When it comes to art appreciation and definition one is left at odds when societal practices do not reflect theoretically sound arguments regarding the identity of a work. On one hand, paintings like the Mona Lisa are displayed with great importance in museums around the world, with thousands of visitors daily trekking to see “the” Mona Lisa, while just outside vendors are selling copies on canvas, poster and magnet of the very same image. To help in the understanding of this phenomenon, and to determine the work identity of the Mona Lisa, we shall examine the validity of arguments put forth by Frank Sibley in “Why the Mona Lisa May Not be a Painting” which draws upon several concepts of art identity put forth by Goodman and Elgin in “Interpretation and Identity: Can the Work Survive the World?”. After this examination I will briefly add on to Sibley’s arguments bringing them a step further in conclusion, but let us first begin with the establishing principles of work identity proposed in the two articles.
When introducing the concept of text being equal to work, Goodman proposes literary pluralism; where one text produces one work with multiple valid, and allowably contradictory, interpretations. This pluralism is present only in allographic art forms that are not linked to physical objects. “Pluralism about literature seems more plausible than pluralism about reality”. He argues that literature may have interpretations that conflict, but in the physical world one cannot
In today’s society, we are constantly being bombarded with visual art forms. Whether they be classical paintings from the Renaissance, a towering and modern skyscraper, or even a cheesy 90’s R&B music video, they all have one thing in common. According to Carolyn Dean’s definition, these would all fall under the category of “art by intention.” In her essay “The Trouble with (The Term) Art” she advocates a distinction between art by intention and what she deems “art by appropriation.” The difference is that one work was created with the intention of being consumed for visual pleasure, while the other was not. However having been educated in the Western school of thought, many art historians cannot help but project their rigid definition of art onto civilizations that may have
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.
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,
If the image is no longer unique and exclusive, the art object, the thing, must be made mysteriously so,” (Berger 44). Therefore, the final step in the exploitation of power is mystification of its origins. Over time a concept will build its image and solidify its strength through results, showing the public its value until it becomes integrated and thus, hidden within society. There are several examples of power that has become formally accepted or internalized by the public and it is difficult to see how they exploit power because their origins are mystified. For the concept of originality in art, we can see how its status may have risen because of the definition we give to “originality” rules that have commercial purposes or vice versa. Some examples include companies that have copyright issues to protect names and identities that belong to them, or schools that incorporate rules about plagiarism. The idea of originality has already become internalized within our society that assigning a market meaning with it, just seems natural. If our judicial system has already incorporated ideas of “originality”, then not many people will see any problems with it. However, it is important to look at the origins and realize how a power came to be to prevent it from being exploited. Another covert concept integrated within society
With images, words, and sounds been almost endlessly reproduced and distributed, various critics of modern culture suggest that traditional ideas about art and authenticity are no longer applicable. The problem is said to have been noticed back in the 1930s in the popular essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction that was concerned about what would happen to the “aura” of unique works of art when photography and other techniques if anybody could make unlimited copies of images. With the rise of digital technology, copying ability became vast and complex and hence the idea of originality is thrown into
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.
Positioned alongside Central Park within the heart of New York City, The Metropolitan Museum of Art is one of the largest and most influential art museums in the world. The Met houses an extensive collection of curated works that spans throughout various time periods and different cultures. The context of museums, especially one as influential as the Met, inherently predisposes its visitors to a set of understandings that subtly influence how they interpret and ultimately construct meanings about each individual object within a museum. By analyzing two separate works on exhibit at the Met, I will pose the argument that museums offer a unique expression of a world view that is dictated through every element of its construction.
The Mona Lisa has to be one of my favorite paintings of all time and has lead me to use this specific painting as a topic for this paper. Not to mention the love I have for Leonardo da Vinci. I, myself have always been drawn to da Vinci’s paintings and all of his other achievements that he has given us during his life. I, like Leonardo da Vinci love art and science just as much as it seems he did. He shares a love of art and a fondness for science. It also seems that he loves a good mystery, and the Mona Lisa just happens to be one clouded in mystery. And I too love a good mystery.
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.”
Just as other works that reflect art, pieces in the category of fine arts serve the important message of passing certain messages or portraying a special feeling towards a particular person, function or activity. At times due to the nature of a particular work, it can become so valuable that its viewers cannot place a price on it. It is not the nature or texture of an art that qualifies it, but the appreciation by those who look at it (Lewis & Lewis, 2008).
Art is all around us. There are many different forms of art. It can be something created, captured, or it can be already existent. Not a single person is to say what makes something art because there is a different definition for everyone. However, there are a couple factors that come into mind whenever someone decides to declare something as art. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting four different pieces of art. I will be discussing each art piece’s form, time period of creation, intention or purpose, and value. These four pieces of art are Michelangelo’s Pieta, Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, Mark Rothko’s No.61, and the “Oyster Dress” by Alexander McQueen. These works of art come in all different shapes and sizes but they are valued
"A picture can paint a thousand words." I found the one picture in my mind that does paint a thousand words and more. It was a couple of weeks ago when I saw this picture in the writing center; the writing center is part of State College. The beautiful colors caught my eye. I was so enchanted by the painting, I lost the group I was with. When I heard about the observation essay, where we have to write about a person or thing in the city that catches your eye. I knew right away that I wanted to write about the painting. I don’t know why, but I felt that the painting was describing the way I felt at that moment.
As onlookers peer into the artworks in front of them, there is no question as to whether or not they considered what the artwork means, where it came from and what the artist was interested in who created it. The
Leonardo Da vinci painted the “Mona Lisa” in 1503. The artist portrays a young woman, which acquires the concept of feminine youth and more essentially the concept of elegance. In relation to Agnolo firenzuola’s novel “On The Beauty Of Women” , the portrait attributes to major physical characteristics in which is considered to be genuine beauty by the modern man. Seeing the female portraiture of the italian renaissance, Firenzuola implies a specific interpretation by analyzing the modern woman. Through the famous paintings illustrated by Leonardo da Vinci, the Mona Lisa specifically supports the arguments and claims made by the poet’s correspondence to the beauty of women. Along with Da Vinci’s sticking features, the artist paints Firenzuola’s ideal beauty in comparability to the appearance of definitive grace. With his analyzations being extremely aesthetic, Firenzuolo activates criticizing aspects of the proportions of the figure, the placement of the figure’s position and the importance of the half length portrait of the feminine nature in relation to the portraiture of Mona Lisa.
The history of art dates back to ancient times. Artwork can be, and was, found around the world. What makes art interesting is that it can be created in any way, shape or form with any materials. It seems that the artwork can also tell us a lot about the artist. Art seems to be simply, a direct, visual reflection of the artist’s life. Therefore, one can assume that an artist’s life experiences and beliefs directly influence their art. If we look at examples from different periods of art we will be able to see the connection between the artist and the art.