shawndonleyah318e-blog

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, by Noel Carroll, ed. by Matthew Kieran

The four major approaches to defining aesthetic experience are the affect-oriented approach, the epistemic approach, the axiological approach, and the content oriented approach. The affect-oriented approach is based on the idea of a certain feeling or sensitive knowledge caused by perception and sensation. It is referred to by the french as “je ne sais quoi,” literally translated to “I don’t know what.” Carroll explains that this is the problem with the affect-oriented approach, that nobody can describe what sort of “feeling” this is. He goes on to explain that some people describe it as essentially pleasurable, which may be true that aesthetic experiences cause pleasure, but wouldn’t this also mean that any pleasurable experience is also an aesthetic one? The epistemic approach states that in order to have an aesthetic experience, the object you are experiencing has to be a direct encounter of cognitive engagement, not through a report from a second party. Carroll disagrees with this, stating that you can judge an object by its aesthetic qualities through another source, such as a photograph or description, if that source is reliable. The third approach, axiological, is about the intrinsic value of an object. It builds off of the idea of affect-oriented, that an aesthetic experience should be one of pleasure, and believes that this pleasure is representative of the object’s value. However, if an object has value for its own sake alone, it does not consider the possibility of value towards cultural, political, or moral contexts. For this reason, Carroll does not agree with this approach. The final approach, which Carroll believes makes the most sense, is content-oriented, which considers the aesthetic properties of the content of a work of art as well as the form and expressive qualities. These all work together to create an aesthetic experience, and can be found in most, if not all, works of art. An example of this, is the way perspective can draw the viewer’s eye to the center of a painting. Our reactions to these properties of the content are what guide our experience, and offer a more precise method of understanding the overall aesthetics of a work of art.

Carroll, Noël. ed. by Kieran, Matthew. Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. Blackwell Pub., 2006.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

Emily Kame Kngwarreye and the Undeconstructible Space of Justice, by Rex Butler

The word “etic” describes a study of a specific culture that has a general and objective perspective, whereas “emic” describes this cultural study without external context, focusing entirely on its internal elements. Rex Butler describes an “etic” interpretation of Kngwarreye’s work as viewing the art not as something that is striving to accurately and truly represent the reality of Aboriginal people, but something that recognizes the impossibility of this true representation and exists anyway. It is open to criticism and debates, but does not try to make any statements about how the work should or should not be viewed. The emic perspective is simply viewing the work for what it is and not judging the social context surrounding it. Butler thinks emic interpretations “stand accused… of once again repeating European biases” because it is impossible to completely ignore your social perspective and the context of your own environment. People are predisposed to view things in certain ways because of how they were raised and what they are exposed to. He mentions Philip Morrissey’s essay on Kngwarreye’s work, and how Morissey, an Aboriginal person who has not had direct experience with traditional Aboriginal culture, could not ignore his own personal biases and connections to the work based on his own social contexts. I believe this was a good way for Butler to explain the impossibility of a truly neutral position and non objective perspective on works of art such as these. I believe non-western, indigenous works should be curated fairly, without priority or exclusion because of who the artist is or where the work came from. I believe, when curating any works of art, the art itself should be considered, for its form and for its meaning, which I do understand can be very objective. However galleries decide which art is good and which is bad, they should follow this same process regardless of the origin of the art. That being said, when indigenous art is chosen to be exhibited in a gallery or museum, the viewers should be provided with information to explain the context and cultural significance of the piece. This helps to educate viewers and pay respects to the culture the art originated in, while still being able to share and allow others to enjoy its beauty.

Emily Kame Kngwarreye “Emu Woman” 1988–89 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 92.0 x 61.0cm. The Holmes à Court Collection, Heytesbury.

Rex Butler, "Emily Kame Kngwarreye and the Undeconstructible Space of Justice", Art of the Twentieth Century: A Reader, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003, pp. 304-319.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

The Art of Steal, by Don Argot

Although facing some controversy, impressionism was an art style utilizing small, yet visible brush strokes. Dr. Albert C. Barnes, a wealthy chemist and businessman, found interest and value in this style and began to purchase works by impressionist, post-impressionist, and modernist masters. Over his life he collected over 4,000 works, with an estimated worth of $25 Billion dollars. After his death in 1951, his collection was to be placed at the Barnes Foundation, located specifically in the Lower Merion Township, a residential area outside the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In his will, Barnes stated that the collection stay in that neighborhood. However, the city of Philadelphia saw this as a nice tourist attraction. They wanted to move it closer to downtown, but the foundation didn’t agree as it went against the wishes of Barnes. To combat this, the city began to support to the foundation, eventually leaving them no choice but to move the works of art into the city. People have given support to both sides. On one hand, this move allows a larger group of people to experience and appreciate a very large collection of art. Art should be shared with the masses to help expose people to new ideas and inspiration. On the other hand, this goes against the wishes of the man who collected these works. I think that art should be shared, but this is not the way to do it. The city moved the pieces to benefit themselves, and I feel promotion of the exhibit would be more beneficial than moving it to a new location. I personally would want the works to stay where they were, following the will of the man who collected them. I am a huge fan of impressionist paintings, but I don't agree with the way these were brought to the city.

Argot, Don. “The Art Of Steal (2009) Documentary.” YouTube, YouTube, 20 Jan. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=oOfQoWZcmBM.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

National Memorial for Peace and Justice, Brigit Katz vs William Anderson

The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is a history museum dedicated to sharing the tragedies of past (and present) depictions of African American slavery in the U.S.A. There are multiple exhibits throughout the museum, but one of main focus (and the one I find most breathtaking) depicts the thousands of victims affected by lynching in the U.S. The sculpture depicts hanging plates of metal, each representing a county in the US where a lynching took place. On the metal plates are inscribed the names of people hanged in that county. These plates start off suspended from the ceiling, but so low that they rest on the ground. However, as you move further into the monument, the plates gradually raise upward until they are hanging high over the viewer. I have not witnessed this monument in person, but from how it is described and from images, I think it is an outstanding representation of lynching. This task is not an easy one to take on, but to do this in such a way that it is not graphic, but still haunting, is an amazing feat. The second article I read, by William Anderson, was (in my opinion) a gatekeeping piece that accused others of not reacting to the monument properly, instead of promoting the piece itself for what it is. He states his experience visiting the monument, and the horror he witnessed as he believes the monument “reproduces the opportunity for white onlookers to engage in the spectacle of lynching.” This began to annoy me as it no longer talked about the beauty or meaning of the sculpture, but how everyone else (especially white people) were ruining the experience. This is not for him to decide. I think the goal of the museum and monument is to show people (no matter your skin color) the ways African Americans were treated, and how that may still be prevalent in society today. How viewers interpret, deal with, or even document this is unique to each person. I personally would take a photograph, not because I thought it was something to show my friends of what I did this weekend, but to commemorate artists like Kwame Akoto-Bamfo for helping me, a white boy who lived 200 years after these events, to understand the tragedies and weight of it. Shaming me for doing this is like telling an Asian man that he can’t take photos at the Pearl Harbor memorial, an event he didn’t take part of or was even alive for, but an event where people who he shares physical traits with committed a violent act. Gatekeeping others from experiences and exposure to historical events because of their race is not just wrong, it's an early form of segregation.

Katz, Brigit. “Five Things to See at Alabama's New Memorial to Lynching Victims.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 24 Apr. 2018, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/5-things-see-alabamas-new-monument-and-museum-dedicated-victims-racial-violence-180968809/.

Anderson, William C., and William C. Anderson. “When a Lynching Memorial Becomes a Photo Opportunity.” Hyperallergic, Hyperallergic, 12 Mar. 2019, tinyurl.com/yclraxde.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

But is it Art?, by MaryKate Cleary

Constantin Brancusi, a Romanian sculptor who lived from 1876 - 1957, moved to Paris to pursue and work as a sculptor. During his career, he was involved in a court case about import taxes on one of his sculptures, called “Bird in Space”, that caused the U.S. government to address what defines an object as “art”. The debate was centered around whether or not the sculpture accurately represented a bird, and therefore, should be considered a piece of art or a “utilitarian object”. The sculpture is a tall, graceful form with subtle curvature and smooth texture, which meant to encapsulate the aspiration, strength, and speed of a bird in flight. Brancusi made 15 versions in marble, bronze, and plaster casts. He aimed to convey the “essential nature” of a bird soaring elegantly, upward in flight. The bronze version, made in 1928, stands at 54” tall and is currently on display in the MoMA. The result of this case was to consider a “new school” of art that is much more abstract and less of an imitation of natural objects. It had broadened the world’s view on what constitutes as art, and who can be considered an artist. Art comes in many forms, and the art world is constantly changing. It is important to adapt perceptions and views of what art is along with this development. Personally, I believe a work of art should clearly represent the artist’s effort and passion. An artwork’s title is very helpful in interpretation and although viewers can perceive the art in any way they choose, I do believe the intention of the artist is important to consider, and how they would like to guide your reaction. However, I do not believe a title is necessary to give a work of art meaning; true art should have the power to speak on its own.

Cleary, MaryKate. “MoMA | ‘But Is It Art?" Constantin Brancusi vs. the United States.” InsideOut, www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2014/07/24/but-is-it-art-constantin-brancusi-vs-the-united-states/.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

Open Casket Debate, feat. Hannah Black and Coco Fusco

Dana Schutz is an American painter, currently residing in Brooklyn, whose work typically consists of figures participating in violent and/or creative activities. While her paintings have been described as gestural and humorous, Schutz describes her inspiration as narrative representations for different phenomena she experiences in culture. Her painting, Open Casket, depicts the corpse of a 14 year old boy who was brutally murdered in 1955 after he was accused of offending a white woman. At the time, the boys mother requested the open casket, which was widely photographed and published, to allow the public to witness what she had to. Schutz’s painting, which could have been more offensive in my opinion, depicts an abstracted figure reflecting the boy’s “mutilated” face. This subject matter is controversial because Dana Schutz is a white woman, which causes some people to believe she isn't allowed to paint the subject as she would be profiting off of Black pain and suffering. Hannah Black, who submitted a formal request for a gallery to remove and destroy the painting, believes that if the paintings intention was to represent white shame, it fails because the subject matter should not “belong” to Schutz or other white artists. She believes they are treating Black pain as “raw material,” and that it contributes to the appropriation of Black culture by white artists. Coco Fusco, who is an artist, curator, and teacher, does not believe anyone should protest for the removal or destruction of art, ever. While she says she would not stand in the way of protests, especially well informed ones fighting for righteous causes, she does not support the idea of censorship in the art world. She compares Hannah Black to authoritarians of the past who censored different aspects of culture. Many people are going to be offended by different works of art, but it is not your right to say what should and should not exist based on your own opinion. While Hannah Black has noble intentions of protecting Black culture, Fusco points out that her reasoning for the removal and destroying of Schutz’s painting are not based in fact, but instead relying on “problematic notions of cultural property” and applying a double standard for artists of different races.

Blackcontemporaryart. “[SUBMISSION] Please Read & Share Hannah Black's Open Letter to the Curators and Staff of the Whitney Biennial.”Black Contemporary Art, 21 Mar. 2017, blackcontemporaryart.tumblr.com/post/158661755087/submission-please-read-share-hannah-blacks.

Fusco, Coco, and Coco Fusco. “Censorship, Not the Painting, Must Go: On Dana Schutz's Image of Emmett Till.” Hyperallergic, Hyperallergic, 29 Mar. 2017, hyperallergic.com/368290/censorship-not-the-painting-must-go-on-dana-schutzs-image-of-emmett-till/.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

The Price of Everything, by Nathaniel Kahn

In the art world, art is marketed as a treasure you would be lucky to have. Dealers and auction houses present the pieces as a must have exclusive, or another piece for your collection. Some of the art world's top spenders look at art as a status piece. To them, the pieces in their home are not special because they are decor or compliment the room; it is an investment. In the movie, Stefan Edlis (a Chicago art collector) gives us a tour of one of his apartments. When showing the art he has bought, he rarely seems to talk about what it meant to him, but how much he bought it for and how much it is worth today. I think art should be an investment, like real estate or livestock. However, this can have positive and negative impacts on the art market. Dealers look for trends in the art market and pick out similar ones when selecting pieces to sell. This causes artist to create art that is ‘what the market wants’ and not ‘what the artists wants’. On the surface, this may seem like a bad thing for the artist, even though no one is forcing them to make specific art. They do know that their art might not be noticed if it doesn’t fit into trends, but that is how all other art works. If Katy Perry puts out a heavy metal album, that probably won't be as popular as her other works. This isn’t a problem with the music market, it is just a choice made by the general public of what they like. And that's what all career artists are really doing; trying to make work that people like, and therefore work that will sell.

Kahn, Nathaniel, director. The Price of Everything. HBO Films, 2018.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

Artistic Crimes, by Denis Dutton

Alfred Lessing argues that forgeries can only be of “creative” and not “performing” arts. Dutton, who contradicts this, responds by explaining that creative and performing arts are one in the same. When comparing a painter and a dancer, the object of the painter’s performance is perceived. The dancer’s performance itself is the object that is perceived. Both forms of art are a representation of human performance. However, Dutton believes these performances can be judged based on their achievement, the standards of which are dictated by society. This judgement depends on the origin of the art; and the limitations the artist worked within to achieve what they did. This is Dutton’s problem with forgeries: they misrepresent the nature of the human achievement. I am not saying that the forgeries are completely unoriginal; a forged painting may bring new points of admiration because of the original style and performance that went into creating it. “What is performed originates entirely with the performer; it is in no sense the copy of a work of another, and one would not want to call it unoriginal.” (110) The main formal and aesthetic qualities may be the same, but the perceiver’s attitude toward the work of art is altered when the true nature of its origin is revealed. This is the moral problem with forgeries, the misrepresentation of the human achievement.

Dutton, Denis. “Artistic crimes”, Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 102-112

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

Society of the Spectacle, by Guy Debord

According to Debord in his article, “Society of the Spectacle,” the “spectacle” is a product of life, and represents itself as “a social relation among people, mediated by images.” (4) It is both a unification and separation of society. It brings about this separation through the images that are apart of reality. Debord describes the spectacle as the common language for separation, which comes about from parts of society that represent themselves to the rest of the world. The commodity is the power that strives to occupy all of social life, and the moment that it attains this is the so called “spectacle”. This relation between commodity and spectacle is our perception of the world and all of society. Debord also describes the spectacle as the “visible negation of life,” which I find difficult to understand. This claim is in response to the spectacle being an affirmation of human life as mere appearance. (10) Obviously it is visible, but if the spectacle is representing life, at what point does it become a “negation”? Although appearance is separate from reality, is negation really the best way to describe it? I do not believe that appearance takes anything away from reality, it adds to it. Since everyone's perception of reality is different, we cannot make decisions about others experiences with images, only our own.

Debord, Guy. Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. Verso, 2011.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

The Family that Built an Empire of Pain, by Patrick Radden Keefe

The Sacklers are a wealthy family that earned their fortune in the pharmaceutical business, selling painkillers like Oxycontin. They are well known philanthropists whose names can be found in artistic establishments like the MET, the Louvre, the Guggenheim, and others. When selling Oxycontin, which many people became addicted to with some even overdosing, the family changed the culture of taking painkillers, claiming risks of addiction were myths and that these drugs were helping many people. These claims were based on loose assumptions and lack of research. Trained salespeople, who appealed to practitioners with professional literature and eloquently (and vaguely) prepared responses against questions such as “is it potentially dangerous?” Oxycontin was marketed as the miracle drug, something anybody can and should take for more than just severe pain. Although it is controversial where their fortune actually came from, the family chose to donate their money, and the museums and universities should not be required to reject or vet it. Even though they are heavily criticized, it is possible that the family believed they were doing a good thing. They wanted to help people feel better, and that’s exactly what their drug did. Mistakes were made, but I believe the money was not made from a malicious intent as selling meth or heroin would be. And if it was, they attempted to justify the means by putting it to something good in the end. If all this money was made off of others addiction, wouldn’t  it be better to put it towards something beneficial for society and culture? However, by keeping the donations, some could interpret what the museums are doing as condoning the Sackler families actions. As we talked about in our first class, this action may seem like a reward by putting their names in a gallery or on the side of a building. However, in my opinion, whether the museums and universities approve of how the Sackler family donations were funded, it is still money that these places can allocate for positive improvements. If they put off the “reevaluation”, they neither publicly approve or disapprove while still benefiting from the donations. They are hoping that what they do now can help the public, rather than hurt it.

Keefe, Patrick R. "The Family that Built an Empire of Pain." The NewYorker [New York City, New York] January 12, 2019: Pages 1-34.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

Of Blood and Beauty, by Cynthia Freeland

Freeland explains that art does not have to be beautiful and uplifting, it can be “ugly and disturbing with a shatteringly negative moral content,” (Freeland 19). Contemporary art that is meant to shock the viewer is often criticized for not having morality. However, Serrano referred to another artist, Francisco Goya, as a source of inspiration for his work. Goya is known for having a moral perspective as well as a strong artistic ability as a painter, although on the surface his work is very similar to Serrano’s in its shocking and disturbing effect on viewers. This argument is criticized by the fact that Serrano is too ambiguous with the meaning of his work. He mentions that he is not trying to denounce religion itself, but the institutions that cheapen and commercialize Christian icons. But in the end, is he just seeking sensationalism?  Although as an artist, there is no denying that his work does exhibit some skill, thought, and preparation. Aside from the content and context of his work, can it be appreciated as a visually compelling work of art? Freeland explains that there is a certain psychical distance that should be achieved before one can truly appreciate art for its beauty. Taste is subjective, but it is based on feeling pleasure when looking at something. Philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that something beautiful should have “purposiveness without a purpose,” and one should have distanced enjoyment from a source of beauty, seeing the colors and textures over the context (Freeland 8). Without knowing the title Piss Christ, the photograph could be seen as beautiful, glowing and mysterious in a golden bath.

Freeland, Cynthia. Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2001. Print.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

The Invisible Dragon, by Dave Hickey

Hickey believes that without beauty an image has a hard time connecting with its audience. It is a language of visual effect that helps the audience discuss and critique the art. He states the problems have with the commercial marketplace for art. Art dealers are fixated on the appearance of the work, trafficking them through galleries for their looks. However, Hickey mentions that just because the business class is focused on visually stimulating art, doesn't mean that meaningful art has to look bad. To many, art is just a form of expressive media that can convey a mood or discussion with its audience (as the painting of the young girl did for us last class). To me, however, artwork should show beauty first, and meaning second. As I was reading, I began to resonate with his metaphor of a king. He states: “... the king does not care what we mean. The king demands from us the appearance of loyalty, the rituals of fealty, and, if these are not forthcoming, he destroys our bodies, leaving us our convictions to die with.” (Hickey 6). I would strongly agree with this statement in an artistic context. Any piece of art can have any meaning tied to it, but an art piece becomes more interesting if skill and visual interest work with the meaning. A man could spend 5 years camping, not leaving the forest until he found the perfect tree stump. Once he did, he brings it home and displays it on a pedestal for everyone to see. The story is nice, but at the end of the day any man or woman could have stumbled across that log and do the same thing he did. If the man took that stump and carved something into it, the piece retains its original meaning, but it now has an element of visual stimulation for its viewers. This isn't to say that art that doesn't “look nice” is bad, but I think art that has thought and care put into its appearance can help the audience appreciate and connect with it’s story.

Bibliography:

Hickey, Dave. Enter the Dragon: on the Vernacular of Beauty. 1993.

[shawndonleyah318e-blog]

Post Requirements

Each post should be a minimum of 200 words long. Any post shorter than that would have a hard time scoring more than a 60%, as 200 words is rather short, and it would be very difficult to exhibit the desired level of critical thinking in a shorter piece of writing. 

Students must properly label/cite any visual or written materials they use as references to provide evidence of them having done the weekly assigned readings/films. 

I am not looking for perfect grammar and citations in your Tumblr posts. If you cite and show evidence of having engaged with the material, you will pass with flying colors. I want you to deeply engage with the IDEAS presented by the readings and I want you to prove that to me with your post. Do not do a general synopsis of your readings. Rather, you should display evidence of critical thinking and provide expansive answers to the questions I have asked about each reading on Moodle.