Category Archives: Thoughts on Art

The Purpose of Art

Posted on by
3

One day I was simply questioning myself “If art is supposed to convey a message, then why does it not simply state the message?”  I continued to ask myself this question and thought even about the occupation I have chosen to pursue, engineering.  An engineer tries to convey what he is trying to say in a very precise and efficient manner whereas an artist would try to convey what he is trying to say using very abstract drawings, or photos and force the onlooker to take a more active role in determining the message of the creator.  I kept pondering why artists would take this route in sending their message when a lot of it gets “lost in translation.”

As I continued to ask myself this, I though of a possible solution.  There is a difference between stating a message  and implying a message.  By simply stating facts and percentages and a concrete sentence, what kind of emotional response can you really trigger in an individual that reads your work?  Little to none.  From an artist however, if you convey your message through characters on a stage, or melodies, or splashes of paint on a canvas, you allow an individual to become more attached to the work.  They get a sense of the message but the message is not any longer just a message, it is known to the audience by the emotions invoked upon them.

Then I came to another conclusion.  Although artists tend to try to deliver a message; it can tend to be a broad and general message.  Through art, the overall message one person takes can be different than another.  Although they can see and feel the general underlying message, their own individuality shapes the overall message they receive.  With a clear and concise statement there is no room for this flexibility.  The individuality of the individual is lost because they are no longer using their own beings to translate the message into their own thoughts.

I am sure there are other reasons why artists choose to convey their messages in the way that they do.  Respond with your theories.

Snapshot event

Posted on by
Reply

I had gone to the New York Historical Society to see the photos the students took and to see my work in a museum to make me feel like an artist. When I went into the room full of photos, there were a lot of people in the small room and I did not really enjoy looking at the photos. Thus, I went to see adjacent exhibits. I liked the presentation of how Chinese people were discriminated against in the nineteenth century. It enhanced my knowledge on how they used to get the least favorable jobs and their poor lifestyles in America. However, I was not impressed with the holiday train exhibits as I was expecting because both were small and the trains were not moving or there were no tracks. Then I went back to the room with the photos because I knew there would be little people still there. Like the professor said, we remember the moments where we are alone the most. Because I was one of the few people there, I could take a look at all the photos without pushing past a crowd of people. I then began to try and figure out when and where a photo was taken. In addition, it seems that some photos were not taken in NYC. I remember one description said “A bird in Philly,” which suggests the person was in Philadelphia at the time. Also, one picture was taken on a sunny day when 10/13 was cloudy; it must have been taken on another day or somewhere else. I noticed that a few descriptions must have been mixed up as well because they did not match the photo they were supposed describe, while providing an accurate description of an adjacent photo. Luckily, everyone got the right message when they saw my photo, except my name was not on it. Instead it said “Unknown Author.” I want to be known.

I felt that I could concentrate on the art a lot more when there were less people around, so from my experience, it’s clear that art would be easier to learn about in a rural setting, not in NYC. At least the Macaulay seminar fulfills my liberal arts requirements, while adding some unique experiences. I guess this class is encouraging me to challenge human propensities. I say: “Challenge accepted.”

Macaulay seminar requires concentration

Posted on by
Reply

To understand the art we are looking at, it is important to concentrate (i.e. there is a lot trying to be conveyed through every word of the poems about NYC). However, the city is an environment that makes people naturally concentrate less on one thing and want to get as many things done as possible. Whereas, rural areas cause people to focus on one task and complete it from beginning to end and encourage people to feel emotions more readily than an urban environment. I find it ironic that we are supposed to look for meaning in art in NYC, a huge urban area making it difficult to concentrate. This kind of course would suit a college located in a rural environment.

Scientifically, we are all going through a struggle against nature to focus on tasks in a place meant for feeling rushed. Why does Macaulay present this challenge to us?

New York Festival of Lights

Posted on by
4

I really enjoy being from Brooklyn and representing this part of the New York City because sometimes Brooklyn gives a great show as well; especially DUMBO, which is essentially the center artistic expression in Brooklyn. As soon as I found out that the first New York Festival of Lights was happening at the tunnel under the Manhattan Bridge I was surely to attend this spectacle.

photo 1photo 2

 

On November 7th at 7PM I visited NYFOL. It was a completely free event, accompanied by a great DJ and a super interesting audience. Not too many people knew about this event and thus all the visitors were interested and knowledgeable.

I was mostly surprised by the fact that no where in this installation was thephoto 3 (1) artist(s) mentioned. Clearly someone had to create this masterpiece but the artist’s input was not recognized. Perhaps, the artist wanted his work to become of the people and he wanted the people to emphasize the work rather than him?The entire installation was very interactive and dependent on the audience rather than the artist; wherever one would stand, they would see the installation differently. Finally, viewers even got a chance to put input in the installation by signing a scratch board.

In general, this was a very interesting and enjoyable installation despite the fact that it was really cold that day. I am very proud of Brooklyn for staging such events!

-Angelika

Thinking Back to Week 1

Posted on by
2

If you think back all the way to week one of classes I  remember the huge discussion on chefs and bakers being artists.  Quite honestly I still feel that they should deserve this title and I feel that Majakaur’s post who can create art somewhat helps support why.  In his post he mentions that “only those who are artistically skilled enough to incur change, cause disruption, or gain precedence (politically, socially or even economically) can create influential art.”  If you think about some of the greatest works of art they are all able to invoke great emotions through the combination of sensory stimuli.  Exquisite food products do just this, they invoke great smells, tastes, sights, feelings, and even sounds.  Just look at the picture attached.  These pastries have an amazing bright color and I am sure also can invoke great smells and other stimuli.  Those that create these products have to hone a lot of skills and must have great precision especially in baking.  The skills necessary in baking and cooking must be at least comparable to the skills required to drawing a great work of art.  Also the chefs and bakers that are most able to hone their skills are able to gain precedence over others as they get hired by more prestigious restaurants or bakeries.  For instance just look at Hell’s kitchen or any other shows about different amateur cooks, and then compare their cooking to that of professionals.  In this disparity of skill set and the creations that are being produced these people should all be considered artists.  As a baker myself I am personally attached to this idea and would love to hear feedback from anyone else on whether or not chefs and bakers should be considered artists.  

By the way, I really do intend on bringing in cookies to Monday’s class if Professor Drabik allows!

And finally on another note, there was a major shift in culture after tea and coffee started to gain popularity throughout Europe and the Middle East.  I remembered learning this years ago in global history about how this adoption of drinks actually had larger impacts than one might think.  Usually people of all classes would have met, consuming alcohol which as many know can cloud judgement.  After the introduction of tea and coffee many people of upper classes began meeting in local tea and coffee houses, and with the lack of intoxication they discussed many important political, social and philosophical topics.  The influence of these houses was considered to be a large factor in the start of the Enlightenment.

Check out this link: http://www.stephenhicks.org/2010/01/18/coffee-and-the-enlightenment/

 

Art for Art’s Sake?

Posted on by
Reply

I was looking for something to post in this new “Thoughts on Art” category, and my mind drifted to the bohemian cause célèbre from the 19th century of Art for Art’s Sake, engaged by notables such as Théophile Gautier and our very own Edgar Allan Poe.  I stumbled upon this Ted talk on art that I thought might prove thought provoking (though it does drag at moments, I think DeVlieg brings us some interesting conclusions).

Mary Ann DeVlieg brings up a deceptively simple question in her talk to drive home her point: (I paraphrase) If art is such a non-issue, an unimportant question, why are artists censored, persecuted, and shunned in so many instances even today?

 

Some of the artists she cites in her talk:
Robert Rauschenberg
John Cage
The Wooster Group

Banksy Art: Graffiti

Posted on by
2

After today’s class I went and looked up some of Banksy’s pieces on Google. I found one that particularly stuck with me:

A photo taken of Banksy street art in London. Found at: http://streetartlondon.co.uk/blog/2011/04/26/banksy-street-art-clipstone-street-fitzrovia/

A photo taken of Banksy street art in London. Found at: http://streetartlondon.co.uk/blog/2011/04/26/banksy-street-art-clipstone-street-fitzrovia/

I feel like this piece is particularly powerful because of its blatant contradictions.

“If graffiti changed anything, it would be illegal.”

Obviously, graffiti is illegal. Thus, Banksy’s point is made clearly through this painting: Graffiti does have the power to change things and that is why people in power don’t want it to exist.

It reminded me of the conversation we had today about what kind of art is allowed in public space, who dictates it, and of course the tearing down of 5Pointz.

I feel like graffiti is so powerful because it is raw. It portrays a viewpoint of a generally voiceless community. Sam commented on one of my last posts something along the lines of this: graffiti is the only outlet that some people have, so we have to let their voices be heard. If we do, it can have the power to change everything.