Questions Unanswered

A quest for that which cannot be answered. Those are the words that come to mind as I delved into the depths of the pieces of art at the “Masters of Fine Arts Thesis” exhibit. The work, at first glance, seemed unimpressive and to steal the words of a classmate, was lacking in aesthetic quality what it supposedly made up for in meaning. But what was the meaning? If the exhibit had an overall lack of beauty about it, then the meaning must be obvious, right? That was the question I posed to myself as I surveyed the pieces in the exhibit. One of the artists, Dustin Price, was particularly interesting to me and his work is the subject of my further review because I believe it best captures the overall theme of the entire exhibit.
The work of Price was a series of pieces, two with the same title while the others were titled differently. However, each piece of work was related to another by either the material used or the subject, with the exception of a life-size untitled tree. The pieces displayed incredible placement of both the works hanging on the wall in the series and the materials within the piece itself. The arrangement drew the focus to one area of the piece, but also encouraged the viewer to look at other aspects as the search for a clear meaning commences. I found myself searching for a clear meaning behind his pieces, and for awhile, I thought that I might stumble upon it as I reviewed all that was displayed. However, as time wore on, it appeared that the meaning was not going to come so easily - - my sentiment quickly turned to frustration as I struggled to grasp why an artist would exhibit work that had no true meaning. As I turned to alternative sources to search for the meaning, I stumbled upon an excerpt from the artist’s statement that provided a bit of clarity. He stated that he “understands that my process repeatedly gives way to questions that cannot be answered, but I believe attempting to understand these questions if often just as significant as answering them” (Dustin Price, 2009). Apparently, there was a reason behind the lack of meaning.
For as long as we’ve been taught, questions are followed by answers, whether implied or actually supplied. This social norm of question and answer is the way we were taught to gather information about the world and how it works. However, at points throughout life, we encounter questions that cannot be answered and it is these types of questions that invoke self-discovery. These are the questions that help us discover how we fit into the world - - they are necessary to existence, but can the same be said of their place in the artworld? After spending time looking for the meaning of a piece of work and learning that the intended meaning was the search for the meaning, I do not believe these self-discovery questions are appropriate in art. Forgoing aesthetic quality for a deeper meaning detracts from the work itself. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to decipher the message and not enough time appreciating the spatial arrangement within the piece and the unique materials used to create the piece. Art should be about appreciation of technique and creativity - - not an exercise in dealing with frustration, especially when the meaning is clouded. In pieces of art, all questions should be answered.

A "Foucaultian" View of Spiderman

I feel that the pop culture Spiderman character lends itself to a Foucaultian review better than either of the other two choices - - however, I am definitely not an expert. My view of Foucault after Friday's presentation is that he is interested in breaking "codes of culture" down and interpreting their existence and meaning. He does this with normal daily activities and then uses this same technique to critique "Las Meninas", a very famous painting from the 17th century. As Kevin and Erik explained to us, "Foucault is uncovering truths and making interpretations about knowledge; breaking knowledge down into its basic components" with his work.

Spiderman was, at one point, a "normal" boy and went about his life doing daily activities that would be classified by Foucault as empirical orders. They are behaviors that are associated with social norms such as going to school and participating in extracurricular activities, and the "boy" version of the superhero spent the majority of the day in this manner. I believe that he spent little of his time in the third region of knowledge - - the intermediary region - -as he very rarely questioned the way society worked during his time as a "boy." However, I think that as he changes into Spiderman, he changes the way in which he looks at the world as he moves away from what is generally accepted as "normal" in society.

As Spiderman develops into a known figure in society, there seems to be more controversy as to his existence and the reasons behind his existence. He no longer follows Foucault's "fundamental codes of culture [that are] established for every man, from the very first, the empirical orders with which he will be dealing and within which he will be at home." There are no established codes for the actions of a superhero and there are definitely no philosophical interpretations for why superheroes do exist. I feel that the internal struggle that Spiderman feels as he deals with his national hero status stems from his inability to follow the "normal" empirical orders of society. No longer does he have to wait to decide if a building is safe to scale or test the waters before he jumps - - he has no knowledge of these tasks but is able to do them anyway due to his superhuman abilities. This would be a struggle - - to be able to do things without anyone before to tell them if it is the correct or right way to do it. At this point, I feel that Spiderman definitely expands his third region of knowledge that causes him to question the knowledge that is often overlooked. He is able to question the empirical orders of society because he no longer has to follow them in the way that others do. In this process, I believe it can lead the rest of society to discover that Spiderman's superhuman abilities do not mean that he is a harm to society. Instead, they must come to understand that society is simply changing - - new doesn't always mean bad.

The Heidi Chronicles

Feminism is not a cause I have ever aligned myself with or have felt the need to follow and support. Sure, I support equal pay and equal opportunity, but I feel that fighting in the manner that women have over the past 4 or 5 decades can actually close doors on opportunities. They are too busy fighting for the cause to notice doors opening as well as slow, but gradual progress being made in the corporate world. I will continue to stand up for my own rights as a woman in the "working" world, but do not plan on spending my life wishing that women were considered equal when I have a chance to make a good life for myself right in front of me.

All that said, I found the script of "The Heidi Chronicles" a so-called good read. I enjoyed the banter between Heidi and Scoop, and understood the friendship between her and Peter. I understood the issues, but reading it made these issues easier to overlook. To me, it was simply a story that related to art and explained the history of the feminist movement - - well-written and to the point. However, the play was a different story....

At first, I walked out of the play wishing I had spent the past 3 hours in a very different manner. I couldn't quite understand how a script that was so easy to read could have possibly taken that long to act out - - it just didn't seem possible! I felt that Heidi came across as "wishy-washy" and was never able to make up her mind about whether or not she wanted to be a true feminist. Her friends continued to fight for the cause, but also continued to be very unhappy - - often a "red" flag for people that something might need to change. Overall, I felt the play gave a good background on the feminist movement and was well-executed, but at this point, really did not enjoy it.

However, after listening to the actors speak in class in Friday and hearing that actor playing Heidi had the same thoughts as I did, I can soften my critique a little bit. I had felt the whole time that Heidi was simply a spectator to the feminist movement - - she was never able to make up her mind - - but I felt that everyone thought that she was a definite part of it. When I heard the woman speak who acted as Heidi and explain that she tried to portray Heidi in that way, it made a bit more sense why she seemed so "wishy washy". I do think that the actors did quite a good job portraying these characters while maintaining their own interpretation of a complicated storyline and movement.

I do not think that I will ever be behind the feminist movement, but I do understand a bit more as to where these women are coming from. My own opinion is that maybe they need to be more open to the opportunities in front of them instead of always fighting for better ones - - they might be surprised what doors open up.

Jackson Pollack

After watching the documentary of Horton's struggle to have the artworld validate her painting as "true" Pollack, I have come to despise this elitist world even more. However, at the same time, I have come to appreciate Pollack more after learning about his technique and seeing more of his work.

Pollack's painting, which are very abstract, seem to represent the thoughts of someone who also despised this so-called "artworld." He painted to paint - - it does not seem that he was focused on having an intentional meaning as many others before and after him did. His life was somewhat of a disappointment as alcoholism and womanzing took over his world, but he still found a way to create something that was largely unique and very difficult to replicate. His work looks like a mess of paints and splatterings, but as you watch his process in the video, it is easy to see that Pollack was methodical with his process. Maybe it was one area of his life that he actually had "control" over; as the rest of his life went haywire, he could still continue to control the "random" lines of paint and the overall product while using his particular process. For that I applaud him as he was able to control one aspect of his life and use that as a catharsis - - a release from the mess that was his life. I do not think that Pollack would have supported the elitist viewpoint of the artworld, or even liked the idea that his paintings fall in that category today.

Tolstoy rated the quality of art based on the degree of sincerity and infectiousness; these characteristics do not lend themselves well to accepting Pollack's work as quality pieces of art. Although Pollack is very methodical about his process, I do not believe that he was ever trying to demonstrate a deeper meaning or relay a certain feeling. He painted as a release, but his paintings do not infect the viewer with what he was feeling. It might relay the chaos that was his life, but no one can really understand the reason that he painted these works. I think that the sincerity was also there, but again, it is hard to see how that is translated in his works. It appears that he put effort into it and perfected the process, but it was just that - - a process. Tolstoy would not have accepted painting as a mere process and would not have appreciated that Pollack's work now falls into a more elitist category either.

Nietzsche vs. Tolstoy

After reading both excerpts, I believe that both Nietzsche and Tolstoy are trying to get the same point across, provided my interpretation of the difficult NIetzsche text is not completely off base.

NIetzsche speaks of the "collapse of the principium individuationis" in art as that which marks "quality" art. He feels that the individuating qualities that are associated with this principal and Apollonian thought are not the only forces behind a true piece of art. Instead, he feels that the conflict between the Apollonian forces and the Dionysian forces within a work of art create a "quality" piece. Dionysian forces are those which dilute the individualizing qualities of the Apollonian forces; Dionysian represents the feelings of pleasure and emotion that humans are better able to identify with. Pieces that have purely individually qualities are not in touch with human emotions, and because of this, they are often hard to identify with and understand. By diluting these ideas, people are better able to understand the intent behind the idea of the artist; this realization enables them to take in the emotion that the artist might have felt as he created the work of art. This transfer of emotional qualities ensures that the piece of art is authentic, and not so individual in thought that it is beyond understanding.

Tolstoy's work relays the idea that "the stronger the infection the better the art" - - which I believe is also indicating the role emotion plays in the authenticity of a piece of work. Tolstoy provides three criteria which help us to determine the degree of infectiousness of a piece: individuality, clearness, and sincerity. The artist must move away from just an individual thought as there must be a feeling that the individual thought brings about in others, a clarity with which this feeling is felt, and the sincerity with which the feeling is transmitted from artist to viewer. An artist cannot sit down to work with simply an individual thought if he wants this piece to be considered a work of art; instead, he must have feelings about this thought that motivate him to work. In this way, the emotions are passed on to the onlooker, and once again, the individual thought has been diluted with emotion just as Nietzsche felt it should be.

Nietzsche and Tolstoy had the same basic idea on art. Both believed that the human condition and emotion played a role in the effectiveness of a piece of art to relay a message or evoke a feeling. Individual thought is not enough because it does not ensure that every person will understand that same thought.

The premise behind "Faking It" was pretty unique and I'm surprised that the American public has not really jumped on the bandwagon - - we all know how important reality TV is in the States!! It was interesting that they were able to use a goal as "deep" as passing as a "real" artist instead of the usual and mundane beauty paegeant queen or rock superstart. However, as I watched the show, I began to wonder why they used the term "real artist". Why is his work with paint in rooms and on houses not "real"? If it is not real, is it then superficial or made up? In painting these rooms, he has created something new and refreshing in the sense that he has provided the room with a new look. And if anyone has tried painting a room, there is a certain art associated with making it look aesthetically pleasing. But cause this room cannot be analyzed in terms of a meaning behind it, paint on a house does not seem to be "real" art. Is that a criteria we must have to define art as "real" - - a deeper meaning with a hidden agenda? I do not know if that would be the only criteria, but I do feel as if it has come to a point where it is definitely one the main criteria in today's art world.

As far as my prediction as to the outcome of the show, I feel as if he will pass the test as a real and true artist that belongs in a gallery. His background as a painter gives him a basis for working with paints and other such mediums, and from what we have seen so far, he seems to have picked up new techniques well. I think that there is a lot of room in today's art world as to what actually makes and defines an artist, and this variation leaves room for newcomers. Although I think that he will pass the test and successfully fool people into believing he was made for galleries and exhibitions, I do not think that his success will bring us any closer to the definition of a real artist and what is real artwork.

What has this world come to? Art and status in America

The article, "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop", sparked my interest as I had no idea that such a transaction was possible. The whole process of pawning off art as collateral for debts, mortgages and other financial troubles seems absolutely ridiculous to me. First, in the idea that art could possibly be worth that amount of money, and second, in that people consistently find themselves in that amount of financial trouble. Time and time again, people find themselves spending beyond their means to maintain a certain "status". As of late, it seems that art has worked its way into the commercial empire - - many are starting to view the type of art that hangs in a home to speak about the status of the home's owner just as square footage, cars, and electronics have for decades. But why? Why is it necessary to classify certain types of art as more expensive than others? I understand that some have taken more time and effort, but the end result is ultimately the same - - a piece of art that another person, or group of people, are able to enjoy. However, as time as gone on, art and its creation, has slowly taken on a commercial aspect as has many other aspects of our society.

The article itself speaks of the trouble that people have gotten themselves into as they have bitten off more than they can chew. Take for example this quote from the article, "At a time when stock portfolios are plunging and many homes, even grand ones, have no equity left to borrow against, an increasing number of art owners are realizing that an Old Master or a prime photograph, when used as collateral, can bring in much needed cash." But how have people gotten to this point? It's simple -- status, status, status! Grand houses are not a necessity nor are the excessive amount of stock options that are always somewhat risky. These gambles have not provided the necessary pay-offs as of late, and with that art has become a bargaining tool as society struggles to stay afloat. But is that fair? These pieces of art, created by artists in a time that did not know such decadence and greed, were not meant to be pawns in the "money" game. These works are works of passion with little thought, for the most part, as to their selling price or the amount of money they would make as collateral. We are doing these pieces and the artists a disservice as we attempt to pull ourselves out of the hole that commercial America has helped us dig over the past 50 years.

Thomas Kinkade seems to have pushed the envelope of the definition of "artist" as he attempts to mass produce his rather quaint cottages. After researching Kinkade, since I missed out on the video this past week, I have found that his words drip of the deception that must have been apparent as he spoke in his time on "60 Minutes". His interview with CBS News in 2004 is a bald-faced lie at best. He speaks of his original works of art and the fact that he hand creates each one of these to be sold. Yet in the next breath, there is talk of assembly lines and fork lifts that help "push his vision" into galleries across the nation. Knowing absolutely nothing about the man before my search, I find it hard to believe that one man has enough time to produce so many paintings on his own while still having time for his precious family. He has sold himself to the Olympics and received an award from the California Board of Tourism - - what artist counts that among his accomplishments? I'm sorry, but it was not ever something that I felt an accomplished artist should be proud to admit. Kinkade works under the pretense that his work has these charitable benefits and helps people enjoy art again because there is little to understand. However, I believe that Kinkade is an expert at manipulation, and has learned that Americans will jump on anything that they believe will improve "their status" in society. This is how he has made his millions - - and earned his "status" just like those buying his artwork aspire to.

America the Wasteland...No longer the Promised Land

“O beautiful for heroes proved/In liberating strife/Who more than self their country loved/And mercy more than life” (America the Beautiful, Katharine Bates). As children in the United States, the melody and lyrics of America the Beautiful became a part of our history, engrained in our minds as teachers and parents taught us just what it meant to be an American. One of the lesser known verses of the song, written above, sheds a little light on the unselfishness of the era during which it was written. Humanity was concerned with achievement and building toward a freedom-filled future, working with others to do what was best for their community and society as a whole. The world was a simpler place to exist and coexist with both people and the environment. So what happened?
Chris Jordan’s newest exhibit, titled “Running the Numbers”, attempts to show us what happens as global warming, consumerism, and environmental destruction replace “amber waves of grain”, “purple mountain majesties” and “the fruited plain” in today’s society. Wide open fields and barren deserts have become a thing of the past as corporation after corporation expands its empire, and individuals look for new ways to expand their wealth. Simply put, American society is no longer focused on the good of humanity and building toward an environmentally-efficient future; instead, society is no longer even the operative word as individuals focus solely on their own needs and desires while building toward their own personal future. No longer do we live in a society where one individual focuses on the effect they have on their neighbor or the environment. Individualism is an integral part of American society, and Jordan’s exhibit highlights that as he tries to hammer home the point. In an interview, Jordan explains, “one of the huge problems that faces our society right now is […] the tiny incremental harm that every single one of us is doing as an individual” (Jordan interview, The Morning News, 2007 ). His photographic talent in “Running the Numbers” illustrates this very idea and puts into pictures what statistics have proven to us for years - - Americans are wasteful.
The “Running the Numbers” exhibit proves that Chris Jordan is well aware of the footprint that has trampled the United States. In trying to demonstrate this point to those not able to see it, he effectively combines his photographic genius with statistics that describe how wasteful our society has become in recent decades. He uses statistics, taken from multiple sources and seen in multiple places, as a basis for the picture he creates with his photography. Take, for example, this statistic: “One hundred million toothpicks, equal to the number of trees cut in the U.S. yearly to make the paper for junk mail” (Toothpicks, 2008). Now, a picture of toothpicks, all lined up - - not interesting nor eye-catching. However, this is where Jordan’s genius takes center stage. With that number of toothpicks, he created a beach scenery that looked peaceful, revealing no hint of the America that is slowly being destroyed with our consumption and poor habits. He understands the mindset of the U.S. society. Statistics have been around for years but no one seems to pay attention; instead, they wait until a picture of interest and beauty displays, in a different way, the numbers that have been in front of our face for so long.
Jordan’s exhibit sheds a new light on statistics as a way to motivate people into action, but to what end? His exhibit will not reach the entire world or even just the United States despite the best of intentions. His technique of repetition and the tricks he plays on the eye make the exhibit something to experience. But what impact will these pictures have on the thoughts of the American people? His pictures might be worth a thousand words, and some important statistics, but that does not mean they will spur even a thousand people into action.

"The satisfaction in the good is bound up with interest"

Kant writes that a concept of an object is not necessary to find it beautiful Instead, he writes, "flowers, free delineations, outlines intertwined with another without design, and called [conventional] foliage, have no meaning, depend on no definite concept, and yet they please." Kant lays this out for us, yet does not explain exactly what it is that makes them beautiful...or at least in a way that I understand!

To me, the part of an object that makes it beautiful is its intangible qualities and the experience that we have with that object. Take for example, the drawing that your kindergarten daughter creates for you later in life - - it is something that you might regard as beautiful but not because it follows conventional art theory or expertise. It is beautiful because of the intent with which it was created and the intangible "love" that you know went into that drawing. The lines might not be straight and the colors probably won't complement each other, but despite that, it is still a beautiful work of art. I think that this follows the point that Kant is trying to make as he argues, "it is part of the experience of beautiful objects that they should affect us as if they had a purpose, although no particular purpose can be found." Pieces of art are able to affect, move and interest us without being created with a hidden intent or purposeful message - - it is even possible to find something beautiful that was created "just because" even though most art critics would deem this shocking!

I think that too often, critics and the public get caught up in the intent behind the art and miss the intangibility of a work. They forget to stop and think about how it makes them feel and the sensation that it gives them - - another of Kant's topics in his writing. We find ourselves guilty of looking to see if the artwork is "good" or "not good" which leads us to define whether or not these pieces follow a concept. If we were simply to interpret these paintings, sculptures, and buildings based on how they make us feel, the sensations in those feelings might help us to stay in touch with those intangible qualities - - I think that those draw the most interest.

Hume and His "Taste"

I found Hume's viewpoint of taste to be interesting, but very selective. His essay of sorts defines the perfect man - - the perfect person to critique artwork and be the ultimate judge as to whether or not it is "tasteful." In my opinion, I do not feel that one person is the "right" person to judge artwork and the artist. No one person in the world has experience in all of the areas that could possibly be painted, so how will they be able to understand the artist's viewpoint, background, reason behind the painting? They won't and that should not be the only way that someone is allowed to make a judgment regarding whether or not the painting is "tasteful".

There is one part of Hume's criteria that I do agree with though. He states that, "before we can give judgment on any work of importance, it will even be requisite, that that very individual performance be more than once perused by us, and be surveyed in different lights with attention and deliberation. There is a flutter or hurry of thought which attends the first perusal of any piece, and which confounds the genuine sentiment of beauty." Too often, I feel that people judge artwork too quickly, without giving thought to the many ways in which it can be interpreted. A person can enjoy a painting at first glance, but to truly judge if it is a "work of art" one must spend the time looking at it from different angles and in different lighting. It is then that we can see the painting as the artist saw it during creation and at that point, it can be judged as tasteful or untasteful.

As far as the two paintings posted, I feel that I can form an opinion on whether or not I enjoy looking at each, but not on the basis of whether or not I think they are tasteful. At first glance, I find the first of the monkey enjoyable to look at despite its uniqueness. However, the second painting is a bit creepy to me - - the head of the man takes up nearly the entire space and his face reminds me of a serial killer sort. As far as whether each of these paintings should be considered tasteful, I do not feel that I can be an appropriate judge. I am only viewing these paintings online, with no ability to look at the way the light hits the canvas or the chance to see it from another angle. I cannot interpret the artists' intentions behind these two paintings and to me that is the ultimate test as to whether or not the subject and subsequent painting should be considered tasteful.

"Paradigms and Purposes"

"Kant admits that, 'it seems strange that gardening may be regarded as a kind of painting,' but then explains that this art [Versailles gardens] can meet his criteria for 'free play of imagination'".

This excerpt from "Paradigms and Purposes" was the one part of this section that really caught my interest. As you might be able to tell from my previous writings as well as my comments in class, I am a fan of the more nontraditional forms of art. The phrase "free play of imagination" seems to emphasize the fact that Kant is much the same way. Although Kant seems to enjoy order and adherence to form, as the garden of Versailles depicts, he does not attempt to delve deeper into the "meaning" behind the garden. He sees it for what it is - - "a harmony of the faculties" - - and claims that is the reason why we call it a beautiful work of art.

Kant's definition of art is refreshing to me. He counts thunderstorms, volcanoes, and waterfalls as works of art, and I definitely can see his point of view. Coming from Arizona, I have spent many summers watching monsoons and lightning storms at night. Their beauty is breathtaking, mainly because of the unpredictability associated with them. You never know when you will encounter another one, so there is really no option but to enjoy their strength and power. These occurrences are never planned and to me, that is what makes them so intriguing. Nature is one of the most stimulating forms of art - - there is so many ways in which it can be admired and respected. As Kant would say, it stimulates the "free play of imagination" because of its endless possibilities.

The question I have is why do more people not count the free form of nature as art? I think that answer lies in tradition; for centuries, people have looked at art as something that hangs in a museum or something that must be critiqued or theorized. Society sees art as something to be created, not something natural found in our everyday lives. This is a tragedy in my eyes because people's imaginations would run wild if they only considered all that nature has to offer.

Is our DNA a sort of "ghostly puppet master" determining our aesthetical preferences?

Conniff’s article interested me because of its unique take on artistic aesthetics and our (human) preferences on the subject. It is not something that I would have ever investigated on my own, but when put in front of me, sparks an interest because of the new take on artistic preferences. The theory of evolution if often thought of as controversial but when using the topic in conjunction with art, I believe it becomes even more so.

I agree with the article on the idea that evolution governs much of our DNA, and in some way, can see how the author might link evolution and aesthetical preferences. However, I do not think that evolution can provide a complete explanation for our artistic choices. Take myself for example - - I have never been one to look at art or find excitement in visiting a museum. I prefer abstract art and design to landscapes and portraits, which I often consider boring. Do I not fit the “evolutional” mold then? Does that mean that I prefer chaos and anarchy to the way life is now? I do not think that about myself, and do not think that art preference can say that about any person in particular.

It is my thought that people often prefer landscapes and portraits because it is a topic that they are able to understand. It might seem like a simplistic approach, but to me it provides a good enough explanation for a question with seemingly no “correct” solution. There is no need to search for a deeper meaning, or any sort of meaning, to enjoy the work of art. People are simple - - they like what they can understand without too much thought, or else it is considered work. Evolution may play a role in these aesthetical preferences but only because it ensures that people understand landscapes with green grass and blue skies. These images have been a part of life on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. How can people not understand that after all that time?