Just a reminder (and information for Juliana), we should do the post discussion question (whatever length you so desire), and then post the answer to the blog.
In addition to that, we also need to to the exercise at the end of "an essay in aesthetics" which is entitled "writing interpretive questions".
-bob
Friday, May 15, 2009
Interpretive Question Essay
How does artistic vision difer from ordinary perception?
An ordinary bystander merely sees in the world the necessary objects in her life; in other words, she is unable to see beyond the immediate things in life, immersed as she is in the events and occurrences than can affect only her. Contrastingly, the artist, in her line of work, is many times forced to open her eyes up to a broader view of her surroundings and is then aware of so many other things that the ordinary bystander was simply unable to see. In short, artistic vision gives one the opportunity to experience a greater degree of conscious awareness in her life. This advantage is much harder to achieve and experience when viewing the world through ordinary perception.
In the modern world, speed and efficiency are the prevailing and overall preferred modes of living. Commercials advertise products designed for people on the go. Meals, houshold appliances, and so many other products that we use in our day-to-day lives boast of having the ability to free up our time. But many argue, myself included, that the western world seems to be speed racing through life and is no longer able to appreciate it.
As we rush through our day, our perception of our immediate atmosphere becomes a blur, and we are only able to see what we need to see. Necessity takes precedence. We are unable to witness some of the very true and important aspects in our lives. Roger Fry claims that these aspects often wear a "cap of invisibility". Ordinary perception is extremely limited in what it can see and experience. It is as if we are like horses with our blinders on. We are simply unable to see objects outside of our direct lin of vision. Now some may argue that without these blinders, we would become hopelessly distracted, and never have a direct path in life to follow. But I disagree, because we are more focused only because we have less to focus on. We are living in ignorance by using only our ordinary perception.
I feel that artistic vision and conscious awareness go hand in hand. The artist, when examining a landscape or event must be fully aware of what's going on in the given place and time. I'm not saying that an artist's goal in doing so is to simply replicate the situation in her art. In fact, many artists try to distort reality in their works. But whether the artist wishes to portray or distort reality, she still must have an understanding of it. She has to know the situation, object, or person she's studying in order to manipulate it in her work. So in all venues of art, a full appreciation and unerstanding of whatever it is the artist wishes to portray or distort is essential. This appreciation and understanding is accomplished by using artistic vision, or what I believe is conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness is what comes about when one if fully immersed in the present moment. One tries to be consciously aware of everything that is going on around her. She focuses on the sights, sounds, and sensations her body is going through, but at the same time tries to quiet her mind. Many cultures and belief systems refer to this a meditation. Conscious awareness comes in spurts; it is very hard to maintain for long periods of time. But these flashes of true awareness gives one a great apppreciation for life, or at least it does so for me. For the artist, a degree of this awareness is vital in her line of work. So the difference between ordinary perception and artistic vision is the presence of conscious awareness. In ordinary perception, there is a lack of conscious awarenesss. But in artistic vision, conscious awareness is essential.
An ordinary bystander merely sees in the world the necessary objects in her life; in other words, she is unable to see beyond the immediate things in life, immersed as she is in the events and occurrences than can affect only her. Contrastingly, the artist, in her line of work, is many times forced to open her eyes up to a broader view of her surroundings and is then aware of so many other things that the ordinary bystander was simply unable to see. In short, artistic vision gives one the opportunity to experience a greater degree of conscious awareness in her life. This advantage is much harder to achieve and experience when viewing the world through ordinary perception.
In the modern world, speed and efficiency are the prevailing and overall preferred modes of living. Commercials advertise products designed for people on the go. Meals, houshold appliances, and so many other products that we use in our day-to-day lives boast of having the ability to free up our time. But many argue, myself included, that the western world seems to be speed racing through life and is no longer able to appreciate it.
As we rush through our day, our perception of our immediate atmosphere becomes a blur, and we are only able to see what we need to see. Necessity takes precedence. We are unable to witness some of the very true and important aspects in our lives. Roger Fry claims that these aspects often wear a "cap of invisibility". Ordinary perception is extremely limited in what it can see and experience. It is as if we are like horses with our blinders on. We are simply unable to see objects outside of our direct lin of vision. Now some may argue that without these blinders, we would become hopelessly distracted, and never have a direct path in life to follow. But I disagree, because we are more focused only because we have less to focus on. We are living in ignorance by using only our ordinary perception.
I feel that artistic vision and conscious awareness go hand in hand. The artist, when examining a landscape or event must be fully aware of what's going on in the given place and time. I'm not saying that an artist's goal in doing so is to simply replicate the situation in her art. In fact, many artists try to distort reality in their works. But whether the artist wishes to portray or distort reality, she still must have an understanding of it. She has to know the situation, object, or person she's studying in order to manipulate it in her work. So in all venues of art, a full appreciation and unerstanding of whatever it is the artist wishes to portray or distort is essential. This appreciation and understanding is accomplished by using artistic vision, or what I believe is conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness is what comes about when one if fully immersed in the present moment. One tries to be consciously aware of everything that is going on around her. She focuses on the sights, sounds, and sensations her body is going through, but at the same time tries to quiet her mind. Many cultures and belief systems refer to this a meditation. Conscious awareness comes in spurts; it is very hard to maintain for long periods of time. But these flashes of true awareness gives one a great apppreciation for life, or at least it does so for me. For the artist, a degree of this awareness is vital in her line of work. So the difference between ordinary perception and artistic vision is the presence of conscious awareness. In ordinary perception, there is a lack of conscious awarenesss. But in artistic vision, conscious awareness is essential.
fry interpretive essay
I'm pretty sure that this was what I was supposed to write...
(and please forgive my spelling and grammar, I'm too tired to proof read right now)
(and please forgive my spelling and grammar, I'm too tired to proof read right now)
Does art distort reality, or portray it more exactly?
Galen Schmidt
In our actual lives, we can never experience our emotions purely. Because almost all actions demand a reaction, we cannot stop and think about what it is that we have just witnessed, or what it was we just felt. With art, whether it be a picture, a book or a movie, we are free from that requirement placed upon us in our ordinary lives that we respond to what we have just seen. Because of this, we can stop and contemplate the actions that we have just seen, the words we have just read, or the picture that we have just looked at. It is in this way that art can portray reality more exactly by distorting it.
Take film for example. Most movies portray events that are never likely to happen, or are flat out fictitious. But when watching a movie, we may realize that they are portraying our own lives, our own problems, and helping us to see them clearer (more clearly?). When viewing but not actually engaged in an activity, there is, as fry points out an “emotional purity” within oneself. You do not have to react to what is happening, and therefor having no lasting emotional stake in the outcome of the event, you are free to feel what is truly happening, instead of simply reacting to it.
If you were in a car accident, you would naturally have to “stuff you emotions away”, as it were. You would be spending time helping people, filing a police report, and just trying to clean up. So later, when you had time to think about the emotional impact of what had happened, the memories would be fuzzier, the emotions more blurred. However, if you were watching a car accident in a movie, you would, in a sense, be “free” of your obligation to help, and so you could simply feel the emotional impact of what has just happened.
It is said that “time heals all wounds”, and it is especially true with emotional wounds. Our brains tend to try and block out the bad ones, and highlight the good ones. But with art, we can preserve an instant in time, and all of it's emotional power over us. A piece of art can completely distort reality, but if it truly captures an emotion, then it has succeeded in portraying it more exactly than any true rendition ever could.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Art etc...
this was the question i chose for this week's discussion. i hope it makes sense. i think i kinda went off topic at some point, i don't know.
Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
When an artist creates a painting, drawing, sculpture, or anything that is aesthetically appealing, they are giving the viewer the opportunity to look into their mind for one moment, to poosibly understand what it was that they were feeling or thinking when they created their piece.
Take, for instance, some of the great works of art from Picasso, DaVinci, VanGogh, Bernini, Dali, and Velazquez. They all put out so many wonderful examples of how they saw the world in their time, and shared their ideas with the public. Without these viewpoints there would be a great decline in the amount of art in this world. Not only because the artists wouldn't be displaying their art or even creating them, but also because differnt artists were inspired by each other and sometimes worked off of one another's ideas and techniques.
So in a way, depending on how you look at it, if you took away art, you would really be taking away a part of the "active imagination". Slowly, the creativity found in humans would decline and could most likely be non-existant after a short period of time. Therefore, art is one of the many links in the chain of the "active imagination" and taking it away would make the imagination weaker.
-Juliana
Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
When an artist creates a painting, drawing, sculpture, or anything that is aesthetically appealing, they are giving the viewer the opportunity to look into their mind for one moment, to poosibly understand what it was that they were feeling or thinking when they created their piece.
Take, for instance, some of the great works of art from Picasso, DaVinci, VanGogh, Bernini, Dali, and Velazquez. They all put out so many wonderful examples of how they saw the world in their time, and shared their ideas with the public. Without these viewpoints there would be a great decline in the amount of art in this world. Not only because the artists wouldn't be displaying their art or even creating them, but also because differnt artists were inspired by each other and sometimes worked off of one another's ideas and techniques.
So in a way, depending on how you look at it, if you took away art, you would really be taking away a part of the "active imagination". Slowly, the creativity found in humans would decline and could most likely be non-existant after a short period of time. Therefore, art is one of the many links in the chain of the "active imagination" and taking it away would make the imagination weaker.
-Juliana
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)