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?

Significant or Irrelevant?

In Bell's view, a work of art's subject matter and symbolism are irrelevant, if not downright distracting, to the overall work, and I find this incredibly hard to believe. I think it cheapens the entire experience to say that art is nothing more than a certain way of arranging lines and colours. I dont believe that something necessarily HAS to have some intrinsic deeper meaning or intricate symbolism for it to be considered artwork, but I also dont believe that this aspect should be completely disregarded all together. I have taken many art classes, and I have frequently worked independently. Through both of these experiences, I have accrued many pieces that Ive done over the years. Some of them were assignments that I had no interest in completing and for which I sort of did the bare minimum. Others were completely of my own volition and creativity, and others still were a mixture of the two. I think that some art may not have any meaning, symbolism, or significance, and that's okay. But I believe that the pieces of art that do have contextual or subliminal meaning should definitely recieve credit for those aspects. The artist either intended for them to be there or was affected by his/her surroundings and it came across in the piece, and he/she should not be robbed of that 2nd layer of richness.
Q: Do you think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art?

Pornography versus Prostitution

This is only slightly related to class discussion by the thread of pornography, but I had a conversation with someone about it the other day and figured I'd blog about it. So.. Prostitution is illegal because our government has decided that people should not be allowed to sell sex for money. However, following their logic, I fail to understand why pornography is not illegal. Are the people in the videos being paid? Yes. What is their job? To have sex. Whether there is a camera involved or not, or whether the individual is being paid to have sex with someone else or with the person giving them the money, he or she is still being paid for sex. If youre going to outlaw one, why not both? By the same mentality, if youre going to allow one, why not the other?
In my own view, I think prostitution should become a legalized and regulated official industry and all else should remain illegal (random hoes trying to make a buck for their pimp). If prostitution were legal, I'm sure it would diminish the underground venerial disease-ridden prostitute-on-the-street-corner business that is in effect today. Why would anyone choose to go to an unregulated hooker when they could go somewhere that is legal and has regulated standards? Not to mention the number of jobs it would create.
Q: This proposal might be a little "out there"... what do you think about it? Should prostitution be legal? or is this suggestion completely out of line?

In response to Jenna...

Jenna asked: Do you think that Freud is correct in saying that our dreams are the hidden wishes that we dont want anyone to know about?
I have always been fascinated by dreams, possibly because mine are usually very vivid and crazy weird. In short, I dont think that they necessarily have to express deeply hidden desires (though they certainly can). I think dreams are a combination of the unconscious mind (including beliefs, desires, emotions etc) and random stimuli. For example, I often end up having dreams in which odd scenarios or obscure people are present. After waking up, I realize that I'd seen that obscure person on Facebook the day before or had a hypothetical conversation with a friend. Contrarily, I have also had dreams about a failing friendship in which I find myself desperately searching in the ocean for this friend (BLUNT symbolism, if you ask me). A third and final example is the stuff thats just plain weird and I have no idea where or why it is (subconscious imagination?). I think that dreams are a conglomeration of these three aspects; stimuli, unconscious mind, and inexplicably random shit.
Q: My boyfriend very rarely has good dreams. Are yours generally good or bad? How do you interpret the meaning or symbolism in your dreams? Do you take them seriously?

Phreud and Phantasy

One aspect of Freud's philosophy that I could not understand was his definition of fantasy and the fact that it must be suppressed or hidden. Contrarily, I believe that our phantasies (sexual or otherwise) are what make us human, regardless of their inapropriateness or repulsiveness. In some cases, our fantasies are what connect us. Yes, some phantasies such as rape, murder, or pedophelia are harmful to others. However, I feel that as long as the phantasy does not harm another person or interfere with his free will, there is no problem with it. Furthermore, I believe that there is a distinct line between mere fantasizing and actually fulfilling the fantasy. An artist who paints a representation of murder is far less repulsive or inappropriate than an actual murderer.
Q: Do you think that any sexual fantasies should be considered "wrong"? How do you define or support what should be considered inapropriate vs. what is acceptable?

In response to Chelsea...

Chelsea's question: Do you think famous artists produce better or worse work because of the pressures on them to keep being great?
I think different people respond to pressure differently, especially when speaking of the pressures of fame. I am far from famous, but I know that in my own personal life, when I create a successful piece that is recieved positively by others, it only motivates me to create more successful works of art. I don't think that the "pressure" to be great should come from the outside anyways. Yes, once you've reached a certain level of success or fame, people tend to put expectations on you to be this magnificent thing, and it may be hard to disregard those expectations. But regardless of what others impose upon you, the drive to create good art should come from within. As I said, different people respond differently to pressure, but I believe that one should always try to disregard the pressures of others. If you pay too much attention to what others want or expect of you, you'll lose sight of whats most important: your art and your passion for it.
Q: Do you create art? What kind? If so, do you consider yourself an "artist"?

Sufficient Expression

For the most part, I agreed with Tolstoy's view that art should communicate an expression of emotion. I think that the way in which art connects human souls across historical and cultural boundaries is one of its most basic functions. However, I disagree that if art does not communicate a specific feeling it has "failed." Just because other people dont understand the artists expression doesnt mean its wrong or a failure. In my opinion, I dont think that all art has to communicate something anyway. If I were happy or angry or upset and decided to paint to express how I feel, that in itself should be enough to constitute as "art". I've expressed my emotions through visual signs and pictures and, regardless of who sees or does not see it, its still art. If Van Gogh never revealed any of his paintings to anyone else, would they have ceased to be paintings? If I were to look at a cryptic Jackson Pollock and recieve no emotion from it, does it cease to be art? In my opinion, no.

Q: Following Tolsoy's general belief that art=communication, how many people must recieve the artist's intended emotion for it to be successful art? one? a considerable amount? the majority? Furthermore, if slightly less than this "required amount" recieve the emotion, has the artwork failed completely?

In response to Mary...

Mary asked: "Can there be a mistake in art, which one would have to admit having made? or do the values which change overlook any mistake?"
I'd like to begin answering this question with a quote I once heard: "creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes; art is knowing which ones to keep." Whether the artist admits his mistales or not, they still exist. Through my own artistic experiences of formal education and creation, I have made my fair share of mistakes. Looking back on some pieces, there are choices that I've made in my artwork that I wish I hadn't because the piece would be better without them. However, there are also mistakes that have lead to greater development and ultimate success. I think that the act of admitting mistakes, whether they result positively or negatively, is part of the artistic process. If an artist cannot own up to making mistakes, he surely isn't going to be able to learn and grow from them. I think artistic "mistakes" are similar to life mistakes; they may hurt you or benefit you, but you will be infinitely richer if you can recognize, admit, and move on from them.
Q: If one person looks at a work of art and thinks its "ugly" or shouldnt be considered art, can it still be considered art? Do the circumstances change if many people think its "ugly"?

Plato's Pleasure

What is so wrong with creating art for pleasure? or simply for the sake of creating art? Yes, this method could turn to obsession, but so what? No one has ever died from artistic overdose. Furthermore, I don't see why art has to educate or lead to some "higher truth." Does this condition not eradicate the very soul of art, its deeply irrational and purely emotional essence? I disagree with Plato's philosophy that art serves no purpose if it does not educate or diverges from absolute truth. In a way, I think this disagreement reveals a deeper problem I have with Plato. Not only do I disagree with his philosophy of art, but I also disagree with his overemphasis of the rational state of mind. I think that in order to be fully functioning and flourishing human beings, we must give equal attention to both our rational and irrational or emotional natures. The brain is not always right; "ultimate truth" is not always the answer.

Q: Do human beings have a Form?

In response to Katherine...

Katherine's question: "If people can remove a tattoo that they no longer view as art, should people be able to burn/destroy famous paintings if they disagree with the "art-ness" of it?"

I think that this definitely crosses lines of posession/ownership. I think its hard to compare a tattoo and a famous piece of art for a number of reasons. A tattoo is a commissioned piece. The artist not only sells his artwork to someone else, but permanently puts it on the individual's body. The buyer then has complete possession and control of the art. If an individual decides that the tattoo he bought is no longer significant to him, he has the right to get it off his body. If an artist decided that he no longer wanted his own work to be in existence, then he naturally has the right to destroy what he's created. Whatever the artform may be, if it is your personal artwork or artwork that you've bought, you can do whatever you want with it. However, (and this goes for virtually everything, art or not) if it doesnt belong to you, dont touch it. Just because you disagree with someone else's interpretation of what is art, does not give you the right to destroy it. Art can take many forms, and what may seem like crap to you might just be someone else's masterpiece.

Q: Can artwork ever be entirely unique?

In response to Chelsea...

Chelsea's question: Do you believe tattoos should be considered art, and would you ever get one?

Though they may not classify as "fine art," I definitely think that most tattoos deserve to fall under the wide definition of "art." After all, it IS called "tattoo artistry." Aside from the name itself though, I think tattoos are a deliberate form of visual artistic expression. They may express beauty, anger, etc.. However, I have seen some tattoos that appear to have no apparent emotional or artistic value at all, so it's tough to include all tattoos under a blanket statement.
Though I have no problem with tattoos on other people or tattoos themselves, I have no tattoos of my own, and I'm not yet sure if I ever will. Though I believe tattoos are a uniquely beautiful artform, I can't handle the permanence. Yes, tattoo removal is possible these days, but its more expensive and more painful than the actual tattoo itself (so I've heard). Not to mention the fact that you shouldn't need removal anyways. You should pick something that has and will always have significant meaning to you, another reason why I dont yet have a tattoo. Should the need, event, or reason arise, I may end up getting one.

Q: Could the body itself be considered a work of art? Or is it simply the tool that is used to make art?

Nudity vs. Pornography

In class one of these past days, we somehow got onto the topic of the offensiveness of nude art and/or pornography. Personally, I think there is a huge difference between nudity and pornography, and that nudity in itself should not be seen as offensive. In many classic traditional artworks, the human form is depicted partially if not completely nude. The human body for centuries has been viewed as a sacred form of beauty, the reason for its ubiquitous presence throughout art history. The only reason the naked body is seen as offensive or lewd is because its been hypersexualized and exploited.
As for the artistic value of nudity and pornography, I do think there is some grey area. Though an image or a photograph of the naked body may hold sexual conotation, I dont think that it should necessarily be considered pornographic. Similarly, I dont think that just because a graphic, nude image might be beautiful it shouldnt be considered pornographic. Nude art aims to celebrate the beauty of the human form; pornography is just sexually stimulating. By deffinition, pornography is "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit" (dictionary.com).

Q: Why would an artist choose to create something offensive? Oppositely, why would he attempt to recreate something beautiful?