We have art so that we may not perish by the truth. ~Nietzsche
Nietzsche discusses the idea of two opposites (Apollo and the Dionysian) which when employed separately, yet used together, invoke a properly functioning society. I believe the quote above by Nietzsche clarifies the point he is trying to make regarding "principium individuationis." The point being: If we as human beings rely on the reality before us, only the Apollo or only the Dionysian (the intoxication), then we will fail to properly function. However, if we open ourselves to a combination of truth and intoxication, then we will survive and function properly. Art is one means of that intoxication.
The stronger the infection the better is the art.~Tolstoy
Tolstoy emphasizes the need for people to really get into the artwork. He thinks that if a person is to experience art, they much be completely infected by it, they must become intoxicated by it. I do not think that Tolstoy and Nietzsche were talking about completely different things, rather I think that they were talking about the same thing from different angles.
Both men are discussing the proper functioning of society and a perception of art that includes an intense intoxication. Both me feel that art is an essential element to the balance of life (the missing piece if you let it be). Nietzche is refering to an opposite, or a counter weight, whereas Tolstoy is refering to a powerful entity not used to balance, but used to teach and explain.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Pollock
(1) I think that Jackson Pollock is a very interesting character. I went on to YouTube and watched the video that Allison and Susan tried to show in class. He had a raspy, smokers voice and was very pointed. Everything he said was matter-of-fact. I liked how confident he was. He told the "audience" that he loves painting on large canvases, getting into the painting and around all the corners, and not painting but expressing. The last idea is what really struck me about Pollock. He said that he does not paint...he expresses himself. Every drip, every stroke, every pour he makes is never an accident. He is painting to express how he feels, who he is, and to be in touch with nature. I did not like Pollock's work before I learned a bit about him. He does not seem superficial and interested only in the money. He seems to be dedicated to perfection, ready to argue his case, and absolutely sure of his pieces (because he is not afraid to throw them away if they are bad). I now have a greater appreciation for his paintings because I have a greater appreciation for the artist.
(2) I wanted to discuss Plato's imitation theory in more depth regarding Pollock's art. Plato argued that art is imitation of imitation. The first imitation being all things, which are simply replicas of a greater idea that no man could ever present. I think that Plato would look at Pollock's art and laugh at first. However, after listening to the man and developing a sense of why he paints and to what end he aspires to arrive, I think that Plato would deem Pollock closer to the true "idea" than any other artist. I say this because Pollock paints his feelings, his emotions, and himself. He does so in a purposeful way and assures critics that his strokes and drips are not accidental but in fact meant to be every time. Because Pollock's paintings are abstract, they are simple and pure. He associates himself with nature and frees himself from the boundaries of lines and shapes, precisely why I think that Plato would respect Pollock more than other artists.
(2) I wanted to discuss Plato's imitation theory in more depth regarding Pollock's art. Plato argued that art is imitation of imitation. The first imitation being all things, which are simply replicas of a greater idea that no man could ever present. I think that Plato would look at Pollock's art and laugh at first. However, after listening to the man and developing a sense of why he paints and to what end he aspires to arrive, I think that Plato would deem Pollock closer to the true "idea" than any other artist. I say this because Pollock paints his feelings, his emotions, and himself. He does so in a purposeful way and assures critics that his strokes and drips are not accidental but in fact meant to be every time. Because Pollock's paintings are abstract, they are simple and pure. He associates himself with nature and frees himself from the boundaries of lines and shapes, precisely why I think that Plato would respect Pollock more than other artists.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Faking It!
I think the show faking it is really interesting. It is cool that a painter from the country was given the opportunity to express himself through art. He was given a chance to learn about the many aspects of art and apply them. He was also awarded the opportunity to look inside himself, to take time to read and get to know who he is. Watching him live out something he always dreamed he could accomplish inspires me.
I think the show is more real than many reality shows that I have seen. It is more creative and has a point. I like that the focus of the show is on a journey and that the people involved are real. The main character is honest about art at the very beginning and gives his opinion, but he also emphasises his desire to learn.
It is hard to say what the outcome of his journey will be because his art is different, but some art that is strange is also widely liked and accepted in the art community. I think that he has developed along the way and his final products will be quite good.
Overall, I think that the final decision made by the three judges will be 2 yes and 1 no.
I think the show is more real than many reality shows that I have seen. It is more creative and has a point. I like that the focus of the show is on a journey and that the people involved are real. The main character is honest about art at the very beginning and gives his opinion, but he also emphasises his desire to learn.
It is hard to say what the outcome of his journey will be because his art is different, but some art that is strange is also widely liked and accepted in the art community. I think that he has developed along the way and his final products will be quite good.
Overall, I think that the final decision made by the three judges will be 2 yes and 1 no.
Monday, March 2, 2009
That Old Master.....
It is not surprising to me that art is commercialized like it is in both the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and the Thomas Kinkade video. We live in a society where money rules. With increased wealth comes increased stature and prestige. Therefore, if you are an artist looking to be recognized, you have to sell yourself to the media or the wealthy.
What is surprising to me is the lengths to which people will go to make money on art. I could not believe that Kinkade had his own furniture line, as well as hundreds of paintings. I also find it a bit disturbing that Kinkade or his workers can add some paint to a print and the value increased drastically. I was also shocked to see that investors were willing to take on art as collateral for large, large loans. It was also surprising to see that the people pawning their art were powerful people or artists. It makes me wonder how much they paid for the art in the first place, as well as if they made a wise investment.
I would be interested in learning more about other countries and their commercialization practices in regard to art. I believe that I would see some similarities as well as some differences.
After reading the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and watching the Kinkade video, I am going to pay more attention to art on people's walls, in stores, and at our university. I do not think that commercializing art is necessarily a bad thing. If you are in the art business to make money, and people will buy what you are selling, then by all means keep up the good work. However, if you are in the art business to express something and do not care how much money you will make, and would rather not make money on it, then I'm sorry art has gone to the pawn shops.
I wonder what all of the philosophers would say about pawned art and mass produced art. I think Plato would laugh at the mass production of art because he already declared art was simply replication.
What is surprising to me is the lengths to which people will go to make money on art. I could not believe that Kinkade had his own furniture line, as well as hundreds of paintings. I also find it a bit disturbing that Kinkade or his workers can add some paint to a print and the value increased drastically. I was also shocked to see that investors were willing to take on art as collateral for large, large loans. It was also surprising to see that the people pawning their art were powerful people or artists. It makes me wonder how much they paid for the art in the first place, as well as if they made a wise investment.
I would be interested in learning more about other countries and their commercialization practices in regard to art. I believe that I would see some similarities as well as some differences.
After reading the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and watching the Kinkade video, I am going to pay more attention to art on people's walls, in stores, and at our university. I do not think that commercializing art is necessarily a bad thing. If you are in the art business to make money, and people will buy what you are selling, then by all means keep up the good work. However, if you are in the art business to express something and do not care how much money you will make, and would rather not make money on it, then I'm sorry art has gone to the pawn shops.
I wonder what all of the philosophers would say about pawned art and mass produced art. I think Plato would laugh at the mass production of art because he already declared art was simply replication.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)