The opening quote particularly caught my attention. Picasso states that humans will attempt to solve and understand things like portraits (and presumably, artifacts, sculptures, etc. as well). But he also says humans ignore birdsongs – which are perhaps a more natural, even primal form of art that dates back long before the dawn of man. What does he mean in this statement? Does he imply that certain art forms, maybe those created by humans, are seen as superior to others, and are thus worthy of our attention, while others are not? Is this a form of elitism within art that Picasso is acknowledging? Maybe he’s saying that more modern forms of art are representative of a higher intelligence – is the advancement of art indicative of an advanced society?
How come art and its purpose are such a difficult concepts to understand? With all of their relationships to different topics like science, religion, and history wouldn’t those relationships make them easier to grasp?
How can we tell the difference between a work of art that depicts fantasy and one that shows reality, and is there always a clear distinction between the two?
Can art contain balance or unity while portraying chaos?
Joanna DeJesus
1. The authors affirm that an understanding of the vocabulary of art, the principals of design, as well as the “historical, social, and political context” of a work of art will allow a “more meaningful dialogue” with that work. Do you feel that this perspective somewhat contradicts the idea that art is supposed to “transcend understanding” and perhaps renders purely aesthetic admiration of art superficial, or does it give you hope that those who do not have a meaningful relationship with art may find one through these means? (2)
2. The authors discuss how standards of beauty differ between Western and Non-western cultures, but they also emphasize comprehension of the principals of design as a factor in understanding art. Does the latter support the idea that there are certain visual elements which humans instinctively gravitate towards (i.e. symmetry), or is it all dependent on cultural forces? (2-3)
Alina Pena
How is it that art creates order and harmony? If there is order and harmony seen in nature and in our everyday lives, then wouldn’t that order and harmony be a cause of the art instead of a result? (12)
* How can the Authors compare art and science if these are two different fields?
* How can art express chaos ?
Maria Ospina
There are many techniques to visual art that are not necessarily picked up by the untrained eye; can the message still be transmitted despite this ignorance of technique? (chapter 3)
Sarah Shafer
Chaos and harmony seem like opposites according to pages 12-14. Why is it that chaos needs to exist in art to contrast the harmony? (14)
Also, what exactly are wordworks? (11)
Lawrenzo Lue
Since often the emotions evoked from art are unique to each individual’s experience, does prior knowledge of an artist or a piece of work taint an individuals initial perception of the work? That is, which is more important: the artist’s intention or the viewer’s interpretation?
