Discussion Of The Essay 'The Trouble With Art' By Carolyn Dean

This could either be a Grizzly Bear or a Kodiak bear. This sculpture is number 112 out of 1500.

In a world that has become immune to accepting all types of art, Marya Mannes believes we have lost our standards and ability to identify something as “good” or “bad”. In her essay, “How Do You Know It’s Good”, she discusses society’s tendency to accept everything out of fear of wrongly labelling something as being good or bad. She touches on various criteria to judge art, such as the artist’s purpose, skill and craftsmanship, originality, timelessness, as well as unity within a piece rather than chaos. She says that an individual must decide if something is good “on the basis of instinct, experience, and association” (Mannes). I believe that by using standards and the process of association, we will be able to judge what makes an art piece good in comparison to others. However, Mannes forces me to consider the difference between what may be appealing versus what is actually good, and when deciding which art we should accept, which is truly more important. I believe that “good” and “bad” are two ends of a large, subjective spectrum of grey area. It is possible for a piece of art to be good in some areas and bad in others, and if something does not live up to all of our standards, it does not necessarily mean it should be dismissed. Thus, I believe my personal standards for judging art are based on which my standards are largely based on the personal reaction evoked from a piece of art. Though I agree with Mannes’ standards to an extent, I believe that certain standards, such as evoking a personal response, can be more telling of if a piece of art is good as opposed to its timelessness, or the level of experience of an artist in his/her craft.

While leafing through Julia Cameron 's "Artist 's Way," I always find myself thinking back to the first time the night pages came to me. It wasn 't one of those "It was a dark and stormy night" type of ideas, but I decided, "Why just write in the morning when I can do it at night?" Let me explain: In Julia Cameron 's "The Artist 's Way" you do a lot of things that are intended to inspire your creativity, foremost being getting up a bit earlier in the morning and writing out three pages. It can be called a journal, but mine was always much different than a journal. I tended to skip ahead in the writing of it, reminiscing on things that had happened to me in the past, and ideas for stories. I would also repeat myself constantly just to fill up those darn pages. A writer will need discipline, and Julia Cameron taught me to find it within myself. There was no great novel on the backburner - writing was a hard profession. But back to the discussion; the night pages idea came to me because getting up earlier in the morning can be hard for some. The purpose of it is to inspire creativity, but who can be creative that early in the morning? I found that I got most of my ideas running around at night anyways. So I began to write, and I stopped repeating myself. I found the night pages made me a different writer. It still can be hard for a writer to continue to write at night; you just might be tired then, too. Yet writing at night can be very productive; I found ideas for novels

In the contemplation of art, or rather the conceptually intangible definition it currently possess, it is imperative to be mindful that “art” has been utilized as a promotional device, ceremonial item, aesthetically purposed article or perhaps none of these or all. It is because of this vague term that Carolyn Dean, in her text, “The Trouble with (The Term) Art”, makes a case for the consequences of applying the term “art” in societies that lacked such a notion which also accounts for the Western-centric lens the field intrinsically utilizes when viewing non-Western art. The claim is deftly supported by the utilization of expert accounts in the subject, alternative perspectives for what is considered the current norm, and self-examining questions,

Art by its nature is a subject of the philosophical, social, economic, political or religious context surrounding its creator. More often than not, a work of art addresses a specific topic or somewhat revolves around a particular person. Therefore, it is impossible to separate the context of a piece of painting, either historical or cultural, to its intrinsic value or the artwork's meaning. On the other hand, different cultures and time utilized specific conventions that govern the representation of objects of creativity. This essay highlights various pieces of art and their relationship to particular cultural, political, economic, or social settings. Moreover, it pinpoints how different times influence art presentation.

Art is one aspect of the past that has carried on for decades. Art in any form may it be poetry, novels, and playwright, sculpting as well as painting, has been an outlet for generations and continues to be an outlet and a means for expression. This paper will discuss “ The Mona Lisa” one of Da Vinci’s most famous paintings, as well as another great painting, Antonio Veneziano’s

Maggie Saldivar’s Toulmin Schema argues whether or not Art should have a definition, and if so what its definition should really be. The Schema outlines what many well-known Artists define as of Art, some of which correlated with her claim, while others were relatively specific, and opposed/challenged her claim. The author's original claim; Art should not have a definition, was not altered throughout the process of writing the Toulmin Schema, and therefore it’s qualifier is nearly identical to the beginning claim.

Understanding art is often thought of as being an unreachable goal, but art should not be considered arbitrary because it influences the cultures and societies around us. The purpose of this paper is to define and also establish my opinions on Pensacola Christian College’s (PCC) definition of art, the bibliosophy of art, and Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s criteria for art. These topics are useful for artists as well as anyone else critiquing art, and can also serve as guidelines and standards for an artist when they create art.

Throughout human history people used to capture the reality of their time, express their feelings and share their impressions by copying both literally or figurative the mundane. The so-called artists have had different impacts in society all along the centuries. Only a few are currently taught in school, although the reverberation of their work is still impregnated in XXI Century. Nowadays, the term ‘artist’ can be used in reference of painters, sculptors, writers, singers, choreographers and other professions whose production are considered valuable culturally speaking. One of the main problems is that their work produce such a magnificent impact on the audience the artist is set aside and usually forgotten as a person, so they feel their rights to be violated.

The way we see and perceive this art is predetermined by a variety of different factor ranging from cultural background to socioeconomic status. “A people or a class which is cut off from its own past is far less free to choose and to act as a people or class than one that has been able to situate itself in history. This is why -- and this is the only reason why -- the entire art of the past has now become a political issue” (J. Berger pg. 33) He argues that if a group of people are robbed of being able to create their own culturally relative and socially correct standards for art, then they are being oppressed from engaging as political equals. People use art to understand their place within world history and create social and political meaning for themselves or their culture. Art gives you the power to control how people perceive the past, the present and possibly even the future. Although now the ability to control what art people see isn’t as “regulated” as it once was, but prior to the invention of the camera and the internet, art was controlled by the minority of the elite and wealthy. “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (J. Berger, Pg.157). The upper class mystifies the general population to stay in control; without the ability to see things through our own eyes, people are being deprived of their right to understanding themselves and placing themselves in a role of society. Mystification contributes a negative influence on our society. Mystifying of art distinguish upper class and low class, and more importantly causes the past of certain groups and cultures, such as women,

Philosopher Arthur Danto, author of “The Artworld,” an artistic criticism, states that “to see something as art requires something that the eye cannot descry—an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld” (201). Artistic theory, according to Danto, requires the presence of a subject, style, rhetorical ellipses, and that of historical context. Danto is capable of developing this view on art with the aid of an imaginary character, Testadura. Testadura, however, makes mistakes, as well as corrections, about the objects before him.

The field of art history, like any discipline, is a wide and varied area of study. There are seemingly thousands of ways to interpret works of art and their places in history. Each has their own pros and cons and can greatly help to understand art and art-objects. In this semester’s Introduction to Art History course, we learned three different approaches art historians take when interpreting works of art: an object-oriented view, an artist-centered view, and an approach through medium. These approaches generally fall within one of two categories. The approaches through object and medium focus on readily apparent cues and symbols in the art object being studied. These approaches rely less on a study of history and more on visual evidence. The

The purpose of art and even the very definition of art has been a hotly debated topic since the first man depicted animals on cave walls. Through the centuries, pieces of artistic endeavors have been produced, intended with both public and private audience. Ancient pharaohs and emperors had a very specific purpose, which varied greatly from a simple collector of aesthetically pleasing objects. The viewer of the art is ultimately the one who decided what the piece means, if anything, and with that, how they will receive it. They chose to internalize the message or merely take it at face value. By looking at the way the audience of an art piece, one can gain a better understanding of the society as a whole. Taking that response and matching it

Arthur C. Danto in “The Artworld” provides us with the argument that, “To see something as art requires something that the eye cannot descry-an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.” Danto shows us the importance of the artworld in order to know that a work of art is more than just what we can plainly see. Danto provides two theories he calls the “IT” (Imitation theory) and the “RT” (Reality theory). With these two theories, Danto explains how we can define art and why “The Artworld” is needed to help understand art, because after all, “these days one might not be aware he was on artistic terrain without an artistic theory to tell him so.”

As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art