| « The fruit of the vine | Thinking about Mensa* » |
7 comments
Diana,
Can art appreciation be taught? I think so. I’ve seen artworks that didn’t strike me as being all that interesting until somebody pointed out something about them - a technique, a statement, a veiled image that I didn’t notice - that caused a connection in my mind with something that -was- interesting. I wasn’t taught to appreciate the art so much as I was taught to look for things in it that I could appreciate. ("Appreciate” doesn’t seem to mean “enjoy” in this context, I think it means “understand” or “recognize.” As in “I appreciate the gravity of the situation.") I guess it’s looking for something deeper than “do I like it?” I’ve seen things that I didn’t like but that I had to admit were very meaningful.
None of them involved brooms and billboards, however.
Dave
I second Dave’s sentiments, and add that it might be more accurate to call it “Art Respect". Calling it “Art Respect” has the benefit of not implying that you’re going to thank the artist for making some piece of art (loose definition of “art", here). Like if you’re a horde of invading Mongols and you see the Great Wall of China, you’re not going to be all, “hey, Chinese people, I/we really want to thank you for going through the trouble of stopping my/our invasion like that", because you actually did want to invade. But you can be all, “Dayumn, that is one gi-normous structure!".
Going along with “Art Respect", I think the best way to actually teach this is with a class on painting/sculpting/drawing/broomscratching. We respect the feats of professional athletes, cooks, etc, because we’ve tried to do what they do. We’ve tried to run 100m quickly, say, or to cook a delicious feast, or to draw a realistic picture, and we’ve compared what we’ve done with what the professionals have done – and when we don’t measure up, we recognize the skill that they have developed. We respect that delectable dish or that 10-second 100m dash or that Mona Lisa. But when anyone can measure up, we probably don’t respect it.
I’m taking the course Drawing I this term, and I think that what I’ve said (and what Dave said, and what you said) holds true for it. I respect the time and effort put into some of the drawings my colleagues have made, even though I don’t feel they are particularly compelling. Other drawings I respect and appreciate.
K
Yeah, my main purpose in writing this comment was actually just to have the Mongol horde stuff. C’mon, though, Unnamed Reader. If you had thought of it, you would have done the same. You know you would.
Uh oh,
Well, I always thought that that the definition of “art” was that which spurred thought, opinion, and discussion. I think you just justified his work as “art". Or possibly the idea that a school would force people to study this work should be considered “art” in itself. (This is getting entirely to silly indeed)
Rog
Naw, Rog. You clearly have “art” confused with “conversation piece.” :)
Y’all don’t think “skill” should be a required ingredient of “art,” then?
It’s an interesting question to me and I don’t pretend to have the answer. I know when I look at something whether it’s art or not, in my opinion. I don’t have to like it or even understand it; it must, however, require skill. Others have different definitions. Roger’s definition apparently includes “if it makes people talk” (which would make Roger himself a work of art, depending upon how loose your other criteria is ;)). But…when does mindless scribble become art? When does noise become music? When, exactly, do the whiskers become a beard?
I’m curious to hear y’all’s definitions and reasons for them.
d
Diana,
I noticed a trend about 15 years ago (which was probably bludgeoned to death long before in the critical press) where the intent of poetry was changing. Originally the purpose of poetry was for the poet to communicate his/her feelings and impressions to the reader. The key was “communicate.” But some time later the poetry I found was more of a poet’s brain dump (or some other kind of dump) without regard to the reader at all.
Art in general seems to be going the same way. It used to be about communication, now it’s more a way for the artist to vent. Or maybe it’s always been that way, but the venting just didn’t get rave reviews.
I think my definition of art is slightly different from Roger’s. If it makes people think or feel, it’s art. The only required skill is to evoke thought or emotion in the audience. That, unfortunately, doesn’t require skill in working with a medium of communication.
Dave
PD, I hesitate to enter this at all, but if you don’t mind, I think I’ll try this one. Art, as I understand it, creates emotions in the viewer, the same as some writing creates pictures and emotions connected with them in some way, in the reader.
In this sense, and this alone, I would calll the slobber you are discussing ‘art’. It certainly created anger, frustration, and disgust in the viewer. Who is to say that the ‘artist’ didn’t have that in mind? Fortunately, for most of us, upon having those emotions thrust upon us, we look for something more pleasing. Perhaps this kind of ‘art’ is similar to black humor, horror flics, XXX movies, and the like. I can safely say “No, thank you” to all of these. I do like the Mona Lisa, tho.
Slobber. Hahahaha.
Does the “disgust” count if you’re not disgusted with what is depicted but by the fact that there was clearly not thought, design or talent involved in what you’re looking at?
I draw the line before that point, I think.
There is no defining art (as pointed out by Brandi, a friend who’s IMing me at the moment). However…don’t we all have our own definitions? Places we draw the line in pronouncing THIS art but THAT slobber?
d