blog01

What is art? Art is something which is hard to quantify. The readings doesn't answer what is art but focuses on the point of how to look at it and how it can be categorized into reconizable pieces. "Formal Matters" is just the beginning on how to think about critiquing art. The chapter begins with a discussion of form vs content in order to talk about composition. Is the composition tell a story or does its placement relate to formalist qualities?Does one have a greater value over the other? Will narrative be more important than the objects themselves? Without narrative do objects become formulaic, following formalist rules?

Does being able to paint, draw or sculpt with machine like accuracy make one a better artist? Does photo realistic renditions say more or less then a cartoon character? Technique an craftsmanship are appreciated in the arts but are they necessary? Where should the line be drawn?

“The challenge to be a realist, is no longer a necessity, though

considered a praiseworthy skill.”

- Nichole

I have to agree with Nicole on this point, with the invention of modern technology it becomes less and less important to imitate reality. With a camera it is possible to capture reality quicker then is possible with drawing. Harold Edgerton a photographer known for his stop action photos considered himself a scientist rather than an artist though many of his photographs are considered art. The benefits of art that I see is not in capturing reality but in creating the imaginary.

The section on realism got me thinking. What we say is real is based entirely on our perception so if we reverse it, what we cant not perceive is therefore not real. Taking this one step further, imagine a sculpture stored inside an ordinary box and the sculpture is something that will never be observed by an audience. Playing with the idea of reality in the mind of the viewer. To the viewer the sculpture does not exist since it can not be perceived.

Did the chicken come first or the egg? Do I make the work using these artistic elements or do I make the work relying on intuition to guide then later attributing artistic elements to it? Many of my ideas begin with a humorous narrative which I then abstract and simplify. It is my worry that by following a rigid set of theories my work will end up being formulaic and predictable.

Just wanted to say I never did this blogging thing before so not sure if I'm doing this right. ^_^