When taking note of the video posted on the DKJ phlog, I had originally claimed (silly..ly) that pianistic perfection would have to be that of the Well Tempered Clavier, basing my argument on the concept that the piano would not exist as we know it today without the it.
However, I have since the moment I posted the Well Tempered Clavier comment been thinking about what exactly would fulfill the actually graspable concept of "Pianistic Perfection", and thus far this is what I've got:
:: From the musical standpoint of a flute player, whom has dabbled here and there amongst various categories and mediums of music, I think that the strongest argument for someone who claim's to have perfection on a musical front only has to truly be able to do only one thing, which inevitably has two results. Ironically, this one thing is that you must be able to respond to any given aesthetic desire possible when it is necessary to display that aesthetic to whatever audience it may be that you are attempting to come in contact with.
:: The fascinating thing about this single requirement being that the reason we as musicians typically lean towards a genre at all is that the aesthetics that become inherent with sed genre are the ones that appeal to us most in one way or another. Thus the second result becomes obvious, in that perfection not only display's that you readily understand and can translate any of the aesthetics, but also that you have discovered and display the one that aesthetically represents thyself whenever necessary.
What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
In Response to DKJ's Definition of Art
Amidst the conversation about Professor Johnson's definition of art, found here: http://critojazz.blogspot.com/2011/03/ap-my-latest-attempt-to-define-art.html, I had the following input to be added:
I would certainly agree that Art is all a matter of levels and degrees. It is a complicated path that you have to follow to end with the conclusion of defining art though; for the two most distracting factors are certainly always muddling with our judgment of the final result. These two factors of course being: 1. if it is indeed art and 2. whether your perception of it is based on your recognition in its quality
Definitively, I would say that all of the requirements are undeniably fulfilled in the personal original experience of witnessing 4'33, (being careful to note the original reveal of the surprise is at least a small piece of the overall aesthetic derived from the artistic display to any audience member). Thus, though many people were disappointed by the piece's result, it was at least to some degree fulfilling all of the original requirements and remains as art to me.
As for the conversation of degree's in respect to the definition; I certainly feel that it is important to consider any and all forms of already created, and yet to be created art on scales of continuum's, using the afore mentioned necessities in defining art against the scale of time. For in my opinion, these necessities are in continuous influx based on their time of creation in comparison to what has been created. The primary reason for the continuum factor being that a piece of work may seem significantly less like art to us in this moment than it did to anyone else in their moment; especially to the degree that a requirement may have failed over time (thus resulting in a piece no longer fulfilling at least one of the requirements of art). With this being said, the definition would allow for our hermit in a closet creating art to be a correct statement, in that he himself did experience the art he made in that moment to which we can no longer partake.
I would certainly agree that Art is all a matter of levels and degrees. It is a complicated path that you have to follow to end with the conclusion of defining art though; for the two most distracting factors are certainly always muddling with our judgment of the final result. These two factors of course being: 1. if it is indeed art and 2. whether your perception of it is based on your recognition in its quality
Definitively, I would say that all of the requirements are undeniably fulfilled in the personal original experience of witnessing 4'33, (being careful to note the original reveal of the surprise is at least a small piece of the overall aesthetic derived from the artistic display to any audience member). Thus, though many people were disappointed by the piece's result, it was at least to some degree fulfilling all of the original requirements and remains as art to me.
As for the conversation of degree's in respect to the definition; I certainly feel that it is important to consider any and all forms of already created, and yet to be created art on scales of continuum's, using the afore mentioned necessities in defining art against the scale of time. For in my opinion, these necessities are in continuous influx based on their time of creation in comparison to what has been created. The primary reason for the continuum factor being that a piece of work may seem significantly less like art to us in this moment than it did to anyone else in their moment; especially to the degree that a requirement may have failed over time (thus resulting in a piece no longer fulfilling at least one of the requirements of art). With this being said, the definition would allow for our hermit in a closet creating art to be a correct statement, in that he himself did experience the art he made in that moment to which we can no longer partake.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
So Said the Daydreamer...
So in order to catch up on some of my blogs, I had some interesting things to mention about my thoughts from the section on Clive Bell. The philosophies of Clive Bell were pretty interesting, for in his opinion the concepts of art that are most important are those of the form and how the represent aesthetics properly, thus being a big fan of abstract art.
Now the thing that I found particularly enticing about this concept of his is how what he was interested in about peoples reaction to art can be quantified somehow. To help elaborate, I will talk about some of my brainstorming on the subject:
:: Now in order to figure out what it is that Clive Bell believes in, one would have to fill in the lexical gap that is the descriptor for how one feels when witnessing a piece of art. In other words you need a way of describing the emotion felt when you see something that is artistic and does not necessarily fit quite right under any other title.
:: In his defence, Bell discusses the concept of the Aesthetic Emotion, which is sort of designed as a term to help with the previous problem, but then the new problem that arises is that of how one aesthetic emotion differs from another...
So my question for all of you out there is thus: would it seem reasonable to declare that Aesthetic Emotions are actually just the raw and pure forms of the regular emotions we feel all the time? Thus suggesting that the overwhelming sense you feel about certain pieces of art set off such a powerful reaction in that emotion that we sometimes confuse it for inspiration. What are your thoughts?
Now the thing that I found particularly enticing about this concept of his is how what he was interested in about peoples reaction to art can be quantified somehow. To help elaborate, I will talk about some of my brainstorming on the subject:
:: Now in order to figure out what it is that Clive Bell believes in, one would have to fill in the lexical gap that is the descriptor for how one feels when witnessing a piece of art. In other words you need a way of describing the emotion felt when you see something that is artistic and does not necessarily fit quite right under any other title.
:: In his defence, Bell discusses the concept of the Aesthetic Emotion, which is sort of designed as a term to help with the previous problem, but then the new problem that arises is that of how one aesthetic emotion differs from another...
So my question for all of you out there is thus: would it seem reasonable to declare that Aesthetic Emotions are actually just the raw and pure forms of the regular emotions we feel all the time? Thus suggesting that the overwhelming sense you feel about certain pieces of art set off such a powerful reaction in that emotion that we sometimes confuse it for inspiration. What are your thoughts?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Response to Bryson's post about Bell
In response to what Bryson had said here:http://brycen-honorsartandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/02/representation.html?showComment=1299198983406#c3333453850994794858
Alright, personally, I have a lot to say on this subject to which I feel is a particularly juicy debate about art.
First I want to talk about photography as an art, because in our current day and time, photography is much less an art form than what it once was. However, to preface this statement, there are two things that are necesary to point out about photography to which are the different aspects of its art. The first is that photography is an art of being able to capture an aesthetic in its purest form or representation in real life imagery. The second is that it is an art of being able to manipulate the outcome of the final image that you will have. There is one thing that has to be noted about the second art though; and this is that electronic manipulation to achieve the image you desire does not qualify in the true art of photography, for it involves none of the actual strain inherent in achieving your goal. With this being said, photography is certainly capable of being art still, but its really only half art unless you are efficient enough to use a dark room.
Now to answer your second questions, a lot about life is more artistic that one would expect, for I personally agree with the concept of aesthetics being art in their own respect. So technically, there would be a lot out in nature that would appeal to the view of the artist, which can evidently be captured in an image by a camera.
Does this format of looking at photography make sense in the realm of defining things about art?
Alright, personally, I have a lot to say on this subject to which I feel is a particularly juicy debate about art.
First I want to talk about photography as an art, because in our current day and time, photography is much less an art form than what it once was. However, to preface this statement, there are two things that are necesary to point out about photography to which are the different aspects of its art. The first is that photography is an art of being able to capture an aesthetic in its purest form or representation in real life imagery. The second is that it is an art of being able to manipulate the outcome of the final image that you will have. There is one thing that has to be noted about the second art though; and this is that electronic manipulation to achieve the image you desire does not qualify in the true art of photography, for it involves none of the actual strain inherent in achieving your goal. With this being said, photography is certainly capable of being art still, but its really only half art unless you are efficient enough to use a dark room.
Now to answer your second questions, a lot about life is more artistic that one would expect, for I personally agree with the concept of aesthetics being art in their own respect. So technically, there would be a lot out in nature that would appeal to the view of the artist, which can evidently be captured in an image by a camera.
Does this format of looking at photography make sense in the realm of defining things about art?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Response to Kim's Post
In response to Kim's post about Frued, found here:
http://kimsartandphlilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/art-as-communication-using-freuds-view.html?showComment=1298494752680#c5748496592258441370
I think that with respect to Frued's belief's within art, there is more to the concept of releasing repressed motions than he lets on to or even understood himself.
The primary reason I bring this up is that repressed emotion very specifically does not have to be a bad thing. An artistic person may experience something that derives good or bad emotions within them to which they can focus into the creation of a happy image. The thing that makes this most interesting is that to the artist this may be used simply as a cathartic exercise, but with the successful creation of the art it can be of monetary or even simply just emotional value to another human being.
I think that artists being unhappy people is a fairly strong stereotype about artists because the act and experience in creating art is so strong as a cathartic exercise. Typically I would say that the greater portion of morbid artists are artists that have expended to much into their work / focus too long on something that is very difficult to finish. The best example of this being someone who has writer's block; they cannot think of any new ideas and seem to have blown their creativity in the past until something triggers them to do what they are good at successfully again.
http://kimsartandphlilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/art-as-communication-using-freuds-view.html?showComment=1298494752680#c5748496592258441370
I think that with respect to Frued's belief's within art, there is more to the concept of releasing repressed motions than he lets on to or even understood himself.
The primary reason I bring this up is that repressed emotion very specifically does not have to be a bad thing. An artistic person may experience something that derives good or bad emotions within them to which they can focus into the creation of a happy image. The thing that makes this most interesting is that to the artist this may be used simply as a cathartic exercise, but with the successful creation of the art it can be of monetary or even simply just emotional value to another human being.
I think that artists being unhappy people is a fairly strong stereotype about artists because the act and experience in creating art is so strong as a cathartic exercise. Typically I would say that the greater portion of morbid artists are artists that have expended to much into their work / focus too long on something that is very difficult to finish. The best example of this being someone who has writer's block; they cannot think of any new ideas and seem to have blown their creativity in the past until something triggers them to do what they are good at successfully again.
A Note About Our Frued Conversation
So to catch up my blogging from last week, I forgot to mention one of the things that I found most interesting about the conversations we had about Frued in class. The topic that I am reffering to is the one where we discussed the comunication and understanding of the subconcious in its relation to how it affects artists.
To catch up on the point that we were making, the discussion was suggesting that the artist must successfully tap into their subconcious to derive the best creative work they can create. To which once we had decided that this is indeed what Frued would say on the subject, we began to talk about how interesting the concept of tapping the subconcious in creation of a piece of work can be. The biggest point deriving from this concept was suggesting that if an artist must tap into his subconcious to create art, that the viewer of the artwork would be exposed and expected to derive meaning from the origin's subconcious. Thus, we concieved the possibility of artists being able to communicate on a seperate level from normal conversation, a level of subconcious thought so to speak.
This was the most interesting to me because I had never considered this possibility previously, and really enjoyed the concept of a secret language between the best of artists. When brought up in class, we initially shunned the idea, but I think that there is some merit here that we are not considering. The key feature to which would be the concept of analyzing art amongst peers. When looking at a work and discussing the meanings and other important information that can be derived from it, we are simply talking about exactly what the artist intended to communicate through his/her subconscious as according to our experiences through art. When really considered like this, I feel that the secret language is at work all the time and frequently goes unnoticed to the bystanders who consistently overlook it when not considering art. Thus in the end I feel that the secret language is more present that we would think and that it may be a key feature to deriving the true understanding of art.
How do you feel about this concept?
To catch up on the point that we were making, the discussion was suggesting that the artist must successfully tap into their subconcious to derive the best creative work they can create. To which once we had decided that this is indeed what Frued would say on the subject, we began to talk about how interesting the concept of tapping the subconcious in creation of a piece of work can be. The biggest point deriving from this concept was suggesting that if an artist must tap into his subconcious to create art, that the viewer of the artwork would be exposed and expected to derive meaning from the origin's subconcious. Thus, we concieved the possibility of artists being able to communicate on a seperate level from normal conversation, a level of subconcious thought so to speak.
This was the most interesting to me because I had never considered this possibility previously, and really enjoyed the concept of a secret language between the best of artists. When brought up in class, we initially shunned the idea, but I think that there is some merit here that we are not considering. The key feature to which would be the concept of analyzing art amongst peers. When looking at a work and discussing the meanings and other important information that can be derived from it, we are simply talking about exactly what the artist intended to communicate through his/her subconscious as according to our experiences through art. When really considered like this, I feel that the secret language is at work all the time and frequently goes unnoticed to the bystanders who consistently overlook it when not considering art. Thus in the end I feel that the secret language is more present that we would think and that it may be a key feature to deriving the true understanding of art.
How do you feel about this concept?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
An Attempt to Define Art - Continued
Throughout the corse of this class I have been trying to piece together my own little theories about art here and there between my blogposts. After having created the image that I did to help explain my equation from the first week, I tried to help explain one of the variables used in the equation, thus this post is to help explain Inspiration, based roughly on how I thought of it when reading Tolstoy:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
