Author Archives: Gurprit Kaur

Posts by Gurprit Kaur

5 Pointz: New York Graffiti Mecca

Earlier last week, 5 Pointz was brought up and I would like to further discuss this issue just because I think it’s interesting. For those who don’t know what 5 Pointz is, here’s a link to some pictures and details about 5 Pointz and the related controversy at the time: Shot 2013-10-31 at 12.35.08 PM

Personally, I’ve grown up seeing 5 Pointz evolve. Anytime I were to travel to the city, my means of transportation was the 7 train. If you are ever on the 7, you can see that as it emerges from the tunnel into Queens, on your left will be 5 Pointz. If it’s a bright day, the building seems set on a canvas with Manhattan its backdrop. It’s a beautiful and mind blowing sight. I feel that it defines New York City for its creativity and art.

Firstly, would 5 Pointz support the idea that anything anywhere has the potential to be considered art? (Referring back to our essays.)

Do you consider 5 Pointz a cultural and historical part of New York City? Do you think the Walkoffs are being reasonable in wanting to sell the building?

Comment and Share your thoughts! I know there have been updates on the issue, so someone can share that too.

Comments by Gurprit Kaur

"In the article "Aesthetic Concepts" by Frank Sibley from The Philosophy of Art: Readings Ancient and Modern, we learn primarily learn about the aesthetic term and concepts as well as taste concepts. Examples of aesthetic terms include unified, balanced, integrated, lifeless, serene, dynamic, etc. Now these terms are used by both layman and critics, however, judgements such as these require the exercise of taste, perceptiveness, or sensitivity, of aesthetic discrimination or appreciation, as Sibley points out. People who exhibit a sensitivity for specific and broad pieces are rare. But almost everybody is able to exercise taste. Sibley points out that taste isn't a matter of personal preference or liking, rather an ability to notice or see or tell that things have certain qualities that I'm concerned. To describe aesthetic terms, features come into play, taking note that when aesthetic terms are applied, featured are used to explain the aesthetic terms but they don't depend on the exercise of taste to do so. In short, aesthetic terms always ultimately apply because of, and aesthetic qualities always ultimately depend upon, the presence of features without any exercise of taste or sensibility. Sibley points out that there are no non-aesthetic features which serve in any circumstances as logically sufficient conditions for applying aesthetic terms. Lastly, Sibley ends her article with by saying that "it should not strike us as puzzling that the critic supports his judgement and brings us to see aesthetic qualities by pointing out key features and talking about them in the way he does. It is by the very same methods that people help us develop our aesthetic sense and master its vocabulary from the beginning.""
--( posted on Nov 21, 2013, commenting on the post Frank Sibley, “Aesthetic concepts” )
"Linda Nochlin attempts to answer the question, "Why have there been no great Women Artists?" in her article, coming up with various explanations far beyond the typical feminism arguments. She uses sociology and psychology in order to answer this question. Nochlin expresses her theory of the concept of an artist genius. One may believe the theory that explains that some people are born great, and if it is so that men are the ones born great compared to woman, then who is to blamed for the tendency of the universe? However, according to Nochlin, talent comes from the passion installed in one at a young age and nurtured right. So now one may think, if not natural genius, then why are the great always men? This is where society comes in. The societal norm of raising girls to be nothing but housewives was common throughout history. Only recently have woman exceeded that stereotype. Without being allowed to learn and practice the same things with the same level of encouragement as their male counterparts, women were locked out of the artistic community. They were never told at a young age that they can be great and weren't nurtured in such a manner. Society thinks that woman can't be like men while the other way around is accepted. Nochlin explains that if a man wanted to do something considered feminine, he could slip right into the position any time he pleased, even mastering it with no social judgement. For example, if a man like to and is good at cooking, then he can become a professional chef, while for a woman, its probably a common thing. However, if a woman wants to do the job of a male she would have to break free from the shackles of their "wombs." So agreeing with @apalathingal, the problem is not within the individuals rather in the system itself. Woman have not had the same opportunities that men have had, resulting in having no great woman artist or great woman."
--( posted on Nov 18, 2013, commenting on the post Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” )
"Firstly I would like to restate the last few lines of the reading that summarize the entire reading: "Understanding of anything at all, on a deep level, is never easy and requires a certain commitment and hard effort. There are enough problems about understanding persons different from oneself and of understanding the expression of their experiences and emotions in art, whether it be within one's own culture or interculturally , without adding gratuitous mysteries to this complex field." This statement explains the comments above that understand art alone is already a difficult task and requires effort even if it is the art of one's own culture. So the added gratuitous mysteries of a foreign culture does require extra effort to comprehend but its isn't impossible. I personally agree with this because being from a city that contains so much art from all cultures around the world, I get to experience all types of art and have noticed that if one wants to understand a piece of art, cultures and languages aren't barriers."
--( posted on Nov 6, 2013, commenting on the post Frances Berenson, “Understanding Art and Understanding Persons” )
"In Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, he discusses a shift in perception and its affects in the twentieth century with the rising of film and photography. He writes about the changes in the way we look and see the visual work of art. Benjamin argues that technology is changing art and our perceptions. All art is replicable, which brings into question the worth of the art if it is not “original.” Specifically focusing on the fact that copies do not duplicate that original aura. Benjamin here attempts to mark something specific about the modern age; of the effects of modernity on the work of art in particular. Film and photography point to this movement. Benjamin writes of the loss of the aura through the mechanical reproduction of art itself. The sense of the aura is lost on film and the reproducible image itself demonstrates a historical shift that we have to take account of even if when we don’t necessarily notice it. This actually relates what we learned at the costume shop today; a character playing a specific role, which is a form of art in of itself, needs to be designed and carried out with the same aura of it’s original historical period in order to give the same feel. If the aura is lost the art of playing the character is not a success. This reading actually made me think of what it means to place an aura on “someone” or “something”? Is it even necessary to reclaim the aura in the first place? The mystical sense of the original is broken with the loss of the aura, and now every one can go to a gallery, a museum, the theater or the cinema. A whole new appreciation of art is introduced while at the same time; a whole new mode of deception and distraction also enters because aura is depleted."
--( posted on Oct 30, 2013, commenting on the post Walter Benjamin )
"I certainly agree with Dewey’s statement in which he speculates that art is absolutely not found quantitatively in the form of charts and statistics. Art is creativity, imagination and thoughts expressed in various ways, and this cannot be expressed in quantitative measures. There’s more to art than sculptures or paintings. Art depicts emotions; there’s art in music, dance, poetry, theater, nature, people, and places, and this art should be sensed, seen and understood with emotions, not but statistics."
--( posted on Sep 17, 2013, commenting on the post What Really Is Art? )
"In this article, "Moving Pictures," Peter Schjeldahl reasonably points out the changes that the move brought to Barnes' collection. He thoroughly expresses the changes he felt and noted. For example, Schjeldahl writes, "The change I thought I detected was due to a clerestory window in the new building sunlight ignites blues, which incandescent light dulls.” This explains the effect on the "major technological differences in combining natural and automatic lighting." Now, although the author stated that the integrity of the collection has survived “magnificently”, I feel that an "aesthetic crime" nonetheless exists. Barnes and John Dewey both would agree that the study of art should be "direct and immersive." Barnes also follows Dewey in rejecting "the meat rack tidiness of standard museums." • Aesthetics (n): the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty. These museums do exactly the opposite of what aesthetics are and mean. The alterations in the lightings of the museums are major because they are highlighting the beauty of the art not the emotions and thought behind it, therefore not being immersive. So does the fact the integrity of the collection survived “magnificently” justify the blatant disregard of Barnes wishes, legally specified in his will, and the move to the Philadelphia Museum? I think not. Was this an “aesthetic crime”? Absolutely. Not to mention, the fact that the move satisfies the cravings of Philadelphian powers for a Center City tourist magnet supports the idea of an “aesthetic crime” being done with a motive."
--( posted on Sep 10, 2013, commenting on the post Was it an “Aesthetic Crime”? )