Think again about the work we saw at OMA today and consider the paragraph in Chapter One of Danto's "The End of Art" which begins halfway down on page 13. It starts, "The sixties was a paroxysm of styles..." and ends with "You had, in brief, to turn to philosophy."
1. Can you think of any of the objects in OMA that could be used as an example of what art is? Could it be the ONLY example? Why or why not?
2. If postmodernism means that you cannot teach the meaning of art by example, as Danto claims, how do you teach it? By what means?
We will share our answers in class on Monday. Please complete two journal pages on this post.
I think all of the objects on display in OMA are art works, because they are intended to be. The question of “what is art?” is still an ongoing debate and different people will have different opinion on this. I feel that it is also pointless for me to give an example of what is art, since no single work can stand for a definition of the word. Danto has pointed out in the article that contemporary art is different from other precedent art movements because there is no particular style or medium that distinguished it from other movements in the past. It is simply an umbrella term that uses to call artwork that is being produce in our present day regardless of the style or medium that might echo the quality of other “ism” in the past.
ReplyDeleteDanto has proposed a solution to how art should be taught. He suggested that more attention should be given on the philosophy more than the physical form of the work. However, I feel that it will be very difficult to just teach art through philosophy, because then, we would need to redefine the role of an artist. Artist has always been perceived as a person who makes art, and surely not an equivalent of a philosopher. By over simplifying the importance of an artwork to its content and ignoring its physical form, we are putting ourselves back into the cycle. After ten more years people will get upset and start going back to Formalism or something else, at which point, someone would claim that art has die and that we need to find a new definition of art. I feel that there should be a balance between the content and the physical form of an artwork. Equal importance should be given on both the philosophy of the work as well as its physical form.
1.) In the particular definition of art that I think Danto is giving in that paragraph, John Chamberlain's work "Lazzarini's Pie" seems to sort of fit. Chamberlain uses old car parts and smashes and welds them together into abstract, expressive sculptures. He says that he doesn't want his audience to think about the materials he uses (people have drawn comparisons in his work to the aesthetic of violent car crashes), he wants claims he wants to give the objects new meaning outside of themselves and what they are made of.
ReplyDelete2.) If you cannot teach the meaning of art by example, you must teach in by the intangible context that is the driving force behind the artwork. I recently saw an article about an artist, Ron English, who made cereal boxes that he placed in actual grocery stores and while the boxes look really very similar to the actual cereal brands that they were mimicking, the names of the brand were altered to things like "Sugar Frosted Fat" and "Fruit Looped" and the like. In this instance, English is essentially taking something as mundane and commonplace as cereal boxes and making it art. It is through the philosophy and content behind the artwork through which the viewer gets the art experience and not necessarily by the object as a simple object.
In terms of the objects in OMA, they can all be considered art, because they were chosen to be displayed in a museum, and the artists created them with the intent to make art. This elevates their status, whether they are made from spare car parts or painted by the hand of a master. In terms of one singular work that could act as an example of what “art” truly is, I don’t believe its possible to define the term though one singular work, just as the definition of art itself is constantly in flux. Especially after reading about postmodernism, it becomes difficult to accept or reject any item as art, because so many ideas and styles encompass art today.
ReplyDeleteIf art cannot be taught by example, as Danto states, it must be experienced through philosophy and deep examination of the concept itself. We can view artworks throughout the centuries, but to truly understand what art is today, we must understand the constantly fluctuating ideas behind its definition, and the controversy and thought that inspired the various artistic movements. Danto wants the viewer to investigate and self-examine to truly come to a conclusion about the meaning of art. I agree with Danto in that philosophy provides a strong basis for the understanding of art, but art is best grasped through study of both historical and philosophical context.
1. I feel that all of the objects on display in the Orlando Museum of Art are considered works of art. The pieces were made with intentions by the artist to be art, and they all ended up in OMA, now with an “elevated status”, which most definitely makes them works of art. I am not really convinced that someone could define the term though one specific work- the definition of art is fleeting, therefore an example would be too.
ReplyDelete2. In the reading, Danto suggested that more attention should be focused on the philosophy rather than physical form of the work. This theory can be applied to the way one teaches art, but may produce inevitable issues surrounding roles of artist and the viewer. If we were to base, a piece of art on the philosophy- so many forms of art would be left out. Formalism is greatly based on the importance of the physical form of an artwork, with intentions playing a factor, but the form is usually the objective of an artist’s work. The way we, as art students, have been taught art is how I suggest we continue. We are introduced in a procession of artworks through history until we are hit with the question “what is art?” which throws us. The way we are taught should be a balance between the content of the work along with form of an artwork.
Every work in the museum was art. Every artist, whose work is at the museum, made their work to be art. Not only that, but I saw it and saw art. There’s a kind of philosophy behind the process, the meaning of making art, and the end goal, but it’s difficult for me to entirely grasp it right now. I know there is a importance in the artist’s intention, and I know that there’s importance in the viewer deciding it is art. I don’t think this question entirely applies, especially considering Danto’s writing. One can’t teach art by example, not truly, one needs to teach it by theory. It needs to be taught as a philosophy. Today, we have no unifying art style, and we can’t say one particular thing is art because it has such-and-such physical properties and stylistic choices. A lot of art today doesn’t look like art in the traditional sense. A lot of pieces look like ordinary objects. So we must teach art for its meaning, we must stress the underlying theories behind art making. We must be forever asking ourselves and each other, "What is art?"
ReplyDelete1. OMA is an ART museum. It's contents are intended to be viewed as art and are also presented in a way that many viewers consider them as art. Because of this I can't tell you just one piece is an example of "what is art". They are all art, none of them are art, some of them are art, only ones on the right are art...the point I am getting at is that an example of art is what an individual considers a piece to be art, or not to be, that is the question.
ReplyDelete2.You would teach art through discussion philosophical and aesthetic theories. Essentially it would be our class minus the powerpoint, pictures in our text, or museum visits. Art would become something completely cerebral instead of partially cerebral and partially physical/visual. Though I find a major problem with this since I don't think you can discuss art without looking at it. You need visual example of what has been called "art" and then discuss if you agree with this title and based on what grounds you think that.
1. If Danto has established that anything can be art I don’t think one object can exemplify what art is. Any kind of work can be put into a gallery and there is no hierarchy as to what is more ”arty.” We all have different personal opinions and everyone values different things in an artwork. There is not a unified taste and therefore each piece is equally entitled to be under the label of art. Art has become to broad for one piece of work to be defining.
ReplyDelete2. I think that if we no longer teach the meaning of art by example, then we must explore different philosophies. If anything can be art, then we need to question why. By analyzing, researching and criticizing a piece of work, we can begin to break down the meaning of art for that artist. Developing these skills can teach us to understand what others consider art to be and can help us formulate our own opinions. Discovering what we personally consider to be art and what we value in art can develop once an understanding of the philosophies behind art is achieved.
Danto discusses what the contemporary definition of art is and it covers a wide range of things. Contemporary art takes so many forms! There is not a specific style that one needs to adhere to in this contemporary age so all of the works we viewed would be considered art. The definition of what art is is so broad that since we were looking at pieces in an art museum, I feel it is safe to say that they are all good definitions of what art is.
ReplyDeleteDanto does not think you can teach art by example. You cannot tell if art is art or not anymore just by looking at it because Andy Warhol's Brillo Box looks just like the boxes sold in stores but the boxes in stores are not art and Warhol's box is. Therefore you must look at the philosophy of art. I think that a combination of example and philosophy are a great means by which to teach art. By knowing a bit about philosophy the viewer knows the difference between Warhol's Brillo Box and the Brillo Box at the supermarket and by learning about art by viewing art, one becomes familiar with all different types of aesthetics that exist in the art world.
1. Can you think of any of the objects in OMA that could be used as an example of what art is? Could it be the ONLY example? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThey all are art; the building is art; the pattern in which I walked through the museum is art. Danto shows us that in this contemporary lens, there is no argument for what is not art, only a drive for an all inclusive definition of art. The debate of what is or isn't, what is a good example or bad example, low art or high art will continue forever. There will be a constant cycle of expansion of the definition of art to a constriction. Artists are consistently rebelling against the previously accepted notions of what it is.
2. If postmodernism means that you cannot teach the meaning of art by example, as Danto claims, how do you teach it? By what means?
I do believe that to teach someone a skill or ability to mimic the physical ability to make art is not the core of what makes an artist. A true artist is somewhat of a philosopher, someone who thinks differently than anyone else, who looks for what has not been seen by anyone else. The ability to push boundaries, show people light through art is the core. That being said, the abilities of an artist can and will limit what they can express. Therefore it is very important that they too have a skill set that they can use at their disposition to generate the ideas they discover.
As long as I am understanding Danto's language correctly I would point out Morris Louis's piece in the OMA as an answer to question 1. Although I can not recall the date of its creation, it strikes me as an homage to this sixties "paroxysm of styles." While Warhol was creating spitting yet pop images of the "mere real things," artists such as Louis were experimenting with the canvas and the color as purely just color with no constraints and " demonstrating that there need not even be a palpable visual object for something to be a work of visual art. Certainly Morris Louis's larger than life piece is not the ONLY example. It hung in good company, comfortably in a room full of examples of what Danto speaks of.
ReplyDeleteI am just going to disagree with Danto right off the bat with his theory of teaching art. I can be talked to all day about art, but until I see it and experience it and try to mock it, art would become mundane and unworthy to my brain. I would not understand art from merely just the philosophy and theories behind it.
I believe that everything shown in OMA is art because that is the intention that the artist that created it. OMA is a great example that art does not fit into anyone category. One piece of art on display there is completely different than the next; different material, different meaning, and purpose. An example is Tony Robbins. His work is considered art through a Formalist perspective, but to others it is merely a mathematical problem drawn out. His intention is to create art, and it is shown in a museum because of his intention.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best way to teach art is through example, even if the underlying meaning is important to the piece also. Danto believes that art should be taught on its philosophy alone, that the viewer’s interpretation becomes part of the art. I think that there should be a balance of importance in form and in meaning. T don’t think that there must be one over arching way to create art.
1. Considering that the Orlando Museum of Art is an institution centered on art, any of the pieces there could be used as an example of what art is. All of the pieces on display there can be defended through the principles & elements of art, and have conceptual or formal beauty to them. However, I don’t think that the artwork displayed in OMA could honestly be considered the ONLY example of art, because then that would mean that if it isn’t in a museum it isn’t art. Marcel Duchamp proved that everyday objects could be art so long as you declared it to be. Similarly, some “Low Brow” art such as graffiti, comic art, and pop surrealism are actually my favorite pieces of art. Art is in the mind of the artist, but also in the viewer. If I decide something is beautiful or conceptually appealing, who is anyone to tell me otherwise? An institution does not define art, it only provides an outlet for that specific piece of art.
ReplyDelete2. According to Danto, art is best learned through philosophy, theory, and the driving concepts behind art. While this is certainly helpful in the quest to understanding art as a whole, or even on a deeper level, I genuinely feel that art is more intuitive than that. No child ever decided they wanted to become an artist in preschool because they had just finished reading an art manifesto. The experience of art – the imaginative mental aspects, the provocative emotional energy, the physical act of creating, the visual aspect of seeing something absolutely perfect and realizing that it had been made by another human and not some Godlike figure – THAT is what best teaches art.