The article stated something on the lines of Chelsea Galleries being endangered because the leases will expire soon.  It is debated whether this is a good thing or not since having such a large amount of exhibits, 300, is heavy on the area.  I understand why they want to decrease the amount of art exhibits since, like the article said, it is common to see more bad art there in one day which “feels like a season in hell.” What constitutes bad art? Isn’t art appreciation relative to the viewer, so what allows people to say something is bad art?

How does the character of a neighborhood change when it becomes more “upscale”? How does real estate or money affect the art scene?

The author says that variations in style are “always indicative of the characteristic approach of the artist to the subject” (100). I’m just curious if every piece of art has/needs style and is it always easily identifiable? Does an artist need to have the style in mind before they create their piece? I think this plays well into Ashley and Yoo Na’s questions, about whether these concepts need to be included in a work in order to be considered “true art”.

Building on what Ashley has already asked, do these formal concepts and techniques truly matter in a “good” piece of art or art in general? What if an artist wasn’t formally trained at all? Or what if an artist didn’t care about lines or shapes or planes or perspective when he/she was making a piece? Should it still matter to the audience? Why do emotions and feelings and thoughts have to be defined by these technicalities to begin with?

This chapter separates Realistic, Expressionistic, and Abstract art into different categories (which seems to be very natural, these days- to separate and segregate).

Isn’t there a way where we can find all three of these types of art in a single work? If so, since you are able to paint an abstract work with the inspirations and influences of realism and expressionism, shouldn’t it be mentioned in a collection such as “Understanding Art” that they may be able to/ can play into each other?

-Brian Rivera

Grant Wood asserts that “All the really good ideas [he] ever had came to [him] while [he] was milking a cow” (103). He is implying that his most important pieces came to him without even thinking about the form or perspective of a painting, but Leonardo da Vinci said to “first study science…and reason” of art (62).  Which is more important- the initial thought, or the technique?

Henri Matisse said “It is only after years of preparation that the young artist should touch color-not color used descriptively, that is, but as a means of personal expression”(pg 49).  Why is it that an artist may not color for the purpose of being descriptive?  It is because he is not experienced enough to know how to use colors to represent something or is it that colors are more of a way to express one’s state of mind or emotion instead of using them technically for a purpose?

The author states that artists “employ the visual elements of art to express themselves” in their art (26). Is it possible for an artist to not use all of the elements stated and still be able to convey his feelings to the audience? Is the lack of using all the visual elements the reason for people interpreting the same art piece differently?

Similarly, if the artist was not entirely sure of what they wanted to convey and just started working on an art piece would they unconsciously use these visual elements without even realizing?

The author says that the color can represent emotions and can give meaning to art but can art without any color still hold the same meaning? A painting with only gray colors might not be as eye-catching as a painting with vivid coloring, but can we still acquire the same meaning and emotions from it?

25-69: Where the Gestalt psychologists are concerned with art that is based on the context in which we view it in, isn’t this form of art counter to what art is meant to be? That is, instead of attempting to evoke an emotion or explain something to the audience, doesn’t this abstract form of art actually attempt to trick or challenge its audience? I feel as if it is purposed differently than other styles of art.

99-111: With the advent of more advanced forms are art, are we to expect that older styles of art such as sculpting and painting will eventually fade away and be fully replaced by their more contemporary versions, via computer design and digital art? Similar to how the old forms of cameras have been beaten out by the easier-to-use phone and digital cameras we now use, isn’t it likely that those art forms of the past will be eliminated by their cheaper, more user-friendly counterparts?