In response to Mary...

Mary's question: "can a tattoo also have many different subjective meanings, like a conventional piece of art?"
Because of the unique nature of tattoo as an artform, i think that the strongest or most important meaning a tattoo can hold is for those directly involved; the tattoo artist, the person being tattooed, and (if applicable) the person for or because of whom the tattoo was gotten. It is a very intimate and personal form of art. That being said, I think that there definitely can be meaning for others as well. Because I do view tattooing as a legitimate art form, i think that it is fair game for anyone who sees it to have their own personal emotional reaction to it; everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and emotions. If someone sees a tattoo that for some reason strikes them, that tattoo may symbolize something close to his or her own heart, regardless of why the tattooed individual chose to get that partiular tattoo.

Q: What always deters me from getting a tattoo is the permanence of it... its going to be there FOREVER... (If you have a tattoo) how did you overcome the permanence? or was it ever even a problem for you? (If you dont have one) why would or wouldn't you like to get one?

Danto's "is"

As we discussed in class, Arthur Danto defined his own idea of the word "is" in relation to the artworld. He expressed that this "is of artistic identification" is vital to the viewer's understanding of art. If one cannot master this is, one will be as "a child who sees sticks as sticks." However, I did not fully believe this claim. I think that one can definitely still appreciate art simply as art in itself, without prior knowledge of this "is of artistic identification."

Q: Do you agree with Danto's concept of the "is of artistic identification"? Why or why not?

skepticism about Goodman...

Aurora's question: how is Goodman contributing to the definition of art?

In short, I dont think he really is. I agree with Aurora's point that Goodman's suggestion to ask when is art rather than what is art doesnt really change the question at all. Though his suggestion to look at when something becomes art is relevant, I don't think its a substantial replacement for the question of what is art; I see it as more of a further qualification of what makes art.

Q: I had a question in regard to Goodman's example about when something becomes or ceases to be art... If one were to hang the Mona Lisa in front of a hole in the wall, why is it any less of a work of art? If its use is not interfering with the viewers experience, how does it change the piece's "art-ness"? In your opinion, does it?

ethics & aeshetics week

In class one of these days we talked about language; its use, evolution, de-evolution, etc. Though i agree that language definitely does and should grow and evolve to incorporate the changes and advances in our society, there are some things that i think detriment the language rather than augment it. As a lover of words and language in general, i dont think "lolz" and "noob" are really doing anything beneficial to the English language.

Question: To satisfy my own curiosity, can anyone come up with a substantial argument in support of these words?

In response to Misty...

Misty asked, "Are there social restraints put on what kind of clothes we can wear in public? can we wear whatever we feel like? what kind of consequences would there be for wearing something rediculous?"

I think that besides the restraint of "indecent exposure," "no shirt, no shoes, no service" establishments, and the specific rules of a school/church/camp/etc., people in America are pretty much allowed to wear whatever the hell they want. There is a perfect example of this right here on MCLA campus-- I don't know him personally, but I often seen a certain male student walking around campus wearing a bright pink tail. As far as i know, he has not been required to stop wearing this tail.

I think the only consequence in wearing things that are not socially acceptable or do not fit the norms are social consequences. If you decide to wear a pink tail, an obscene shirt, or polka dots plaid and stripes all at once, the only consequences you will suffer are stares from other people, rude comments, and/or general harrassment. But, no, there are no official rules or restraints to what you can wear. In my opinion, I think people should wear whatever they want. Go crazy, live it up, wear whatever makes you happy. Society dictates so much in our lives, why should it have the authority to tell you what to put on your body? Kudos to the guy who wears a pink tail. I think it takes balls to do that.

Question: Why does he wear a pink tail? Does anyone know the truth? Is it a social statement or something?

*Below, I have added picture of two of my friends from UMass to support my argument that people can wear pretty much whatever they want...

In response to Aurora...

Aurora asked: "what are the consequences of not having a set definition of art?"
I think the main setback to not having a set definition of art is that anyone could consider anything to be "art". Though I believe in freedom of opinion, I think that not having a solid definition or even general idea of what constitutes art could potentially undermine the entire endeavor. Could the concept of "art" even exist without some basic form of description or definition?
On the other hand, this could just be a dramatized reaction to what could happen. It very well could be that, without a set definition of art, many people happen to believe in certain things as satisfying their own personal definition of art and other things as "on the fringe"- could be considered art, but might not be, but we will never be certain because there is no set definition. All in all, I think that having a somewhat solid definition of art is mainly to satisfy humankind's need for organized, sensical understanding and/or classification.
Q: If you could only chose one, what in your oppinion would be the one most important aspect in the definition of art and why?

In response to Shawna...

Shawna asked: "Do you think that it is possible for someone to be consistent in their feelings towards a particular piece of art? meaning not change the interpretation at all in the slightest."
In short, yes. I think that throughout one's life, one can certainly gain new appreciation for new things and lose appreciation for others. (For example, I've recently been getting into jazz music, a genre that I never would have expected to like, had you asked me a few years ago.) I think that this is inevitable because of the drastic change, events, and growth that people experience throughout their lives. However, I believe that it is definitely possible to maintain the same appreciation for certain works throughout these life changes. For example, I have always loved Whitman's Noiseless Patient Spider. I first read this poem about 5 years ago, while in a dramatically different point of my life. To this day, I find this poem beautiful and moving for inexplicable reasons. Similarly, I know that I will always harbor a deep love for certain novels, music, or works of visual art. To me, there are certain things that just hit you; they affect you in a way that is on such a deep level that it cannot mitigated by time or the changing world around it.
Q: How has your taste in visual art, music, or poetry/prose changed or evolved throughout the years? Have there been any significant events in your life that have drastically altered or affected these preferences?