Art is something created or captured to express a mood, emotion, event, or concept (etc). Art is not completely definable because it relies on the observer's opinion and mood. Art to one person may not be art to another, however there is a such thing as objective art.
The first thing that struck me about this article that I neglected to address in my first draft of this blog post was the quote “Art is a bridge to a new vision and the vision itself, a medium or matrix through which one sees the world, and that grants that pleasure is an important form of knowledge. Art is not optional; it is necessary.” This pulled my attention because it was a point that maybe I took for granted, or just never fully saw in day to day life. Art surrounds our culture and both influences it and is influenced by it. Artists will portray the world in the way that they see it, which is creative. They dive deeper than the superficial details that most people are satisfied with and find new meaning in everyday experiences.
Art is necessary because of the way that it pushes our culture to see new things in already existing pieces. For example, the beauty of nature is frequently overlooked, until artists put nature into museums and in their works. This creates a Gesault switch (a Gesault switch is seeing something you have seen before in a totally different, new way) where people see intrinsic beauty in a tree or field they would have otherwise walked past. The Gesault switch is how art brings a “new vision” to the everyday world.
I thought this piece was very interesting and it sparked a lot of different thoughts for me, particularly when Saltz discussed the Cartesian view that some art is "dead". As a philosophy major this resonated with me because of all of the research and studying I have done on Descartes and Cartesian thought. The phrase "I think, therefore I am" originates from Descartes "I am, I exist" and essentially is Descartes's argument against the idea of a grand deceiver (someone who makes a person believe they are alive and in control when actually acting as a puppeteer). I would like to apply this model to art and the different forms I believe art can take.
I believe that there is subjective and objective art. There are works of art that will remain whether or not some people might view it as art. This is clear in instances where archaeologists find artwork from ancient civilizations and can tell that it is art. The archaeologists might not find a piece to be art, but they can conclude that it was art, but virtue of knowing the significance it held of people of an earlier time. To me objective art is a topic that could come from Saltz's observation about art being dead. I think it syncs up beautifully with my own personal definition of art being that of the observer's opinion. If tomorrow no one regards the Sistine Chapel as an amazing piece of art than it still remains (objectively) art.
The other form of art that I believe exists is subjective art. This art tends to be momentary and lose its significance over time. An example of this is little children may be thrilled with their 3rd grade "artwork" only to look back at it as adults as junk. In the moment they believed it to be art it was subjectively art, and when that opinion about it was lost it no longer remained art. It was simply a sketch or illustration.
I thoroughly enjoyed Saltz's piece because it sparked a lot of reflection on my part. Sometimes I struggle to read deeper into article texts and I was excited to find so many personal connections and extensions from Saltz's view.
Molly,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post on our first reading. I strongly agree with your opinion that each person has their own definition of art, because we all see and interpret differently as a result of our own experiences. Although cultural norms of aesthetic beauty do sway our opinion on what we find attractive (and often beauty is associated with art), we cannot all agree with what is, or is not, art.
Also, I found your thoughts on objective and subjective art to be compelling. It led me to think about what I understand to be objective and subjective art, and the way in which I look at art. When I look at art objectively, I am not thinking about the way the content relates personally to me, but how it relates to the general public. In contrast, when I approach art subjectively I am looking for ways in which the artist is communicating directly to me. It is interesting to think that my definitions of subjective and objective art are somewhat different. I belies that objective art is universal; objective art can be appreciated by all who experience it, we see it and we like it. Subjective art, in my terms, "is like a cat" (Saltz), The artist is presenting a work of art that integrates his own experiences, and sometimes it is difficult to grasp at a sense of the work without additional context.