Response to Sarah's question:

"[Tolstoy] tries to bring out the artist in everyone by stating that the most sincere artist is the one that can reach every member of an audience with just purity and truth. The only problem with this is that she leaves artistry open to any one. For instance, Justin Beiber and Katy Perry reach a nation with their music, an art, so does that make them artist?"

Looking through my iPod, when i look for the singers and/or rappers I want to listen to, i have to search these people up, as, by "artists." Truly, Justin Beiber and Katy Perry aren't actual artists. I believe that people in the music world (a part of the art world) has mistaken what the word "artist" is. They don't write their own music. Those who do write their music and/or choose the tune, music etc...is considered the artist. But the songs that Justin Beiber and Katy Perry do write and actually create themselves, then, they are considered artist. Every song, like a book or a movie, has a directer, editor, etc...on the back of a CD album and movie cover, located at the bottom in small print. Those people found there are considered artists. We give people like Justin Beiber and Katy Perry way too much credit. This situation is kind of similar to the Mona Lisa, too. Everyone wants to see the Mona Lisa and not the artist.

Art is kind of similar to sports. Anyone can play a sport and there are many types of sports, such as football, baseball, basketball, volleyball, hockey etc... and there are many levels of a sport, like in hockey, there are levels such as "A level" or "B level" teams. Anyone can be an artist but then there are so many different levels of art an artist can be on.

People don't really care about who wrote the lyrics of the song but rather who sings the song and that is why so many true musicians/artists are missing out on the fame they should deserve. However, most artists goals are to reach out to people with their art work, meaning that the song writers for Justin Beiber and Katy Perry had accomplished that.

Response to Davion's blog

How can an artist not know the true meaning behind his/her art, when art is the intentional manipulation of feelings or desires?  How can they manipulate what they don’t know?


It's like the drawing Professor Johnson drew on the board with the ice berg, where 90% of our minds are unconscious while the rest of the 10% is conscious to the world and others. It's also like the things we do in everyday life.  

You could be scratching your nose during a conversation and not know it. This is kind of what drawing, painting, playing an instrument, dancing, etc. are like. When you draw, you could draw a random mark on someone's face you're drawing, paint an object brighter than what it actually looks like, strum a c-note instead of a different note, hold a pose a few counts longer than what your dance routine originally was. Whatever thing that you do unconsciously could have a meaning to it. 

You might have been thinking about the person's personality you are drawing and unconsciously your pen/pencil might have slipped and accidentally grazed the person's face on the drawing. You might be in a happy mood and so you unconsciously added more yellow into the green tree leaves than it originally is. You might unconsciously be thinking about a special someone that the song reminds you of and your fingers slipped on the note and hit the c-note instead. On your dance piece, you could have unconsciously held the stance too long because you're focusing hard on the complicated leap you are supposed to do that is only a few counts away. 

Either way, an artist can create his/her own piece of art and be completely oblivious to how he/she portrayed the emotion, feeling or desire the artist had at the time. They might eventually see it after looking over their art work many times over, but the fact is that the artist was unconscious of it.

Response to Christine's blog

Can propagandized posters be considered art?

Yes, I believe that propaganda is considered art. Only this form of art displays, as clearly as the artist can, a message that any audience can retrieve from it. 

In definition, art is described as (in dictionary.com):

  1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

  2. the class of objects subjects to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

  3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

....

  5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

  6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?

  7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.

  8. the craft of trade using these principles or methods.

  9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.

  10. a branch of learning or university study, especially one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

Of the 16 definitions the dictionary gives us (total on the website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art), propagandized posters fit in at least nine of these descriptions.

This form of art is very different from paintings from. Usually, to make art, the artist must have some sort of reason to make it and propagandized art has a reason to get customers to buy into the product or the statement it is trying to point out.

 

 

Is Art Worth It?

I often find myself questioning what my choices are for my future. I know my parents think I should become an art teacher and all but what are the other choices for the "good paying" jobs? I could be an interior designer, a tattoo artist, a communications designer... Then there are jobs, such as painting, photography, and such that require a lot of time and so little money that in order to make it a "good paying" job worth while to keep, odds are, you'd have to be dead. At least that how I think of it. After all, that's what happened to Vincent van Gogh and Leo Da Vinci. These two people spent a life time trying to get their art work noticed. But then again I could be just looking at it negatively. There are artist out there in the city making millions, but the question is, did they just have the right connections for them to be rich and famous for their art work or is it the time they put into their work?