Diptych podcast

Listen to my diptych podcast.

Reflection: What is Art and Who Decides?

At the beginning of this course, I wrote that I believe anything can be art and anyone who is able to connect to the piece of art can call it art. I still believe this. Throughout the course, we have looked at different artists and their lives, the progression of modernism and post-modernism, and the four aspects of formalism and style, iconography, Marxism, and feminism. Each of the things we have studied has convinced me that my initial idea is based in truth.
Looking back at different artists, we saw critics and members of the public deciding whether something is art or not, which I thought was rather ridiculous...who gave them a right to decide whether it's art? Modernism dictated parameters that needed to be met in order for something to classify as art, but studying the idea of iconography enforced the idea that art is much more than it seems - you need to look at the emotion and the story behind it. Post-modernism further supported my initial reaction to the question "What is art and who decides?" since it basically states that anyone can make art and anything can be art. Not necessarily everything is art, but almost anything can be art. Again, you have to look at the story behind the piece of art. It needs to convey an emotion or idea.

What Would a Modernist Call Art?

A modernist would call art anything that takes something that has already been established and deliberately taking in a new direction in an effort to divert from the norm. I think many modernists would agree that anyone can call something art; they're all about the individual spirit and independence.
Modernists would be willing to call anything art, because in order to make modernist art they have to first admit that something else is art so that they can deliberately depart from that; just because something isn't their brand of artwork doesn't mean they won't agree it can't be classified as art. They may not like it (classical art), but they would probably be willing to respect it as an art form.

Reaction to Second "Modernism" Reading

As I was reading, I was pleased to find that authors and poets continue to be mentioned as frequently as painters. Perhaps it is because of our recent reading of T.S. Eliot, but I noticed that he is mentioned quite often throughout the pages, and the book repeatedly cites the same writers (James Joyce).
One part that especially stood out to me was the bit about surrealism. I love surrealism and it was interesting to read about how it embraces the ideas of Freud. I noticed a quote by Andre Breton that stated, "a part of our mental world which we pretended not to be concerned with any longer - and, in my opinion the most important part - has been brought back to the light." It's true that we shove things into the backs of our minds, things we want to forget about, and these things can be relayed through art.

Reaction to "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"

In the poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" T.S. Eliot is asking whether or not to do something…“Do I dare disturb the universe?” Should he present his ideas?
He almost pokes fun at the women talking of Michelangelo, and “before the taking of toast and tea.” He appears disdainful of society; he understands them but doesn’t agree or conform, but he “knows their stares” and throughout the poem ponders the possibility of disturbing their peace, as it will only end with his “head upon a platter.” He utilizes repetition to emphasize certain points (the tea and women talking of Michelangelo).
I find it interesting how the poem is titled as a love song...it certainly isn't adoration Eliot feels, and he certainly isn't enamored with the world. Rather, Eliot seems disenchanted with society, so therefore one may conclude that the love referred to in the title is really just the absence of love, a declaration of his disappointment.
I think at the end, the bit about the mermaids, is referring to responses to him and his writing. Eliot doesn't believe the mermaids will sing to him, and he finishes the poem saying "till human voices wake us and we drown." Could he be referring to critics and the responses that may end up putting his head upon a platter? He doesn't believe they will like his writing, and it will ultimately be his destruction.

Reaction to "The Parable of the Madman"

"The Parable of the Madman" tells of a "madman" who is surrounded by what is described as a group of nonbelievers; he starts saying he seeks God, and then proceeds to inform those around him that they killed God and churches are now only "tombs and sepulchers of God."
This story could be considered modernist because it attempts to divert from the norm and it expounds upon novel ideas, and it also contains a little of the "regular" mindset of the time. At the time it was probably shocking to read such a thing, but today, with so many atheists, the idea is probably more acceptable. I thought it was interesting how the man in the story is called a madman; just because he has original views that are different from those around him, does that make it justified to ostracize him and label him as a madman? The crowd yells and laughs at him because his ideas are different than their own, and Nietzsche chooses to call him a madman, which one must admit, has a negative connotation.
Nietzsche creates an interesting story. It seems as though he presents this idea under a disguise; by calling the character a madman, it appears that he's nonsupporting of the idea that humanity killed God, but under this disguise, he is able to present the idea without taking credit for the thought. The madman is the one who gets victimized, even though Nietzsche was the one who created him and gave him words. Of course Nietzsche would still be considered a certain way, but he still calls the man mad.
I may be totally wrong about all of this, but it's all just opinions and interpretations, which is part of modernism and post-modernism anyways. :)

Reaction to First "Modernism" Reading

I liked how the book "Introducing Modernism" described how the modernist movement appeared in each form of art: literature, paintings, architecture, music, film....As a writer, it often offends me when people insist writing isn't art, and it was nice to read a book that embraces the realization that there are many forms of art. On page 39, I liked reading the fractured words that surrounded the image of a face and the explanation that it was part of a "collage" tactic. Page 48 of the book mentioned how modernist works are not straightforward and easy to understand; one has to try and understand the work in order to discover what it is about, but of course that means each individual gleans different understandings due to his/her own perception of the work. Page 44 was quite fascinating, as it discussed the idea of making new things and abandoning the past while simultaneously mentioning that the work may contain "very strong traces of he old, the classical or the primitive." So it's trying to get away from something it's echoing?
In general, I found this book to be just as interesting as the post-modernism book but somewhat easier to understand...perhaps that's just the book itself, or maybe it's because we already have background knowledge regarding the subject....

What's Inappropriate?

I think it's silly how classes in school try to shield us from bad words and bad images: it's nothing we haven't already heard or seen in the knuckle. Furthermore, since these things do exist, it's not like we're never going to encounter them and school is doing us a favor. Seriously, I think that by high school age, we're all aware of the realities of the world. We aren't stupid, so school shouldn't treat us like we are.
And why is it considered ok for us to read "Like Water For Chocolate" and "How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents" if we aren't even allowed to watch a segment of an R rated film (even if the segment we watch contains nothing R rated) in history classes. I remember my 9th grade Social Studies teacher being really mad because the school wouldn't let him show us a segment of the film Braveheart. I wonder if the reason schools allow us to read "inappropriate" texts as opposed to watching "inappropriate" movies has something to do with the ability to interpret them. Perhaps teachers assume that images are straightforward, whereas texts require interpreting. If this is the case, the teachers are wrong. Universally, images are easier to understand than words...so is the school so extremely proud of its accomplishments in educating us that it thinks us above learning through images? It's quite a puzzle.

Post Modernism Book

The book "Post Modernism: A Graphic Guide To Cutting-Edge Thinking" is bright and colorful on the outside, and on the inside, it's filled with illustrations that appeal to visual learners. Overall, the book is very engaging to someone who learns visually rather than verbally, which is interesting because books are almost always composed of words. This book has a novel approach towards teaching post modernism and I think it will be fun learning from it; the monotony of reading dull, uninteresting books in school is finally over!

What is Modern?

TV shows today really love killing people that live in clean, modern houses. Admit it. Every time the detectives go to solve a murder mystery, they enter a house with all the latest styles and technology. Either the modern look is now considered stylish, or it's cheaper for the shows to use such novel appliances. It must be the former.
So what exactly is modern? Things that are considered modern today are sleek, shiny, streamlined and filled with stylish goodness. In a word, modern things are perfect. They have a certain look to them - nothing extra, just the necessities, usually black and white with no distracting colors. Modern houses usually have boxy architecture and a lot of glass involved; even if the glass isn't for a window, there's always glass. Stainless steel is a must. These are the kinds of houses that echo.
Modern art is never straightforward. It always has some obscure meaning that no one ever understands unless it's explained, but of course art teachers think they understand it perfectly and feel the need to study it in class and have students brainstorm the potential meaning behind it, and if for some reason the students fail to comprehend the depth and meaning behind the art, then of course the teacher dictates his/her own beliefs to the class and eventually grades the students on their ability to remember said beliefs.

Our Movie!!!!!

I think that the movie we made, "The Art Class," accomplished our goal of using stereotypes about artists to answer the questions what is art and who decides. Each different artist has a very different idea concerning the answers to those questions, and the use of confessional interviews like what "The Office" uses helped show the audience how each individual feels about art. By using stereotypes in the movie, we were able to portray many different answers instead of just focusing on one answer. I think our movie is really good; it answers important questions while simultaneously encouraging laughter.

Video Response

The interesting thing about all of these movies is that they portray real artists as what people would describe as the stereotype of an artist; this almost makes it not a stereotype, because real artists were that way. In Lust for Life, Van Gogh was an example of the sad and suicidal artist. Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera were excellent examples of how students often eclipse their teachers in talent, and the quote by Rivera, "I will not compromise my vision," is repeated by artists all the time. Peggy Guggenheim was a wonderful example of the conceited patron with an inflated love for herself, and when Lee Krasner said she thought she knew every abstract artist in New York, but not Jackson Pollock, this illustrated the stereotype that artists know all the other artists. The movie about Basquiat showed the interviewer asking if Jean was angry as an artist, which shows that the interviewer was entertaining stereotypes about artists himself. The film Why Man Creates was satiric and comical, which supported the stereotype that artists have a different view on the world than others who are not artists.
In general, a lot of the stereotypes that were discussed before viewing these films were exhibited in the movies, which goes to show that maybe these stereotypes are not that far from the truth.

What is Art and Who Decides? (Podcast)

So what is art, and who decides?

Artist Cliches and Stereotypes

I'm an artist...but I'm blond. That doesn't exactly fit the stereotype for the tormented artist who wears ripped and colorful clothes, long dark hair constantly in disarray, and lives only for their art and nothing else. Artists always live in New York, in a nice little studio apartment where they can paint or sculpt or write dramatic prose for some obscure literary magazine. Generally, people assume artists aren't well off and have a poor education outside of the arts. If you were an artist, people would expect you to know the names of all the up and coming modern artists that you associate with (of course you associate with artists and only artists), and people would expect you to constantly have diverse and extraordinary ideas. After all, artists are the most creative of individuals, are they not?

Blog #1

Today is the first day for the class "Art, Literature, & Ideas." I think there are only 7 students in the class, which is slightly ridiculous. I wonder how the school even let that happen. I really have no idea what exactly I'm supposed to be doing at the moment, so I'll just continue to ramble pointlessly. It snowed yesterday...that was fun. Not really though. I had to scrape the ice off my car and it was rather cold. And today I'm following a new schedule for school and unfortunately I do not have a study hall before my chem test.

Am I supposed to be writing something about this class? It seems like it will be fun. The title of the elective is interesting and the teachers seem nice. With a class this small, it will be exceptionally fun. Ok those are my thoughts.....