In “Conversation Pieces” (2004), Grant Kester claims that art practitioners are no longer obligated to provide content or matter, physical evidence of an artistic process, to be considered art but it is sufficient to say that a situation or circumstance can be identified as art. He references the work of arts collective Wochenklauser, artist Suzanne Lacey and multiple community-based groups working through exchange and “relational aesthetic” principles, to support this view. The projects considered share an interest with the creative service of dialogue and exchange and occur in places far from the conventional sites in which we situate art (ie museums and galleries). Conversation becomes an intrinsic part of the work itself. Kester uses the term ‘dialogical’ to represent these and similar works which have participatory elements. In this document, he places these socially cognizant activities historically and associates them to key concerns in contemporary and avant-garde art and theory. In this essay I will use two examples of contemporary artists using this ‘immaterial’ practice that both support and contest Kester’s argument. I will discuss and analyse the construction of Kester’s argument, introduce my examples, and compare them in order to construct an informed understanding and concrete conclusion on the relevance and strength of his assertion. In this document, Kester asks for a change in understanding of what a work of art is and suggests that it should be considered as a durational experience; he calls for the aesthetic to be endured rather than immediate and instantaneous. He poses some very important questions, the first being, “Is it possible to develop a cross-cultural dialogue without sacrificing the unique iden... ... middle of paper ... ...st” prove that her project is art? Would it still be art if one of the students involved had conceived the idea, or would it be social activism? If one of the politicians of Wochenklauser’s boat trips had conceived the idea for unbiased discussion, would it be art or a new strategy in political engagement? What makes these activities art? Again, perhaps the question Kester should be asking is whether or not intent is more important than content, rather than context. It is with this that it is sufficient to say that yes, artists are no longer obliged to present a physical entity to be labelled art and subsequently a locus for discussion but it is ample to provide any form of context that can evoke discussion and change, however, there must be some element of conventional art understanding ie status of artist, placement in a traditional art institution.
My goal for this paper is to give a practical critique and defense of what I have learned in my time as a Studio Art Major. During my time here I have learned that Pensacola Christian college’s definition of art “art is the organized visual expression of ideas or feelings” and the four parts of Biblosophy: cannon, communication, client, and creativity. Along with Biblosophy I have studied Dr. Frances Schaeffer 's criteria for art, seeing how the technical, and the major and minor messages in artwork. All of these principles are great but they do need to be refined.
Spending time looking at art is a way of trying to get into an artists’ mind and understand what he is trying to tell you through his work. The feeling is rewarding in two distinctive ways; one notices the differences in the style of painting and the common features that dominate the art world. When comparing the two paintings, The Kneeling Woman by Fernand Leger and Two Women on a Wharf by Willem de Kooning, one can see the similarities and differences in the subjects of the paintings, the use of colors, and the layout
ABSTRACT: British Avant-Garde art, poses a challenge to traditional aesthetic analysis. This paper will argue that such art is best understood in terms of Wittgenstein¡¦s concept of "seeing-as," and will point out that the artists often use this concept in describing their work. This is significant in that if we are to understand art in terms of cultural practice, then we must actually look at the practice. We will discuss initiatives such as the work of Damien Hirst, most famous for his animals in formaldehyde series, and that of Simon Patterson, who warps diagrams, e.g., replacing the names of stops on London Underground maps with those of philosophers. Cornelia Parker¡¦s idea that visual appeal is not the most important thing, but rather that the questions that are set up in an attempt to create an "almost invisible" art are what are central, will also be discussed. Also, if we concur with Danto¡¦s claims that "contemporary art no longer allows itself to be represented by master narratives," that Nothing is ruled out.", then it is indeed fruitful to understand art in terms of seeing-as. For application of this concept to art explains what occurs conceptually when the viewer shifts from identifying a work, as an art object, and then as not an art object, and explains why nothing is ruled out.
Most of the time when we think about a piece of art, we believe a single person such as an artist, constructed it. After all, the artist is the person who painted, wrote, sang, shot, or organized the piece of art, don’t they deserve all the credit? In this essay, I argue that art is better and less problematic when the process of making it involves the opinions of many types of people. I am able to do so by analyzing Audre Lorde’s article, The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House, and applying her concepts to my own art pieces.
What is ‘Art’? Does the term describe a tangible object, experiential event, process, technique, medium, or creative skill? Does it imply attractive decoration, pleasant arrangement, and sound financial investment - or can art provoke, be unattractive, make people uncomfortable, and be fleeting? Today, Art is subjective, open to interpretation and encompasses the spectrum of the visual, literary, dance, and musical humanities - often overlapping one another. As such, Art and its practice can be all of the above and more. Post World War II, Modernist theories were waning and a general dissatisfaction was building in the United States and other westernized countries that ultimately led up to the cultural and social revolution of the 1960’s. The period also parallels a rise in relative wealth and subsequent mass consumption of commodities, education, and cultural activities within all the socioeconomic classes. Personal expression became acceptable and art practice exploded to include multiple fields of activity that Rosalind Krauss likens to “an extraordinary practice in elasticity”. Interest in ecology, performance, process, alternative materials, a loosening of social mores and experimentation with altered states of reality contributed to the rise of what is now known amply as Postmodernism. Civil rights, the anti-war movement, rise of feminism, and a political movement left of center created egalitarian entrances for many into various fields of study including Art. Nevertheless, similar to the current state of Western Civilization, not everyone appreciates an open multiplicity of voices often differing in viewpoints from safer, more conservative ones. It is in this context that artists Robert Smithson and Richard Serra bega...
The aesthetic form may be “tentatively define[d] as the result of the transformation of a given content (actual or historical, personal or social fact) into a self-contained whole,”. Art, when created in accordance to the aesthetic form, is the channeling of an experience into a subjective format, i.e. a novel, a painting, a piece of music, or any of the many different art forms. The reality of an event is translated into the chosen medium, and in this sublimation of the event, it is modified in accordance to the “demands of the art form” and the subjective perspective of the individual. The re-presentation of this event serves to “invoke the need for hope- a need rooted in the new consciousness embodied in the work of art”. When an event or object becomes the subject of a piece of art, it is necessarily changed according to the restrictions of the art form, artist, and veiwer. This change creates a new reality in where the event may take on a new meaning, thus challenging the original content of the event. This meaning is further influenced by subjectivity of the
Nicholas Bourriaud’s 1998 book Relational Aesthetics (Esthétique Relationnelle) has unquestionably been a successful catalyst of discussion. Relational Aesthetics has led the way in attempting to scrutinise and classify artworks by a generation of European artists during the nineteen-nineties. Over time, the book has become regarded by many as an essential text. Bourriaud described an innovative ‘relational’ concept of art, with the viewer’s interaction developing into an element of the piece of art. Relational art is frequently not regarded as art because it questions the perception and experience of art. Redolent of the period from which it developed, Relational Aesthetics reflects the beginning of internet culture instantaneous interaction.
The definition of art has always been a wondering question throughout the centuries. Even our discussions in class lead back to the meaning of art and the individual viewer. The author Cynthia Freeland in But Is It Art? reviews and examines the diversity of both art theory and art. Most of the theories she examined from the different eras and cultures fell short. None of the theories were successful in defining the definition of art. Cynthia states, “Art enhances our awareness of both ourselves and our world. Unlike scientific theories, a theory of art does not predict what artists are going to do next. Art theory as I have described in this book is still an explanatory enterprise. Art is something special (Freeland 208). Cynthia Freeland realizes she cannot categorize art, but believes that art will always be diverse!
Through the texts included on my booklist, I am examining how culture becomes theorized through a variety of visual means, and how these visual means reflect cultural ideals. The historical debate between emotion and reason as two means for discovering truth are a salient example of such cultural ideals. The following texts range through the topics of anthropology, art history, philosophy and sociology to explore these cultural motives behind a work of art and how, in turn, that art functions within greater society’s ideologies. I particularly want to illuminate the indispensable connection between visual culture and modernization by taking a more sociological approach to the study of visual culture.
Whether it be writers, painters, sculptors, musicians, or photographers, artists all over the world have striven to show people their views of the world, of people, and even of the universe itself. Throughout history the creative urge of man to present to fellow men a different perspective or representation of life-or even the afterlife-has surfaced time and time again in the form of artwork. Sometimes it comes through genius and complexity, full of meaning and symbolism. Others, it is simple and void of any clear meaning at all other than that it is art. Soon, however, there became a point when the work of art was no longer something one could just look at and understand; the principle of the matter had changed. Art leapt from viewable understanding straight into the Modern movement where theory became art, and to understand it, one must know the theory it is based upon. Never was this more apparent than in the artwork of the abstract expressionist. Essentially, artwork is not art because of theory, and art based on theory cannot be creative or truly said to be art.
Art encompasses everything. It is such a broad subject that it can be found in the most bizarre places - like a house's structural wall built out of beer cans. Artists are always trying to push boundaries and think outside the canvas, as it were. After all, why create art that has already been done? The inherent problem with this is that now, because so much has already been done, everyone wants the excuse to call anything art. Worse – society's etiquette teaches us that we should be accepting of it because of its status as “art”. It tells us that we should at least appreciate the attempts of one piece of art over the other. This can be good, and it can be very, very bad. If someone scoops up dirt into a cup and places it on a stool at an art gallery, why should this be called art? Just because it happens to be at an art gallery? Or perhaps because the cup of dirt was put there by a self-proclaimed artist. In reality, the cup of dirt is not art, but a sad attempt at using our cultural mercy as a gateway to acceptance.
This essay examines the nature of interactivity in the arts through a cybernetic model, to arrive at an understanding of how interactive artworks can maintain and augment the subjectivity of the viewer. The cybernetic discourse foregrounds the relationship between the physical artifact (machine and/or work of art), the participant/spectator, and information/data/content. By examining the shifts in focus from each part of the cybernetic equation, several models for interactivity in art emerge.
In Confronting Images, Didi-Huberman considers disadvantages he sees in the academic approach of art history, and offers an alternative method for engaging art. His approach concentrates on that which is ‘visual’ long before coming to conclusive knowledge. Drawing support from the field of psycho analytics (Lacan, Freud, and Kant and Panofsky), Didi-Huberman argues that viewers connect with art through what he might describe as an instance of receptivity, as opposed to a linear, step-by-step analytical process. He underscores the perceptive mode of engaging the imagery of a painting or other work of art, which he argues comes before any rational ‘knowing’, thinking, or discerning. In other words, Didi-Huberman believes one’s mind ‘sees’ well before realizing and processing the object being looked at, let alone before understanding it. Well before the observer can gain any useful insights by scrutinizing and decoding what she sees, she is absorbed by the work of art in an irrational and unpredictable way. What Didi-Huberman is s...
Diarmuid Costello, Jonathan Vickery. Art: key contemporary thinkers. (UTSC library). Imprint Oxford: Berg, 2007. Print.
Human’s have always struggled to express themselves. Art, is considered by many to be the ultimate form of human expression. Many assume that art has a definition, but this is not the case. Art, it can be said, is “in the eye of the beholder.” This simply means that what you consider art, someone else would not. Art is part of a person’s internal emotions, which signifies why different people see art as different things. Every type of culture and era presents distinctive and unique characteristics. Different cultures all have different views of what art can, and would be, causing art itself to be universally renowned throughout the world.