All endings bring new beginnings

For my final blog, I figured it would be best to give you the overall idea of what I have determined to be the idea of what is the nature of art.  

While I resist defining art because it cannot be defined in simple Merriam-Webster’s dictionary terms.  If one were to write an entire dictionary with definitions of ‘art,’ then perhaps they would just begin to hit on an introductory definition of art. 

Art is anything that stimulates our brains to make us laugh, incites us into intense emotion, or makes us question either the artwork itself or some grander questions about both our outward, universal experiences and the most personal inquisitions of our inner minds and souls. It may at once be a way to express oneself and to communicate messages to anyone willing to truly “listen.”

A definition for art would be a constant struggle between a limitless number of dichotomies. Art is forever changing yet, in many ways, always the same. Art can be subjective and mean something different to every person, but it can be objective communicating universal ideas to the masses. Art is function and fun, form and content. Art is anything that makes us more thoughtful, inquisitive, well-rounded, engaged individuals.

Some may argue that art cannot be simply seen as a set of dichotomies, however, and that you must first define art to make any sort of sentences starting with “Art is...”; but while I may resist defining art in a few select words, I think it is possible to only know art through experience and a lifetime of occurrences with it—experiencing things both you and others see as art in order to grow into a fully-rounded idea of the general knowledge of what makes art, art.

      To me, art can be anything and everything; it is all around us and within us.  It is the Brillo pad in the sink or the recreation of Brillo by Warhol, the child dancing in their room or the professional ballerina on stage, and the dinner plate on the shelf or the one in use at the table.

Art cannot be defined in simply terms because it is just about anything that makes our lives as complex beings considerably richer. 

Your thoughts on art...

 

Art and its means of expression has certainly changed through time.  After having seen many examples of art as well as having studied many philosophies of what makes art, what have you developed as your individual ideas on the nature of art?

In response to Brycen...

Brycen mentions how in class, "Emotion was said to be the single factor that pulls all of what was mentioned with regards to Knowledge, Imagination, and Creativity together...Emotion or emotions are the driving or pushing force behind every single thing that we do in life. Emotions, when in the right state of mind can cause one to finish a task at hand when it seems that it will never get done...Now a question I pose, can emotions be the driving factor in everything in life, from art to leisure activities?"

I think this can be true that emotions are the driving factor in everything in life, but not necessarily the deciding factor.  While emotions can urge us to finish tasks or view a certain artwork or leisure activity in a given light, they seem to only fully drive those people who are more romantics, those who are emotionally-driven by nature.  People who use their minds more than their hearts, however, the thought-driven individuals, would likely not be driven by emotions when it comes to everything in life.

Therefore, it is possible for emotions to be the driving factor in everything in life for some, but not for all.  When it comes to art, though, I think even the thought-driven individuals can be brought to moments where emotions take over and become the driving force for their thought.

Personally, I am an emotion-driven individual and can be brought to intense moments of emotion by a work of art--a photo, a film, a painting. For any of you who are of that thought-driven group of individuals, have you had instances where this is true; instances where thought has nearly fully exited the picture and emotion taken over?

A Beautiful Mind

Another film that I thought of that deals with the issue of knowledge versus imagination is Michel Gondry's  Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In the film, "a couple undergo a procedure to erase each other from their memories when their relationship turns sour, but it is only through the process of loss that they discover what they had to begin with." (Eternal Sunshine)

While some people develop elaborate diseases blurring, as Dr. Katherine Taylor calls it, “the line between realistic and melodramatic portraits" of life, others wish to simply eliminate this "line" separating the two worlds altogether.  As this film proves, however, imagination--here, the memory of their lover--proves to override knowledge--the fact of knowing their relationship has failed--and the procedure fails as their dreams of reality begin to take over.

Interestingly enough, research has been conducted that, in fact, this type of procedure could become reality: Eternal Sunshine Study.  Memories and/or elaborations of imagination could be completely erased when it comes to the things people wish to elimate from their minds, leaving only 'good' cases of imagination and memory.


Do you think it is safe for a procedure such as this to take place?  Should science take over to force knowledge to be more important that imagination, memory, and hope that a imaginings of yesterday could become realities of today?
 

Effective dialogue

In his blog, Brycen states, “...art has the ability to communicate emotions, feelings, and ideas to people or groups of people. To look at this from another angle, one can see that dialogue is vital in this expression. Dialogue makes something complete by conveying what the artist was feeling or felt to the people or the audience through their work of art...The artist can tell their deepest darkest fear to their most craziest dream through their work of art. This is important because some think that art being able to create ideas for the people viewing it creates dialogue between it and the audience because it causes them to think.”

On a recent trip to Gallery 51, I was also intrigued by this question of dialogue.  About a dozen different works were displayed throughout the gallery and, without the small three-by-five descriptions of them (whether they be from the artist of the gallery curators) I would have had either a completely different thought/emotion/feeling than the artist intended or absolutely no clue what I was viewing.   

This led me to question whether or not written words were necessary to a work in order to create not only a dialogue between artist and viewer, but an effective dialogue.  Looking at a sculpture that looked to me as if it could have simply been purchased in the home decor section at Target, I found out (upon reading the description) was actually supposed to communicate the play of light and shadow through the holes in the ironwork, just as ants playing in the sun...clearly NOWHERE near what I would think when I viewed it. 

Continuing around the gallery, I would try to come up with my own interpretation of the work; reading the three-by-fives, however, I found that I was not once in line with what the artist was trying to communicate.

My little art visit experiment here seems to have proven our point that art almost always requires some kind of verbal or written description of words in order to effectively spark a dialogue in which artists create and viewers interpret. Do you agree this is almost always the case?