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....