger. Yes, it did spark an emotion, but I have no interest in it, so to me it is not art.
All of this, of course, ties greatly with the correspondence (sp?) theory. One has to see or feel it to find that truth of whether this is artwork or not. Being that art "is in the eye of the beholder" this means that art is relative, and the truth that people get from the painting is also relative to an extent.
I could go on, but I feel I've rambled enough, sorry if what I said was confusing...
Rick Andrews
http://www.miamiherald.com/dave_barry/story/225144.html
Yes? Is modern art actually art? Can it be justified as such? Some of it doesn't follow any elements or principles yet society still calls it art. So is it consensual among society or personal preference? Can it be art to one person but not another?
That was a really interesting article.
I agree to an extent. I think some things do actually have meaning behind them and they're just more obscure. But there are things in modern art that really don't have value to anyone other than the artist, in which case he/she may or may not just be delusional. I think mostly it's personal preference, and it can be art to one person but not another. Art is highly subjective (obviously).
Post a Comment