Friday, April 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock
Listening to Popular Music
I Wanna Be Me: Rock Music & The Politics of Identity
Posts
Comments
My question is about the Neo-Whittgensteinian's views. They argue on p218 that a closed concept of artwork is incompatible with an open concept of the practice of art.
ReplyDeleteMy question is Why does it matter if at a given moment a definition of something is closed because definitions change all the time when people learn new things out, and because of this is it not possible for us to have a definition of art that can be changed or adjusted according to what is relevant at the time?
K.L.
With the Institutional theory of art an artist, or individual associated with the artworld are the ones who confer the status of candidacy of a work for appreciation. The artist and other individuals in the artworld are the ones with the power. The theory says these individuals are allowed to has this power because of their background, history, and practicing of art. The theory does not define what exactly are the learning requirements, or how much experience one needs to have with art to acheive this status. My question is, if the institutional theory of art clearly defined what individuals need to learn, study, and how much experience they need with art to gain this ability to confer status of appreciation, would the theory become a more acceptable theory of art?
ReplyDeleteIn response to KL
ReplyDeleteIn the artworld, a particular defintion of art can be closed, because there is no more ways of expanding the definition. Take representation. You cannot expand the definition by moving the conversation of it in anyway. You can close art definitions because there are so many ways you can move the conversation of the definition. The art definitions are not ordinary english definitions of terms. They do not gain new meanings through new uses, or new slang. They stay the same through the centuries. The idea is you cannot take a work of art that is representational and start to change it in various ways, because then it would not be representational and would not fit in the definition anyways.
In response to BRJ, I believe that once a person has accomplished so much in the art world, in their education and and experiences through art, they have earned the right to develop whatever theory about art as they wish. The people in the art world know art in ways that a lot of people can never appreciate like an artist can. Through out this semester alone, I have learned to appreciate the different theory's of art, where I once saw art as something that needed to be visually appealing.
ReplyDeleteAs it is in any profession, the professionals have the upper hand in developing the rules. I have an entirely different appreciation for art, I have been a stylist for 6 years and I see hair as an art form, I have competed in shows, worked for Paul Mitchell and Aveda, I have done big shows and sent out models to show off my creation. I feel as though I have earned the right to have my own theory, idea or rules about what fits and doesn't fit into certain categories. Hair doesn't have to be perfect or beautiful to be art. People use their hair to express themselves just as an artist creates a piece to fit into whatever category of art they choose.
People earn their rights and I think that the theory has more meaning coming from someone who has earned that right to demonstrate such a theory. AS
In response to BRJ, I believe that once a person has accomplished so much in the art world, in their education and and experiences through art, they have earned the right to develop whatever theory about art as they wish. The people in the art world know art in ways that a lot of people can never appreciate like an artist can. Through out this semester alone, I have learned to appreciate the different theory's of art, where I once saw art as something that needed to be visually appealing.
ReplyDeleteAs it is in any profession, the professionals have the upper hand in developing the rules. I have an entirely different appreciation for art, I have been a stylist for 6 years and I see hair as an art form, I have competed in shows, worked for Paul Mitchell and Aveda, I have done big shows and sent out models to show off my creation. I feel as though I have earned the right to have my own theory, idea or rules about what fits and doesn't fit into certain categories. Hair doesn't have to be perfect or beautiful to be art. People use their hair to express themselves just as an artist creates a piece to fit into whatever category of art they choose.
People earn their rights and I think that the theory has more meaning coming from someone who has earned that right to demonstrate such a theory. AS
It seems to me that Wittgenstein doesn't like labels or that he feels as though by labeling objects, we are losing the value of the object. From what I have read, Wittgenstein believes that there is more to art then the category the piece is placed into and that by placing these object or pieces of art into these categories we are in return essentially losing it's actual meaning. My question is, If we don't put a label on an object to explain what it is, how are we going to communicate to others? Don't we have to use labels and categorize just to get an idea? People can always get their own idea there after. AS
ReplyDeleteIf something is considered art because of when it was created regardless of it's influences, is this an actual definition of art under this historical definition, or is this taking the history out of the art? Speaking specifically about what is considered proto-art under this theory, is it art because it contributed to the causal chain of what is now considered art, or is it proto-art because it did not arise do to any other influences due to it's placement in the historical chain?
ReplyDeleteTG
In looking at the past examples of philosophies and the ones in this chapter, it is always brought up on how any type of outlook will be shattered by some new way of looking at things with avant garde art. But if these are to be taken to light, should avant garde art even try to be defined when it first appears? Why not just wait and see if it stands the test of time, or if it will be a failed experiment?
ReplyDeleteMM
In response to AS: "If we don't put a label on an object to explain what it is, how are we going to communicate to others? Don't we have to use labels and categorize just to get an idea? People can always get their own idea there after." Firstly, I don't think that Wittgenstein necessarily dislikes labels because he has the theory that things overlap and although he doesn't want to label things as necessarily one way or another, he does label parts of the pieces to be able to suggest where they overlap. Otherwise, we could not have a shared understanding of how they resemble one type of art or another. Furthermore, I don't think he's against us having our own interpretations, but he doesn't go as far as to say that we can individually decide what is and is not art through our own subjective viewpoints alone; it seems as though he has criteria for us to follow to some regard, even if it is no more than the common features that connect them.
ReplyDeleteTG