Check out our brand new guestbook, photo album and resource articles!
Check out our brand new guestbook, photo album and resource articles!MEA & COMPANY Forum
Welcome to our forum. Feel free to post a message.
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 2) |
| Author | Comment |
Amused Gryphon
Dec 8, 06 - 2:23 AM |
Essays
What is Art? An Essay I have had the question, "What is Art?" posed to me. At first glance, hearing and thought, this question has no ready made simply reply. In a word, it is not a 2 + 2 equals answer. The subject of Art and its Ideal far exceeds the extent of one person's life span, and for that matter exceeds the range of mankind's written history. Before I proceed further, let me first dispel the myth or assumption that because a writer writes upon a certain subject that they are an expert upon it. In my case this is simply not so. I probably have much less knowledge of the subject of "Art" that is taught in the American Public School System as I tended to skip classes quite a bit. Nevertheless, I will give the question some thought. I call upon those Goddesses of the Arts, the Musae, (be they 3, 7, or 9 in number) to assist me in my thoughts upon "What is Art?" First, to me anyway, Art is about representation, and as such requires the presence of an observer to provide an interpretation of that representation. In another sense, a form of communication between the viewer and the viewed. I have been taught early on that what separates man from beast is the ability to make and use tools. Rather we are much more different than our brother animals is another subject matter altogether, I must concede there is a definite art to tool making. Therefore, the ability to manipulate that which is found in our environment is part and parcel of Art. Further, I know of several caves in France and Spain that have been found that depicts paintings of animal representaions and outlines of hands upon those walls. These represented images predate written history by some ten thousand years or more (maybe much more). This small simple fact stuns me a bit for my presumption that a creature like me with but better than half a century of experience can tackle a question of a subject than spans and existed for such long amounts of time. Art being a representation for an observer must stimulate the senses of that observer in some way. The interpretation of what exactly is represented thus follows. Art as a subject quickly becomes subdivided into categorial adjectives. Such as; the visual arts, auditory, and such. In more sensory terms of the observer, music and poetry stimulates the hearing ears. The art of painting (with many mediums as oil, chalk, etal) stimulates the sight with reflected light and color and often with an interpretation of space projecting out of a 2D surface. Sculpture stimulates both sight and touch (which just adores texture) and the same can be said of textiles (why else so much interest in the world of fashion). Architecture (our artificial caves) stimulates our senses of space, sight, and security. The culinary arts not only satisfy a need for food but also stimulates the senses or smell and taste. The examples are numerous and I probably omit much. Also, Art to me should factor in the subjective aspect of the enjoyment it gives to the observer. Art does involve an observer and its perceptions after all. An observer tends to draw towards that which it enjoys and to shun or avoid that which offends its sensibilities. However, this statement can not be entirely true in Art's case. Horror films and other grostesques play a large part in today's society an have large draws of crowds. Should I exclude those aspects of Art which doesn't necessarily meet the enjoyment of my tastes? I think not, but those representations will not be getting much of my attention. So, I must suppose the statement, "One man's garbage is another's treasure." also applies to the subject of Art simply because of the subjective nature of the perceptions of individual observers. The question of "What is Art?" has been pondered by philosophers and scholars down through the centuries of historical time and I am by no means of their ilk. Plato for one comes immediately to mind with Art being linked to the idea of Beauty. For Plato beauty was something that actually existed in the World of Ideas and our experienced world was just (more or less) imperfect representations manifested from that perfect Ideal World. Be that as it may, I prefer to consider life itself as Beauty and will content myself with making an Art of Living with the means of my finite knowledge in the face of my infinite ignorance. I believe simply that the Art of Living lies within its Enjoyment of Life. Have a great day! |
|
Amused Gryphon
Dec 8th, 2006 - 2:34 AM |
Re: Essays
Soul In Art: An Essay I have been asked to cosider the Soul in Art, or perhaps it was the Soul of Art. Whichever one it was, at first hearing of this idea, I considered it to be an alien concept. The idea of soul to me has always had an other worldly feel to it. From my knowledge of human history, wars have been fought over the nature of the concept of the soul. In the European Middle Ages, people were tortured by the Church for having wrong thoughts and opinions about this thing called soul. War and torture are not my idea of enjoyment at any time. However, I am supposed to be living in a more tolerant and enlightened age, so I will consider the Soul in Art. Is there or is there not a soul in Art? From a theological standpoint there probably is not. I have been told emphatically by the clergy of many various Christian denominations that only humans possess souls and animals and plants do not. In light of this then what chance does an inanimate object have to any relationship to a soul. I guess this would be borderline Idolotry or something. Why this must be so totally escapes me and seems to place some kind of limit on what a god can do. There is a tenet or belief in the United States that, "All men are created equal." I take that concept one step further and say that all life is created equal, and now I have taken a small tangent off from the topic at hand. Aside from a theological standpoint, I do think there is a type of Soul in Art. Art is a made representaion and being a thing made, Art has a maker. I hesitate to say a creator as all the materials that go into a piece of art were already there. The Artist is a manipulator of available resources and makes use of these to rearrange those things already in the environment to make that which is to become represented. Something always comes from something and not nothing. It would be a different type of world altogether if wishing it so could make it so. Perhaps a god could do this, but personally I do not know. Does a portion of the Artist/Maker go into the work of the represented Art? This answer must be an obvious and resounding yes as time and energy (work) is spend in the making of it. Further, an amount of the Artist's emotions and feelings are expended upon the work of Art. The Soul in Art must have some of the qualities of the Artist involved within it and imparted into it. On another note, can the work of Art be separated from its Artist/Maker? I would have to say yes. The observer of Art does not need to know the quarks and character of the Artist to enjoy the representation made as Art. However, I think that in some cases and for some observers that there can be no separation between the work and the Artist. It is so because their favorite Artist has made it, whatever it is then it must be good. This phenomena is more noticed in the Art of Music than in other mediums. Since Music is a performance art, the connection between the work and worker are much closer in spacetime. For a sculptor or painter the distance between the made and maker can be separated further in spacetime. And perhaps I have just slipped off on another tangent. For another consideration of Soul in Art, I will look at a larger viewpoint. In history there are defining eras and sequences of events that occur which can be called, "the spirit of the age" and Art does span the ages of history as well. In what is called Classical Era (Greek & Roman), we still have examples of sculpture and architecture and the same applies to earlier times of the Egyptians of the Pharoahs, the cultures from between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates and such. All these surviving examples are quite distinguishable from each other, and if shown such a piece of art from these eras and cultures, you could probably identify it as such. In other words, you would not confuse a Roman statue with a Pharoah. The soul in this art distinctly places it in the spirit of its age. Further examples of such soul in Art is seen in what is referred to as Byzantine which is also highly formalized in its style just as Pharonic Egyptian is in its way. Certain items of art such as pottery and textiles are dated and identified by the technology available of the time of making. The philosophy of the Age also enters into the Art representations as a spirit or soul of the age. All these factors of techniques, materials used, objects represented, subjects portrayed, and stylizations can be said to represent the soul in Art. In conclusion then, and having observed some of the Modern Art of Today, what does this Art say aout the spirit of our current age? For myself, all that I can think of is that we must be living in some confusing and interesting times. In order to save myself from becoming overly confused, I will base my judgement upon the soul in Art upon that subjective feeling that I call Enjoyment. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com