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?