Posts by Ruby Cabuya
Quick question (open to anyone who knows the answer):
Does the performance log that’s due at the end of the semester have to be handwritten/in a journal-type setting, or are these formal reports of each performance we attend? Help! Thanks! :)
(I just don’t want to end up adding extra fluff in my opinions of certain performances)
Can you tell the difference between modern and toddler art?
Comments by Ruby Cabuya
"Isn't it funny how repeating the explanation of differences between aesthetic concepts and taste is somewhat of a parallel to the limits of language used to describe aesthetic objects? Sibley is concerned with describing works of art by using a certain vocabulary that can only be applicable to the art in its context. Using general words such as "pretty", "lovely", or "beautiful" don't exactly do a piece of art justice in describing the breadth of aesthetic thought behind it. There has to be a certain dialect spoken about the art, using words that don't just characterize the observations of the piece of art. Sibley speaks of the "necessary-and-sufficient conditions", in that some phrases are "necessary" in describing art, whereas as others are "sufficient." What does this mean? There are decisions to be made when picking features to describe. It may be more "necessary" to speak of, let's say, a Cubist painting's playfulness in shape and attention to certain angles, rather than for it to be "sufficient" to describe its overall rigidity. (It's not a perfect example, since Cubist paintings have many different characteristics, but it could be another parallel to the kinds of language used to describe works of art, even whole genres of art. Listing techniques of a certain genre of painting may add to its "necessary" description, as another example.) Understanding aesthetic concepts comes from the sensitivity of the observer; however, explaining a work of art in layman's terms will not fully agree with one's detailed, "professional" explanation. Does this mean that their experience differs, because they have different tastes? Yes."
--( posted on Nov 21, 2013, commenting on the post Frank Sibley, “Aesthetic concepts”
"Urban art brings out my passion of New York City!
Passing 5 Pointz on the 7 train has always been a vital part of my intercity commute. To ride past the regular cityscapes of Queens (brick buildings, 2-year old billboards, tattered small business awnings below), and then to see the "graffiti mecca" of New York City, possibly of even the world, is an astonishing sight. The bright colors and symbols of urban culture dominate the faces of the building; it is more than just someone's defacement on the brick walls of someone else's property. The art featured on the walls definitely follow an "aesthetic attitude", being that people choose to have a set frame of mind in observing this urban art over an unusual canvas. 5 Pointz can be appreciated for "its own sake", meaning that it exists because certain street artists chose for their pieces of art to exist on the walls of the 5 Pointz property. It is already there, so why not appreciate it...with an aesthetic attitude?
Are the illustrations and writings at 5 Pointz considered art? According to Richard Anderson in American Muse: Anthropological Excursions into Art and Aesthetics , "things will be considered to be art to the extent which they are: artifacts of human creation;created through the exercise of exceptional physical, conceptual, or imaginative skill;produced in a public medium;intended to affect the senses; andseen to share stylistic conventions with similar works" The art at 5 Pointz follows this criteria, as they were created by humans (for example, some works of art are depictions of people, and people love to create images of other people). The urban-style art is influenced throughout the building; it is not likely one will see a Classical-style painting, chiaroscuro and all, upon the brick walls of 5 Pointz. It reflects the current imaginative stimuli; it is art for the young people, by the young people. It is produced in a more-than public medium, which in fact "public" would be an understatement of the nature of the art at 5 Pointz (it's on the walls of a building, for crying out loud). Most of all, it stimulates the senses, and allows the audience of the art to fully bask in the "art of the now", what each artist intended to put on the wall and why he or she chose that symbolism.
VARA (the Visual Artists Rights Act) is a federal law established in 1990, protecting the content of visual artists, both commercial and amateur. It states that artists have "right to claim ownership" of their works; "The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification…unless the modification is caused by gross negligence…”meaning that the artwork can be changed or moved and won’t be considered vandalism to the art, but completely wiping it out is not included within these parameters.
As of November 19, 2013, parts of the building have been completely whitewashed with the permission of the NYPD. This was a result of the three-day hearing beginning on November 6, 2013. The hearing reportedly did not go well for urban art lovers, as David Wolkoff, prospective developer of the 5pointz site and son of 5pointz owner Jerry Wolkoff, was approved of his plan to use the land to build a high-rise apartment.
To some, this may seem as a defeat and great loss of urban culture. What was once the great “graffiti mecca” of the world, a famous tribute to street art, is now going to be another banal structure obstructing the view of the Manhattan skyline from part of Western Queens.
I've included a photo (hopefully you are able to see it, as I have pulled it from Facebook) of a time my friend and I visited 5pointz. At the time, it was as if we were part of the hipster crowd, going to take pictures with graffiti in the background for an urban-style Facebook profile picture. Experiencing it had more meaning than that. It was a sort of art museum; you had to stand back at some of the wall paintings and really gaze into the art. Each one had a different tone, a different flavor of city culture. It was cliche to think of it that way, but it was almost as if the artist wanted you to think that way. He or she wanted to welcome you into his or her city.
I had just come from dance class and my friend had the inspiration to include me into this wall with the lizard. He said "it's almost as if the lizard is watching you dance.""
--( posted on Nov 20, 2013, commenting on the post 5 Pointz: New York Graffiti Mecca
"The point that Nochlin makes is that women artists do have the chance to reach equal standing with men, however it is not within the social norm for that to occur. Throughout this piece, Nochlin asks the question of "Why are there no great women artists?" without directly answering it; instead she finds other prompts concerning why the "Woman Problem" exists in the first place. Women are given the shorter end of the stick not only in art, but also in literature. This is because of the social norm to connect works of art or collections of writing by women as one genre. It is within the power of art and literature historians (who are predominantly "white males of the West") to group such pieces together. The grouping of women's art is impossible because there is no similar characteristic in all art by women that could bring them to a single category, other than the fact that they were created by women, as you have mentioned. It is different from categorizing the different styles of art, such as cubism (as she mentioned), or classical chiaroscuro. What Nochlin was aiming to answer is why a woman's role in society has to play a large part in her creation of art. She readdresses the common questions brought up in most of readings thus far, being "what is art", "what is art's purpose", "how do we view art", etc. Ideally, we would view art created by women the exact way we would when applying the "aesthetic attitude" (Stolnitz) to any other artists' work regardless of where he or she came from in the social spectrum."
--( posted on Nov 18, 2013, commenting on the post Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”
"Is there a difference between having knowledge of art and having an interest of art? As Berenson mentioned, "taking knowledge as culture bound...makes 'interest' not 'knowledge' relative", meaning that having knowledge of the culture the art comes from is irrelevant to the interest one has about the art. Understanding art comes from first understanding the intended audience of said piece of art, as you mentioned. This agrees with Berenson's "institutionalism of art theory", in learning what such art is trying to achieve. Art was meant to be seen and "recognized in the sense that there are established institutional procedures for conferring the status of artwork on the products of these practices." Does the audience, then, develop the interest in that piece of work, since they are supposed to have an idea why the artist created it in the first place? Or do they obtain the background knowledge on the subject?"
--( posted on Nov 7, 2013, commenting on the post Frances Berenson, “Understanding Art and Understanding Persons”
"1. Tolstoy explains that art is "founded on beauty...[and] pleases a certain class of people." All aesthetics are judged subjectively, therefore certain kinds of art find their niche with certain kinds of people. As Tolstoy mentions, "There is no objective definition of beauty," and that beauty may please "without exciting desire", or as Williams has described as sublimity. Do you think that this subjectivity diminishes the holistic beauty of any piece of art?
2. "Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious Idea of beauty or God; ...but is a means of union among men joining them together in the same feelings...of individuals and of humanity." In a way Tolstoy is arguing that there is no extraneous, cosmic force that allows humans to create art. Art is human. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
3. Along with mentioning culture, Tolstoy uniquely brings up the art of language, or "verbal art". He also notes that "art like speech is a means of communication and therefore of progress, that is, of the movement of humanity forward towards perfection." Does the art of language contribute any further to the aesthetics of what we think of as art in general, or is it its own specific category? Is the art of language separate from, say, the art of cello playing?"
--( posted on Sep 25, 2013, commenting on the post 9/26 – Tolstoy