Music

This week in class we discussed the idea that music, as an art form is a harder art form to understand. One can say that one does not hear music unless they themselves listen for it. They may be able to hear a few notes here and there but they are not really hearing and appreciating the music for what it is; a work of art, unless they are listening to hear just that. Music, to the artist, and anyone who appreciates art for the beauty that it is, is not just a collection of notes on a page of sheet music or coming from a particular instrument. Music is the imaginary tune inside the artists head. It is there artwork and there message that they are trying to covey to the audience. If someone were to recreate the tune, they can too experience music as an art form. For something to be art for the viewer they must be undistracted then they can recreate what they artist was imagining.

Therefore a question that I pose is, what makes or qualifies music to be an art form? Is it the fact that someone is creating a unique piece that has never been done before or what?

Dialogue

This week in class we discussed the idea that art can communicate to people. As mentioned, art has the ability to communicate emotions, feelings, and ideas to people or groups of people. To look at this from another angle, one can see that diaologue is vital in this expression. Diaologue makes something complete by conveying what the artist was feeling or felt to the people or the audience through their work of art. This is a very special ability because any other type of profession where you create something does not have the ability to communicate directly with its audience. The artist can tell there deepest darkest fear to their most craziest dream through their work of art. This is important because some think that art being able to create ideas for the people viewing it creates diaologue between it and the audience because it causes them to think. No, monologue+monologue does not equal a diaologue.

Therefore, a question that I pose is can art be an expression of ideas without being able to communicate to the audience?

Expression

This week in class we discussed the expression of emotions by means of communicating emotions and feelings through art. We have already discussed that art; or at the very least good art, should be able to convey aesthetic emotions to the audience from the artist. However, Collingwood argues that art can communicate emotions, feelings, and a message to the audience. He argues; however, that one cannot just feel the emotions or feelings that the art is conveying. One does not have an emotional state unless they are able to tell themselves what they emotional state is. They have to become more aware of themselves emotionally and non-emotionally to be able to comprehend what the emotions they are feeling from art. In other words, you cannot express that which you do not know. I agree with this idea for the most part because it applies to everyday life as well. For example, one cannot teach someone how to do math or any particular school subject that they themselves do not understand. It would basically be teaching without actually knowing what they are teaching.

Therefore, a question that I pose is, can one appreciate art if they themselves do not understand it?

Performance

Today in class we discussed the idea that performance art brings something unique and different to the table that other types of art do not. Performance art is when an actor is performing in a play or a band is performing in a concert. Performance art is so unique, first and foremost because there a living, breathing people involved. People can reach out and grab the audience while conveying a message in a way that non performing art can not. An object may exude a particular emotion, but it can not reach out and sometimes literally grab the audience. People are unique and mysterious. People are ever changing. An actor delivers a line in a play for three nights in a row for the the run of a show or musical. Every single night the actor can change the inflection of their voice, changing the message they are trying to convey. Non performing art cannot do this.

Therefore the question that i pose is is performing art in a sense better because it has the ability to change unlike non performing art?

Idols

Today in class we discussed the idol of Idol worshiping when it comes to the art world. The example that was mentioned in class today was based on Justin Beiber and his crazy pop culture following. How every time there is anything with Justin Beibers face on it or there is a new song with him in it, people go crazy! They want it and must have it. The same can be applied to the art world. With performance art, people will go out of their way to go and see the actors or the singers from shows or concerts. The performers may not be doing what they are so famous for, but the fact of seeing them in the flesh makes it all worth the while. For example, say a person hears that an author will be doing a book signing at a local book store. The person really likes this author, for they have read countless numbers of their books. The author is not writing a book at the book store, nor are they reading some of their works. They are merely signing the books. This does not show their talent nor does it really do anything besides over popularize the author. But the fact that the author will be there, draws people in to worship their idol.

Now a question i pose is how do idols get created?

Economics= Art?

Today in class we discussed the concept of Marginal Utility when it comes to art. Marginal utility and Marginal Satisfaction are two terms that mean increasing or decreasing satisfaction or pleasure. I am familiar with these terms from my high school economics class and to hear them in an art class seemed strange to me. In my economics class we did a project in which we ate as many Dunkin Donuts Munchkins that we could. The purpose of the project was to point out that the first donut gave us the most satisfaction, and as we ate more and more, the satisfaction decreased. One gets the most satisfaction or pleasure from the first time experiencing something. The same goes with art. The first time you experience something you gain the most pleasure from it. Also, the same theory can apply to the decreasing satisfaction one can get from experiencing art that was a copy of an original. The original would give more pleasure and the copy would give less.

Therefore, a question i pose is could one gain more satisfaction from a non original or copy of a work of art?

Romanticism

This past week in class we discussed the idea that there is really nothing super special about art. This idea was presented with the idea that art objects are really just like every other object in the universe. The only reason people are so in aw after them is because has become so romanticized over the years. Making a work of art seem like something that is so extremely rare. When in actuality, art is really just special in only one way. What makes art special is that it is generally one of a kind. But how does that make it seem so rare, as it does to other people? Well one can see this situation from this standpoint. Aren't peoples thoughts one of a kind as well? But nobody is in aw over the simple everyday thoughts of individual people. Therefore people need to stop romanticizing art. Another reason people may romanticize art is that a deeper meaning is within it. With art, the meaning or the message doesn't just pop out at the viewer. One must look deeper and deeper within themselves and the work of art to understand what it is trying to convey. However, as goes with most everything in life. Nothing really pops out at people very easily. One must explore to understand what the meaning of things are.

Therefore, a question I pose is, if art has such a deep meaning, how can some people look at a painting and know exactly what it is trying to convey?