Musings on the Pretend Theory

“When one is pretending the entire body revolts”- Anais Nin


In pretending, our bodies do kind of revolt, but I believe that this is when we are forcing ourselves to pretend. We are naturally pretending creatures and lying creatures and pretend in order to better ourselves and to find recreation. When I pretended as a little kid to be fighting with my friends, I think it very well could have been a reflection of what was happening over in Iraq and pretending, for children, is a way of coping. For adults and adolescents, it is very different and forms and it hurts us so much that our bodies must revolt.

Kendall Question 2

Is it worthwhile to acknowledge that one is pretending to feel certain emotions about a narrative work or is it better to just feel the “pretend” human emotion and enjoy the work? Is it better living in the darkness about this particular human phenomenon?

I do not think it is worthwhile to think this way but I think that it is important to think about the quality work through literature, music, art, and film. There is good art and bad art, of course, and I think it is more important to think about and analyze the good art which has meaning to human beings. Human beings search for meaning and for knowledge and I believe that they can find that from analysis of good art. Even watching a film for the umpteenth time, one can still feel emotion and while that may be pretending, there is something to be gained from this imaginary emotion, a glimpse into what it really feels like.

I admire when people simply enjoy a great work of literature or a magnificent piece of art, but I think that there is something more to think about with especially profound ideas in literature.

Kendall Question 1

How does one apply Kendall’s “pretend theory” to music and visual art?

These two are not, at first, apparent as narrative art-forms and as artists and musician created art in the 20th century, visual art and music have lost, almost completely, their narrative structure. In a van Gogh painting, there is a story and in a jazz song, there is also a story. But we begin to lose those narratives all too quickly. Paintings become abstract and music becomes extremely experimental and I do not think that it is so easy to characterize music and art in the postmodern world.

So, do we "pretend" with these kinds of works? No, I do not think so. We do not pretend, we simply conceptualize and accept what we see, and we accept the emotions. I see this as the biggest flaw in the "pretend theory" in making music and art narrable. 

Answer to Nicole's Question

Think back to the last time you played make-believe. Compare it to reading a book or enjoying some other narrative art-form. Are they completely the same? What are some similarities? Differences?


The last time I came remember playing make-believe is when I had duels or massive battles with my friends using toy lightsabers or plastic guns. I remember always getting quite a lot of adrenaline from running around the yard and having to fight for my life, since I was usually the one who died first. This form of make-believe was based more or less off of Star Wars and action movies to which America is inured. However, on the turn side, I have read books and seen films depicting violence in such a way that frightens and unhinges my soul. There is a lot more attached to the deaths of soldiers in literature and artistic film. For example, though I have not read War and Peace, I still can see the deterioration of the soldiers' minds and the country's former glory. I never felt anything of the such while playing these backyard games. I never thought about how what I was doing was an ironic juxtaposition to a terrifying war-like nation into which I was being raised and would have to face.


This backyard play-battle is a simulation of what war would be like and it is sick to understand how we are being raised on war and violence only to go away to war because we believe it is right for our country. The biggest difference is that this is even less real than reading about war in a novel or in a movie because in good literature and film, one can see how a director or writer juxtaposes his or her film or novel to the real world and human beings' behavior.This would never be achieved with the simple toiling of children--we cannot even begin to understand what a horribly war-mongering race of people we are even as we fight and simulate backyard battles over and over again, rising up again as some strange, undead product of our battlling America.

Art Auction

Here is the auction which Professor Johnson brought up in class on Wednesday. It is interesting to see how much these paintings go for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/arts/04iht-melikian04.html?_r=2&smid=tu-share

Musings on Imagination

“Conversation about the weather is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” --Oscar Wilde


It was also said about the filmmaker Akira Kurosawa that he never talked about the weather but simply worked and worked on scripts and ideas for more films. But I believe that all creative individuals are like this because I am also like this. I do not like to focus on the mundane details of life. Of course, the weather can be interesting, but I am sure Wilde is talking about your run-of-the-mill meteorologist report which is dull and only for practical value. I believe in talking about imaginative ideas which will entertain my ideas for novels and poems. Imagination is important in order to avoid the mundane and for those who do not have so much hope in their lives because now they can imagine something better for themselves instead of the depressing ideas that filled their mind.


However, this entertains a romantic notion which I am not too fond of, and I do not believe in: that we can imagine things and they will be better. Sometimes things are not so simple.

Answer to Nicole's Post

We have been recently talking about the concept of Beauty and the concept of Creativity. What do you think the relationship is between the two? Are creative things beautiful? Do we recognize true creativity through beauty? Or does creatvity perhaps need traditional concepts of beauty in order to be able to create something worthy of being labled "beautiful"?


Not all creative objects are beautiful but a lot of the time, they can have aesthetic qualities which the artist has introduced into the artwork in order for it to appear agreeable. On the turn side, in literature, there are words that sound better and agree in sentence harmony. I do not believe all creative objects need traditional objects of beauty to be considered beautiful because even though a postmodern work of art may not be naturally formed, one can see the beauty of what the artist is trying to convey about the world and art. I find that beautiful and in literature, there are often grim subjects expressed but in a beautiful way which are not so frightening which we turn away to. Art and literature and music has to become a lot more dysfunctional before it will upset us entirely.


And the laws of art will not allow this to happen because everything in art, literature, and music must have some form, even if it is free form, and so total chaos and a mess would not make sense for any art form.

Question 2 on Taylor/Claxton

Comment on the sentence: “One might say the same about knowledge: it must derive from experience in a way which can in principle be reproduced by others. Imagination is a private thing, the leap of a single brain from established fact to exciting novelty.”

In the beginning sentence, Taylor is comparing knowledge to the language example of how language is public not private and knowledge may be the same way. However, not everyone has access to knowledge, or, if they do, they do not utilize it very effectively. For example, many towns have public libraries but very few people use them or buy books because of how materialistic America is become. Imagination is the private one but I think that imagination can be shared through language. One can share imagination through a novel, a poem, a song, a painting and in that way, the imagination becomes public.

However, it is nice to think of imagination as "all to ourselves" which it is if we do not share it or only share certain features of it by its leaking through what we create in artwork or literature. On the turn side, imagination can still use experience if one is to imagine greater. One must experience more things in life in order to imagine more just as one must experience more in order to have a vaster knowledge. And the experience that comes with knowledge is a kind of laid back experience which seeps into the imagination while with the knowledge, we must think and remember. I think that is why imagination receives all this discredit. 

Question 1 on Taylor/Claxton

Comment on the “nots” of creativity.

In Professor Guy Claxton's, paper, he talks about the "not" in creativity which have a considerable amount of truth about them. I agree with him when he says that creativity is not always artistic and that human beings use creativity to do everyday tasks. Creativity is not some great quality that only artists are capable--every human being can be creative and that is how it should be in the real world. In a comic "not,", Claxton says that one does not have to dress a certain way in order to be creative. I believe that this is very closely applicable to those who dress in Bohemian art towns, such as North Adams, especially young adults. Young adults feel that by dressing in different fashions and wearing attention-catching outfits that they are becoming more artistic. This is not the case, as Claxton says, and he adds later on that creativity is not wacky and creativity can be writing poems about nature which is perfectly artistic. One does not have to be creating some dysfunctional artwork or piece of writing which does not even function because it is so wacky and strange.

One of the more interesting statements he makes is that "dancers think hard, just as much as scientists need to dream." So often the sciences are separated from the arts and I find that to be rather unfortunate because the sciences have a very good place among the arts, albeit some opinions of modern day scientists do not belong in the artworld, but all other disciplines have something to offer the art world and creativity which is how it should be.

Musings on Art and Beauty

"It is art that makes life, makes interest, makes importance . . . and I know of no substitute whatever for the force and beauty of its process." Henry James


Henry James, here, is saying that art has no substitute in making life beautiful, interesting, or important and that life is inherently beautiful. But going off his quote, is it possible for human beings to lead ugly lives or do we all lead some beautiful life in one way or another? Are all our lives somehow beautiful? The convict and the artist live a beautiful life together? That seems like a quite unruly statement to make, however, I think one can see beauty in many things such as films like It's a Beautiful Life and American Beauty tend to show us.


Moreover, art does equate with life because we began as creative beings and those who try to suppress the artistic, creative impulses of human beings is doing humanity a disservice. I think it is important for everyone to be creative and artistic on different levels, because not everyone wants to be an artist or a writer and that is acceptable, but everyone should be creative for humanity's continuation as a successful species. And the artists bring the greatest beauties to humanity, without which we would never be able to redeem ourselves from sharp blankets of pain and despondency we feel.

Musings on Beauty

"A great artist must be shaken by the naked truths that will not be comforted. This divine discontent, this disequilibrium, this state of inner tension is the source of artistic energy." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


In this eloquent quote, Goethe remarks how the artist can never truly be comforted, but I find it interesting that Nehamas says the artist lives in beauty. Isn't the beauty then comforting for the artist? Or is there no comfort until the artist dies like Vincent van Gogh or Emily Dickinson? Goethe calls the discontentment divine which is very curious because one does not often think of such a thing or a disequilibrium as divine, but all these negative passions serve for the artist's creative energy, as Goethe says.

Nehamas Question 2

What does Nehamas mean by stating “It is possible that spending a life, or part of a life, in the pursuit of beauty—even if only to find it, not to produce it—gives that life a beauty of its own?”

In this eloquent statement, Nehamas brings forth the idea that pursuing a life of beauty is so rewarding and that such a life is truthfully beautiful. I completely believe this statement to have great truth and that those who simply seek beauty are just as beautiful as those who create beauty. Although, those who create beauty lead some interesting, usually turbulent lives but they die the most beautiful of deaths. On Emily Dickinson's deathbed, she said as her dying words: "the fog is lifting" which is most interesting because she had a very painful life full of beautiful poetry. It is comforting knowing that she died a beautiful death and was finally at peace. 

Nehamas Question 1

What does Nehamas mean by saying “Bloom talks of reading “deeply”: I distrust that word, with its suggestion that there is a rock-bottom. Think instead of reading, or looking, or listening, as a broadening of vision. The better you come to know something you love in itself, the better you understand how it differs from everything else, how it does something that has never been done before?”

Here, Nehamas means that, in analysis, one should not be looking for one specific part, otherwise known as the bottom, in a work of art but rather understanding all aspects. Thinking about all the aspects of a work of art in different perspectives and different philosophies gains a broader image of the work of art instead of just finding the "bottom" of it. For example, looking at Vincent van Gogh's Starry Night, one sees a starry night with Cyprus trees, and one may not even know they are Cyprus trees. But if one looks deeper, analyzes more, one will discover more about the art and form one's own opinion about which, with support from others' opinions, can be a completely valid opinion.

Also, if one is a writer or artist, one simply must understand a work "does something that has never been done before," as Nehamas eloquently argues. One cannot write or paint anything better than what one knows and knowing a work of art or literature will expand one's creative mind unthinkably so that one can do something even more innovative than the last innovator.

"To say that a work of art is good, but incomprehensible to the majority of men, is the same as saying of some kind of food that it is very good but that most people can't eat it." --Leo Tolstoy


Leo Tolstoy is eloquently stating here that a work of art should be shared with the world, especially if the work of art in question is of substantive goodness and greatness. I believe that Tolstoy has a wonderful point: no work of art should be hidden from the world and it should be shown the way the artist intended it to be. However, the Nazis burned and destroyed so many beautiful works of art which humanity will never be able to see, some works by artists as famous as Rafael. Also, the Nazis had the Degenerate Art exhibit which did not show Jewish art the way the artists had intended it to be shown, there was a horrible bias laid upon it of hate and disdain.


Moreover, art should be able and has the ability to be comprehended by any human being alive in the world who feels and sees as a human being does, even the insane and the lonely. 

Musings on Noel Carrol

Although I think that Carrol has a very good and thorough philosophy and theory about identifying art, I believe that one must use subjective sense in order to identify good art and then find support through different theories and thinkers. Carrol's theory of the narrative approach I find very useful for verifying something as art in the sense that the contemporary piece of art, for me, it is mostly literature, in question borrows elements from past stylistic eras. These elements serve as evidence for an artist being well-versed in the past and the execution in the art form serves as a demonstration which is, more or less, subjective. However, the whole process of judging an artist's execution in an art form cannot be solely subjective, one must base it on facts and evidence and I think comparing a contemporary piece of art to a classic is how that is best achieved without subjective opinion. However, a subjective undertone can still be understood by which classic one chooses to compare the contemporary art piece in question to.

Question 2 on Carrol

What would a perfect artworld look like? Are all art pieces accepted or is the “failed art” simply cast aside and the more prestigious art is let in?

A perfect artworld, as I have talked about in previous posts is, of course, subjective. I believe the artworld should include all things art, literature, music, dance, etc., the failed and the successful. This war with the successful and failed art is something I feel necessary in the artworld, as well, as those artists and appreciators who do not understand the difference and find all art good as opposed to those who know good art from bad art. That constant war there helps create a balance and continuity for successful art. Every piece of art should be in the artworld because it is called the "artworld" hence and because the bad art serves as fuel for the successful artists to be even better.

Question 1 on Carrol

What are the main fallacies of the narrative approach? How could they be solved with further application of theory or amendment?

The main fallacies of the narrative approach are that everyone must agree upon a starting point for the narrative to begin, unless it is to be the first art object ever created ever time the narrative approach is going to be utilized. But starting in the Renaissance period as everything being defined as bona fide art, then it is relatively easy to use the narrative approach. However, many other fallacies arise after that, like the piece of art in question being relative enough to a Renaissance piece which complete undermines the narrative approach which says the art in question must be compared to the most recent art movement in history. And each art movement which is not considered authentic and artistic enough must be proved next to the last one, so on and so forth.

With the application of theory, provided that certain individuals do not completely deny theory or the application of it, one can see the depth in art. However, "depth" implies that art and the meaning of it has a bottom which is not true. But then the vicious cycle of art having endless meaning with different ideas applied to it comes along. Theory must be applied only when necessary and cannot be overbearing. For example, Pablo Picasso wrote a manifesto about why he used cubism and provided evidence. This is also an important aspect for defining postmodernist art which relies solely on theory with the minor visual aspects. The problem therein lies in the application of too much theory which afflicts much of the postmodern artworld of today.

Musings on Dickie

I believe that Dickie makes a valid idea conception by proposing that the artworld should only allow certain people into it because no everyone is an artist or a creative person (even though human beings are inherently creative). And Dickie also relates an inner circle of the artworld which is more selective and I think it is in this place where the sincerity lies. Even though Robert Louis Stevenson completed Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde in approximately six days, he would still be in that inner circle because of his sincerity to his art. He was most definitely passionate about his art form. As said in class, content is not relative to form in this sense. If the art form is completely sincere, it does not matter how little time or how long it takes.

However, many people of the post-modern age get grouped into this inner circle, I think, without justification. One simply has to be an artist and one is sincere. But the artworld and art and literature do not work that way in general. One cannot simply be an artist and be included in the sincere vision of the artworld. I think combining Leo Tolstoy's theory with Dickie's makes for a very good philosophy about who is an artist and what is art.

Dickie Question 2

What is the artworld for Dickie? Is there any way we can officially define the artworld or is everybody in artworld? Is the invention of the artworld too critical and centralized on certain people who claim to be artistic?

The artworld for Dickie, though poorly and loosely defined, is the worldly group of all artists, but Dickie also says that there are inner groups in the artworld. Regardless, the artworld is all creative people in the world, including engineers and building people. However, by human nature we are all creative, constructing (sometimes destructive) individuals and should all be included in the artworld's circle. So, who then is excluded from the artworld?

There is, I believe, some elite group in the artworld, or out of the artworld (critics perhaps?), who decide who is an artist and who is not. However, this is completely unreliable and is the major flaw in Dickie's plan for the world. How do we decide? Any which way we decide will have judgment and bias layered on top of it. Therefore, I think one of the best ways to avoid this is to invoke Leo Tolstoy's philosophy of the artist's sincerity and determine the artist by sincerity. Of course, this determination of sincerity would have to be done on a person-to-person basis and would take a long time but would establish who is in the inner circle of the artworld, the outer circle, and not at all in the artworld.

Dickie Question 1

Think of modern and post-modern artists who have had their artistic artwork theories vindicated and authenticated by “professionals” in the inner of the artworld. Are they correct, are the critics’ opinions biased in the vindication of the theory, or is this way of art completely irrational?

Again, we have Dickie's circularity where he does not provide substantional information for an argument like this. However, stepping away from Dickie, one can look at the artworld today and see the flaws and perhaps compose a better definition of who should be let into the artworld. Though this sounds pretentious, I think people should still be able to create art but there are some people who are too ignorant, inexperienced, or insincere to be placed in the art world or be accepted as "worthy artists." Ironically, such a statement sounds insincere and judgmental but looking at the art of many people in the post-modern artworld, I feel it is a worthwhile statement. Many people in the post-modern artworld regarded as professionals lack that sincerity and intense study of art.

All art and literature is built upon what was prior to it and I believe that many artists in the post-modern artworld fail to see that. However, I could be very wrong and they could have studied art for a very long time and I could be the one who is being most insincere. The fault here is that the viewer of art would need to talk with the artist instead of seeing the sincerity in his or her work. I think this kind of paradigm counters what previously happened in viewing art. For example, viewers could see the sincerity in art and literature without having to speak with the artist. In other words of a cliche: "the art spoke for itself."

Answer to Nicole's Question

On page 431 in our book, Dickie claims that institutional formality and rules for art “would threaten the freshness and exuberance of art.” In what ways would rules and formalities do this? In what ways could these things promote and sharpen creativity? Is it possible to conceive of art without a certain set of rules and expectations?
Artists and writers already have rules, in fact, certain modern artists have written manifestos specifically detailing their rules, though maybe not so formal and pretentious, they are still rules. There are rules and structures for poetry and novels which do not threaten the freshness of art because they are altered by everyone new author who adopts a new hybrid methodology for literature and poetry. Moreover, in art, there is methodology of art and the form that goes on in the brushstrokes, as well as the theory which has permeated modern and post-modern art. I personally believe that such methodology and rules (which can be broken) are vitally important. 


However, I do not think it is beneficial to conceive art without a certain set of rules or expectations because there has to be a basis on which art is made. Therefore, there is a necessity for rules but one should be allowed to break the rules in order to serve one's own methodology. 

Music Musings

I am a musician and reading Kivy's and Hansick's works have allowed me to think about how I play and compose. I have considered why I am not so much a musician and more of a writer and it is because music is so distinctive in physical properties as opposed to conceptual ones. Music should not be abandoned though, I think it needs to go to a new path, and not repeat the same kind of song forms which we have seen throughout time.

Music theory is an excellent way to explore music and advance it. When I play through a piece of music, I find it important to look at what the musician does with the chords and notes and learn from it, as well as experience the emotion. Music relies very much on our ability to participate in the musical flow, which, I think is always relative back to natural sounds and the tempo of nature.

Music Question 2

Does the simplification in music on minimalism and modernism reflect a simplification in human emotions and movements? Are human beings unable to feel more complex emotions because of the simplification of our music?

I do believe that the simplification of music has, in some part, taken a toll on our creativity and our emotional status, but not in full but minimalist music lends its way to different philosophies and thoughts which we would not have had before with more complex music. Though minimalist music is simple to create, I do believe that there is some minimalist music which is more developed. For example, a modern song could have a chord progression of Am, G, and F, but a more developed minimalist song would utilize those chords in different, innovative new ways which would express a new way of thinking.

Moreover, music is something difficult to advanced because there is only so much one can do with it and I feel it is too closely tied to form.

Music Question 1

Without music, would we, as human beings, be able to perceive the musical wavelengths that lighten our lives? Would we hear them as some musical philosophers have stated before?

According to John Cage, in an interview, music in all sounds around us but we choose to only focus on the pitched sounds. Though this may be a modern philosophy, not accepted before the 20th century, I believe it is still very worthwhile and one can expand one's mind by looking at natural sounds as music. Natural sounds, after all, do keep some kind of tempo and the more sporadic sounds which we humans make are like sporadic music. John Cage reports in his interview that hearing traffic is beautiful to him because it is the simple agglomeration of noise. Therefore, I do not believe we would suffer without music, but I believe we would be very different and think, perhaps more chaotically without the organized, pitched music.

Answer to Nicole's Question

Hanslick seems to imply, though, that there is something in music that we simply cannot put into words. What do you think this might be? Do you think he's right, that there is something mysterious and inaccessible to us in music? Does Kivy's proposal of emotional content hold against Hanslick's thesis?

So many people believe that music has some inaccessible quality which cannot be explained in words and this quality can be explained only by physics and the wavelengths of music which cause happy, sad, dark, or light sounds. It is almost objective that what we find pleasant or upsetting in music and no subjective as some people think. Hearing a dissonant chord, we will acknowledge that that sounds ugly, even if one is an extreme aficionado of metal or rock music, one can still distinguish an "ugly-sounding" chord.

However, many people would disagree with the idea that music can only be described in physical terms. Music does produce, for some people, emotional responses that can be traced to chord progressions but are not "inaccessible." Chord progressions work with specific chords that make specific noises for us to feel certain ways and I think that those emotions are set in that way.

Moreover, there is no way to prove emotional content in music other than a subjective view.


T

Carlson Question 2

Nature is slowly being destroyed, more and more everyday. Is it possible that we as human beings can find an alternative way to live without nature? What would this alternative to nature look like?

I think that if there were any alternative to nature, it would be in art and the capturing of nature through art. In years from now, we may not even know what nature is and we will have to have artistic records in order to appreciate nature. Ignoring the fact that we cannot live without nature, I think that having art as a backup to nature would be the best option since art is derived of nature.

Moreover, having art, literature, and music to tell us about nature would not provide the correct satisfaction which nature gives us. I think human beings would eventually decay mentally and would not have the same mental powers that we have with nature around. Nature provides our minds with something that cannot be attained through any other means; nature can only be imitated never replaced.

Carlson Question 1

Is nature important the human continuity and would we be able to survive without it, only viewing the aesthetic aspect of it and not the way it actually does provide us with life?

I do not feel that we would be able to survive with aesthetic beauty in the natural environment because there is a great peace and calmness which just looking at some trees or breathing in fresh air provides us. Just the visual aspect of nature is enough to provide a semblance which nothing we can create does for us. Additionally, a lot of art, literature, and music comes from the natural environment. For example, Antonio Vivaldi composed The Four Seasons and there are naturalist poets and writers like Walt Whitman, while, at the same time, Vincent van Gogh painted beautiful images of nature.

Human beings would not be able to survive and continue as a species without this visual, aesthetic beauty. I believe that there is a part of our brains which recognizes these aesthetic wonders and appreciates them so that we are more complete. Many people believe that aesthetics in art and nature are unimportant but I think that they are essential to life being continued. Something in our brains needs that aesthetic beauty and cannot simply live without it.

Answering the Question on Carlson

At the close of his essay, Carlson merely hints at the moral/ethical implications of arriving at a proper understanding of the natural environment as an object of aesthetic appreciation. What do you think they might be?

I think that Carlson means to hint at the morality of nature; human beings, who are meant to live symbiotically with their natural environment, have a moral obligation to treat the natural environment with care and love. However, with the advent of technology and the degradation of naturalism, the natural environment is suffering. One can see how the environment suffers just by looking outside, even in North Adams: there are cigarette discardings all over campus and throughout downtown. But this morality in nature is nigh impossible to achieve in the modern age.

Moreover, I think Carlson means to say that human beings should be moral and ethical in their observation of the natural environment as something that is aesthetically beautiful. One must be caring in observing nature and not abuse the privilege of being able to view something aesthetically beautiful as nature. On many trails, nature parks will tell the hikers to not abuse the trails or leave any trash which is one of the ideas at which Carlson is hinting. And overall, I think Carlson wants us, as human beings, to respect the natural environment and preserve it while appreciating nature as something aesthetically beautiful.

Answer to Nicole's Question on Carlson

Allen Carlson quotes Hepburn in saying that people who have the wrong sort of education or aren't in the right mindset to appreciate nature will either pay little heed to it or will look at it "the wrong way". Carlson seems to imply that for each setting there is a "right" mindset to have and way to view the landscape/ flower/ summer afternoon. 

Is this true? Or is it possible that there are multiple "right" ways to view a natural environment? Or is there no "right" way and perhaps only shades of appreciation?

I do not feel this is true at all and I think that all theories of how to appreciate nature are incorrect because they are all subjective. This subjectivity is relatable to any other form of opinion-based ideas about art, literature, and music, but with those three, there can be evidence, albeit human-based, to prove or disprove a subjective argument and make it more factually based. Therefore, on the turn side, all views on nature are correct even though not each one is individually correct. Every mindset of viewing nature is correct because if one creates a certain way of viewing nature, then one is creating an "ought." For example, if one's mindset is that nature should and will look best in flames, that is an "ought," one which many people would disagree with.

Thus, overall, there is no correct way to view a natural environment except one's own way in which one would suffer the delusion that one is correct.

Musings on Danto

I believe that much of post-modern art and literature is based on concepts and ideas which is worthwhile but the ideas are not themselves worthwhile which inhibits understanding and the quality of the artwork. I find that post-modern art and literature are not as sincere as anything which has come before it except for a select few. For example, a lot of post-modern literature does not rely upon that which has come before it and is very weak in its execution of story-lines, themes, and writing style.
   There is a post-modernistic idea that being different in literature and art makes art more interesting and "deeper", but this is a severe delusion of the post-modern generation. Being different and trying for originality does not ensure the effectiveness of a work of art. TS Eliot coined the term "the objective correlative" which proposes that a piece of literature or an artwork must include only the elements which forward the piece of art's or literature's idea. If there are elements which hinder the idea of a work, they are superfluous and should be edited out.
   Moreover, the quality of literature, art, and music suffers in the post-modern world. Nothing creative or relative to musical ideology is done except for a select few, and that is the same for literature and art: there are only a select few who can produce great art and literature.

Answer to Nicole's Question on Danto

Give an example from your own life in which you only fully understood and appreciated a work of art after it and the theory surrounding had been explained to you. Now think of a work of art you still dislike/don't understand and assess how an understanding of the theory behind it could change your mind

I never originally understood or liked Pablo Picasso's art but I never understood how deep his artwork really was. Cubism, as I have learned, is showing the inner depths of objects that sometimes two-dimensional cannot display as accurately. For example, Picasso wanted to show all angles of a violin in order for the viewer to gain all artistic and aesthetic pleasure from that violin. I have read some of Picasso writings and his theory is very well-developed and intelligent, as well as interesting and a pleasure to read.

I have viewed a piece of artwork that is simply conceptual and is composed of a stool with a wheel poised on top of it. I dislike this "piece of art" because I do not think it is art and there was any major artistic effort put into it. The stool merely had to be attached to the wheel and that was the extent of the effort. Contrary to Picasso's theory and work, this, I believe, has no theory and is not as developed visually. I would not consider this a sculpture or any other medium of artwork, and furthermore, I do not think the artist is sincere. However, I would be interested to read this artist's thoughts and writings. I could only know if there was a change in my thoughts when I read the theory.

Danto Question 2

Is an opinion formed without knowing conception or context equally as valuable as one which is formed upon the basis of the context? Is this opinion arrogant and naïve? Is ignorance sometimes better in the art world?

An opinion formed without knowing conception or context is equally as valuable as one formed with such information. Context is not important apart from understand a work of art or a work of literature. This opinion without conception or context is not naive, it is just not based on facts, and on feelings instead. Not knowing as much information about a work of literature does not decrease the pleasure and emotion attained from it. I would not say that this is being ignorant, but I think it is important that one eventually learn about the context or conception of a work of art or literature. Taking Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment into this argument, not knowing everything about Fyodor Dostoyevsky or the historical context in which the book was written. Although, knowing that Dostoyevsky felt guilty after his father's death and experienced psychological trauma in a camp in Siberia. That is equally as important but it can arrive later in appreciating a work of art or literature.

Not knowing information about a certain work of art is not better but is only sufficient for a time, but information should eventually be known about a work in order for more understanding to progress. 

Danto Question 1

Does an artist have to be academic in his or her method of creating art? Is the art made any less meaningful if they are not so? Is being intelligent in art the only criteria that separates good art from bad?

An artist, by no means at all, has to be academic although, it does not guarantee one to be a good artist to just be artistic. An artist should have a method in order to be good. One sees this possession of method throughout all the great artists and writers: Van Gogh, Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, etc. The list goes on and on and without method one cannot be a great artist. There is little method in books and art in post-modern art. For example the Twilight Series and The Hunger Games rely on very traditional story themes and story structures. Twilight takes from Wuthering Heights and Dracula and uses very little stylistic and thematic significance and finesse. The Hunger Games, though I have not read them, steal from The Most Dangerous Game  and the idea of having a dangerous game in which people have to participate along with a theme of animalism.

Art and writing, I think, must be intelligent and have method, however, there is a difference between art and writing being intelligent as opposed to being pedantic and conceited. Writing a lot and using advanced vocabulary does not show finesse and intelligence, it shows a lack thereof. If I write a poem with a lot of profanity but use line breaks successfully to show meaning of the human condition, I believe I have written a successful poem and I believe that is successful post-modern literature. On the hand, art which is post-modern does not rely on a certain method and relies on a concept more than it relies on the actual methodical creation of the art piece. Most post-modern art is very random and endeavoring difference and originality more than method and the actually creation--too much is focused on concept these days.

Musings about Weistz

Morris Weistz is my favorite theorist which we have read so far, if one can call him a theorist since he denies all theory. But Weistz definitely takes into account his own opinion and these theories of critics and skeptics (as I called them in my previous post). He knows what he wishes to see in a work of art but he also knows what he wishes to understand in a piece of art. There is his opinion and his theory comes in when he states at the end that all these art critics and theorists should be bundled together as a kind of "guideline" to understanding art. But no one theorist should be held highest above all.

Morris Weistz is especially good in my regard because he is not overly verbose and delivers his point very quickly unlike Hume who, I thought, talked about the same topic or idea for a very long time. Weistz has a simple point to make and he makes it in six pages, while involving examples and a couple other sources. That is very condensed and easy to understand and that is the main reason I enjoy his essay.

Question 2 on Weistz

Does Weistz’s “theory” or “non-theory” restrict the idea of what art should be still? Some artists believe that art is completely free and every opinion is right, but Weistz seems to not condone this kind of thinking.

Morris Weistz theory does not restrict the idea of what art should be since he demeans every other kind of theory about art, but he says that we can use other theories as "guidelines" to understand art better from other peoples' perspectives better. Contrary to the belief, though, of many contemporary artists: art is not free. You are restricting yourself in a different sense with art. There is structure and there is method in art and only good art has structure, style, and method. Many contemporary writers attempt to mix around the dramatic plot structure but completely fail because they do not first understand the structure or the method behind creating a story. Many artists today have the inability to communicate emotions in artwork because of a lack in finesse and style. It really is sad that artists today think that art is just being creative. There is much more involved: there is passion, there is agony, there is prowess, there is time, there is so much involved in creating a great work of art or a great story or a great song.

Question 1 on Weistz

If there had never been any theories about art or very few, would art have been as advanced as it has been without the criticism of essayists and critics whose writings we have read?

Most definitely art would not have advanced under criticism and judgement, much like science or any other discipline does. Although critics and criticism can be destructive and sometimes despicable, it is a necessity for art's continued existence and advancement. But also, I think, the artist's perseverance under criticism and insults is very important to this. Writers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians have been accused of doing their art badly or in a wrong way. But many years later, that art is viewed as beautiful and commendable. Artists have carried on doing their art in spite of pretentious critics, most notably Plato who came before many well-known artists. In Plato's shadow,  so many artists like Shakespeare, van Gogh, Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, Wagner, and many more have done their art and created masterpieces avoiding these words of critics and skeptics.

On the other hand, I think art would be changed indefinitely if critics and skeptics were more radical, like physically attacking writers or artists. Think of Stephen King almost getting assassinated because of his writing. It is a scary thought, but I am of the sure opinion that dedicated artists would keep on going with their art. Taking Fyodor Dostoyevsky into account, he was almost executed but still continued with his writing and his art. I think resilience to these critics and their absurdly rational notions is a very admirable quality. 

Answer to Nicole's Question

Art has long been established as actually being something physical, but as the 20th century has occurred, I think that idea has changed. Morris Weitz also wrote his essay on art less than a hundred years ago, which puts it into contemporary perspective for us. One could call the idea of thinking of concepts or philosophizing an art, and not simple in the mocking sense like: "There is an art to thinking, Joe-Bob." Taking this idea of something conceptual being art, one could even think of emotions being an art, even though they cannot be displayed or viewed aesthetically, which, I am sure, would be the criteria for some other philosopher's definition of art. I think it is for these reasons that I raised the somewhat foolish question in class of whether or not literature is an artifact. My thought process was something like this: I thought of the idea and the story not the physical book itself. And before the printing press and other ways of dedicating word to paper, stories were told aloud and in a nonphysical form. Do we exclude those stories as art? Are they only didactic instructions told in a story form?

As for physical items, anything could be art. A rocket going to the moon could be art, because it is created with innovative, creative intention. Purpose really does not matter in creating. I think human beings, most of all usually considered non-art objects, could be considered art. They are created by human beings but, as philosophers duly note, for no intended purpose. That is one of the biggest questions: What is our purpose? Do we have a purpose? But I am of the strong opinion that anything can be art. This notion does not mean that the art will be good, but I prefer to look at everything that is created like an art.

Musings on Bell

I think it is completely unnecessary to study Clive Bell and that other members from to Bloomsbury group should be studied, other philosophers from there perhaps. He does not propose a momentous idea, in fact, the most interesting thing about Clive Bell is his pretentiousness and pompousness. He is very full of himself and that gets in the way of any ideas getting past him.
   I think the only worthwhile idea presented in his essay Art is in the last paragraph of the whole essay when he states that "ideas of men go buzz." I think this idea is interestingly phrased, but has already been said countless times before and thus, Bell does not present anything new to the realm of philosophy or art.
   Additionally, Bell is also scraping along the lines of Plato and using this kind of otherworldly idea to present his ideas. Like Plato, Bell is closed-minded and is missing, almost avoiding, other subjects in the realm of art and philosophy. Clive Bell's philosophy and critiques, I think, are not valid and not essential to understanding art and philosophy.

Second Bell Question

   Do you think Clive Bell’s bad relationship with his wife had any effect on him? Did it affect the way he wrote and how pretentious he was?

Clive Bell and his wife Vanessa Stephan had quite the stormy marriage and were often with other men and women throughout their marriage until it ended shortly after it began. I am under the presumption that this heavily affected the way he philosophized, thought, and acted toward his general audience. Although there is no direct evidence in Art about his relationship to his wife, we can see how his biases could have possibly formed from his tumultuous marriage. Bell, without reason, says that The Doctor and Paddington Station are not pieces of art--he is a larger appreciator of abstract art but he should still be able to see the lines and colors in these paintings. However, I believe that he despises or envies the relationships, the particularly human relationships, in the paintings, even though they are very base: a doctor and his patient and the people in a train station. It is evident that Clive Bell did not have many close friendships or relationships.

   Adding on to this, Clive Bell was not able to see eye to eye with anyone, partly wont of the fact that he could not empathize with anyone or look from a different perspective than his own. It would not be surprising if we discovered that Clive Bell was also racist and extremely closed-minded to anything apart from what he likes. As an art critic, the critic is supposed to take all art into account and not just the art that one enjoys. Clive Bell sees any other art than the kind that he likes as bad art and un-aesthetic.

First Bell Question

   Would Bell’s essay even be functional if he was not so anti-representational and snobby as it is? Would his audience appreciate him more? Would his ideas have any foundation?

I do not think Bell's essay would even function without his anti-representationalism because that is how Bell gets his sharpness and his cunning throughout the essay. I am not complimenting him on this; I think it weakens the points he tries to make but he still executes it in a very intelligent way. Bell's aggression and spite to his readers does not aid his points in any way; on the contrary, it makes them less believable because they are more subjective. If Bell took away this subjective tone and actually supplied the reader with some tangible evidence as to what he is suggesting, then it would be more believable.

   I do not feel Bell's audience would not appreciate him any more even with his cynicism gone; his ideas would have no foundation and be without any power at all. Also, Bell is not artistic in any fashion as Tolstoy was or Dewey was with his use of metaphor, so his points about what art is, how it should be viewed, and its relation to mathematics are complete without basis. Bell write under the delusion that he completely understands art and the truth is: he does not and cannot write about that which he does not understand.

Paintings Bell Refers to

http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/paddington-station-art-or-not/

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&rlz=1C1PRFB_enUS444US445&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=5pPMn9SgUIWvKM:&imgrefurl=http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/paddington-station-art-or-not/&docid=Zo2oRaVTeDgSoM&imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2143/1919208076_15ab3706e6_o.jpg&w=1062&h=522&ei=93NBT96IOYnV0QG2u6TIDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=147&vpy=198&dur=490&hovh=157&hovw=320&tx=197&ty=91&sig=116678653288414116324&page=1&tbnh=86&tbnw=174&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=0CEgQrQMwAA

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&rlz=1C1PRFB_enUS444US445&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=8tqGW4oiHWPiwM:&imgrefurl=http://www.paintinghere.com/painting/The_Doctor_19997.html&docid=tT3ZL4pSn0Z4BM&imgurl=http://www.paintinghere.com/Uploadpic/Luke%252520Fildes/big/The%252520Doctor.jpg&w=720&h=490&ei=fHRBT4_eCK-70AGZ9vyyBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=167&vpy=185&dur=423&hovh=185&hovw=272&tx=134&ty=104&sig=116678653288414116324&page=1&tbnh=125&tbnw=166&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=0CEYQrQMwAA

Answer to Nicole's Question

How does Clive Bell establish that the aesthetic world is a "world with emotions of its own" in which "the emotions of life find no place" (267)? Do you think he explains this fully? Can you think of reasons or examples as to why he is right/wrong?


   Bell states in the previous paragraph that "to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions. Art transports us from the world of man's activity to a world of aesthetic exaltation." Clive Bell certainly does not explain this fully. He is very vague about what this world is and what composes it--just as Plato is extremely vague about what constitutes the Realm of Forms. He is wrong in saying that emotion is not correlated to aesthetic experience when he says: "For a moment, we are shut off from human interests; our anticipations and memories are arrested; we are lifted above the stream of life."
   I do not feel I could have aesthetic experience without my own experience, specifically, my memories and how my experience has shaped my way of viewing art. Also, Bell asserts: "I wonder, sometimes, whether the appreciators of art and of mathematical solutions are not even more closely allied. Before we feel an aesthetic emotion for a combination of forms, do we not perceive intellectually the rightness and necessity of the combination?" He introduces this notion that art is like mathematics which I find completely unfounded. He calls mathematics an abstract science, which it most certainly is not. (Physics is more close abstract). Art is the abstract science and Bell is very incorrect in saying that mathematics is abstract.
   He mentions the combination of forms in art later in the paragraph, half-contradicting what he previously said about art being its own world. The combinations provoke us to see a work of art and immediately say if it is good or not. But, then to reach this conclusion, we would have to use our emotions and experience. The flaw in Bell's logic is that he does not explain how we can judge art without having emotions, memories, and experience paired with our viewing of the art.

Thoughts on Dewey

   I find that Dewey presents interesting, still contemporary ideas. The one I find most interesting is that art is innate and prefigured in our very nature and that animals do not create "art" in the same way that we humans do. I still think animals create in their own fashion but it is not for pure aesthetic purpose. Although I would say that all nature is a kind of art. Plato says it is kind of a divine art, coming from God or some supreme being.
   Although, I feel that since he is speaking from a critic's perspective, he loses some of the emotional gunpowder of the artistic community. He does not present the case of art being prefigured in human beings' nature as quite so desperate as he makes his metaphors of, for example, the lightning or the mountain.
   However, I do feel that John Dewey could have talked about an experience and experiencing something by using a different word or, perhaps, an analogy for the continuum of experiencing something. As I understand it, an experience happens and is complete but the continued experience of that experience can be like a memory or the invocation of such feelings associated with that experience.

Dewey: Second Question

How would your life be different if art was more censored (like in Plato’s “utopian society”) or if it was vastly limited and dry? Almost like how the Puritans viewed art? Would this change your life entirely? Would you still be alive?

Simply put: I would not be alive without art. Art is my life. I am a writer, composer, artist, actor, and slew of sub-artistic fields. Art is what allows me to understand the humanly insane world around us and how humans act the way they do. I would not want to stray away from this form of the truth, as I see it. I think it is truly a crime for art to be censored, especially in the 2000 year era. I do not think censoring art makes a population any better--it just makes the government worse and more under the assumption that what they are doing is good for the people.

   If art, specifically literature, was written in a Puritan, dry format, I do not think I would be an English major and a writer. I would not have the influence and the previous ideas of great writers for how to write well and emotionally. When I write, I want to show people how they feel and that I feel the same way. I would like my writing to be understood and to, at one point perhaps, help those who read it in their own lives.

   Without the free form of art I compose and create in now, I do not think my life would be the same at all. I would be a completely different person. I might turn completely cognitive and be a different type of person, maybe harsher and more stoic. Without a venting system that art provides, I might not be able to communicate well with people because I would be upset a lot of the time.

   However, this whole idea is again hypothetical and only probable if things were as such. But there have actually been times throughout history where art is suppressed and made dull and so I think we can learn from those times. My first question proposes a completely altered state of the world, this question puts forth the idea of things that have past and I am trying to put myself into that point in time. I do not think I could handle it. 

Dewey: First Question

What if we did not have art to manifest our emotions but manifested them only in the damage or interaction (physically) with other human beings? How would things be different? Would they be so much different than they are now?

   Obviously, we manifest our emotions in other people partly. This creates the interesting notion that the method in which we influence our friends, family, lovers, colleagues is a kind of art. We are changing them and creating something new inside of them, or perhaps awakening something which has stayed dormant for a very long time. But, if we only manifested our emotions through human individuals, in particular, the flesh. Instead of writing a poem about hating of a friend who betrayed oneself, one hits or attacks this friend. Or if one loves somebody and wants to express it through a song, one can only kiss or embrace that person. Is the world any different fundamentally (taking into account all the emotions)?

   We would not have art and could not transfer our destructive emotions thus and I think it is safe to say our destructive and negative emotions outnumber our bright ones. There would be many more wars and conflicts, on a smaller scale and bigger scale. We would fight so much more and have no way to channel these negative debates inside of ourselves.

   To answer the question simply, yes: things would be different. But it is how they would be different drastically and is a benefit to us? I think that it most certainly would not be. Even for the positive side of manifesting our emotions, we would only be able to show affection physically, which, in a modern perspective, could be misconstrued and thought of badly. Kisses and hugs are only so much; a personal letter though a physical object made of atoms, costing money can still mean so much to a single person, at least in a modern perspective.

   Of course, this argument is made completely invalid when we look at this state of the world as being present from the commencement of humanity. We would act how we would under very physical conditions and would just be altered in that sense without the ability to look into a new scope because we cannot imagine that which we do not have previous basis for. And if art did not exist, we could not imagine it.

Answer to Nicole's Dewey Question

  Dewey's ideology of capitalism being involved in art and humanity is deeply rooted in what we, as humans, want. We are, especially with the Industrial Revolution of Dewey's age, consumers and want extravagance. Capitalism allows us for us to not be controlled in how the economy works. Thus, when one buys a piece of art, there is no control over the selling of it or the price of it. I think Dewey is referring to how art and literature are sold in reference to the rich person buying art versus the poor person buying a piece of art. Rich people have the luxury of buying art while poor people need to focus on more "practical" objects or pursuits. Dewey argues that, though art is important for all human beings, only certain, rich individuals can afford.
  As for the human psyche, this ideology makes many people think that art is superfluous and not entirely necessary, especially the vast majority of society. Many people will say that art and literature are not important to our continued existence but imagine a world without art, music, literature, or film. What a dull world! It almost seems like a world without a way to manifest our emotions into something physical which, as physical beings we seem to do quite a bit. We do have a spiritual side (or some of us do) which we tap in to, but sometimes we forget and must revert to our own physicality and we need the manifest emotions in objects. Why do you think certain images scare us or make us happy? They are loaded with innate emotions which humans can understand upon seeing them.
   A solution is impossible. Human beings battle and quarrel with each other far too much in order for any agreement of the value of art in the world. It would not work to simply make art free to everyone--artists would be upset and would not be able to make a living, though making end's meet with art is very precarious anyway. To get everyone to agree is simply illogical.

Random Ideas on Hume

   I personally love literature and that is why I am an English major, but I believe I have a very different opinion on literature than many other people do. For example, when we read Hamlet in my high school class, I was the only one to interpret the "To be or not to be" speech differently. I feel I understand literature very well but I comprehend it in a completely different way and this completely contradicts what Hume philosophies about. It could be that I am a product of the modern generation and my thoughts are just changed by the generations that have passed since David Hume was alive to write.
   I am similar with music and art--I get different feelings from them than anyone around me does, and though I feel estranged by this, I feel gifted because I can have my own personal opinions about art and literature. Although, I feel I critique art and literature in the same way as many other people do, particularly because I have similar ideas on poetry as one of the professors at the college here. And I agree with many of the poetic analyses that I read.
   However, some analyses of literature and art I find very absurd, like the idea that Hamlet has a sexual relationship with his mother. I do not see such a plot happening as possible and I don't think it contributes to the whole of Hamlet. But maybe my view on it will change as I get older.

During Hume’s time, there were people that were still illiterate? I feel as though he did not take those people into account and that his argument is a bit discriminate towards them. What if the standard of taste was influenced by those people? How would that thwart Hume’s philosophy?

David Hume's philosophical argument does, maybe without intention, discriminate against those who were illiterate, which was a vast number of people during his time. This number of illiterate people significantly lowers the amount of opinions that will influence the idea of a certain piece of art. Only high class individuals will be able to experience this kind of art but having a view of only high class members of society very much skews the opinion of a piece of artwork.

Today, things are different and more people are literate and can read and understand more about art (even if it is visual) and there is a variety of opinions about single works of art. Although, the method of critiquing art, maybe professionally, has not changed much. Paintings are still critiqued by their visual components and literature (if one can call post 90's writing literature) is still judged by its depth and prowess.

If the vast population was still illiterate and only a certain number of people could read, then there would not be so much change in opinion. However, I think it is, principally, the number of people having learned to read that has influenced popular and nonconformist opinions about art, literature, and music.

According to Hume, would we be able to view cinema as art, whether early or contemporary? Is cinema not refined enough for Hume’s view? Movies are something seen by everyone and everyone has a different opinion about them. I feel they completely contradict his view.

I feel that, were Hume alive today, he would view only high cinema as art, but that he would completely disregard popular culture films or television like Doctor Who or Harry Potter. Hume would focus more on classical films which would have more refined tastes. But these are films that not everybody likes (especially in the modern age when black and white is less favored to color by the majority).

I think Hume would have to reinvent his view or write an alternative essay just for film because it is very tricky and cannot be completely agreed upon as good or bad art. Film might also shatter his philosophy of human beings as having standards of taste because anyone out there can enjoy films, with or without a full education. And people with a complete education were the type Hume was looking at when he sought to find those who would agree upon a certain piece of art. Therefore, cinema has partially made Hume's philosophy obsolete but the analysis of films by film critics is still something which is agreed upon.

The critique of art by "professionals" will, in some ways, never change, but the appreciation of it and the sentiment felt by it will be every changing depending upon the human beings experiencing it.

Answer to Nicole's Hume Question

If the Iliad and the Odyssey were written during this time period, the general population would absolutely hate it and not understand it. The only exception to that would be people who enjoy that kind of literary beauty like English majors and those who are poets and are more emotional and think more deeply about literature. The Odyssey and the Iliad are, as I think we often forget, poems. They are just a little longer than most and I think that people in the society of poetry would enjoy them very much. I refrain from saying that the whole literary community would enjoy them because there are those in such a group which only enjoy more solid and concrete works.

I found the Iliad and the Odyssey very difficult to read when I read them. But that could be because I was taking excessive notes on them and it did not make it fun at all. But I also think that the books would not fully be accepted, permitting that they are understood by a vast amount of people. There is a lot of relationships and treatment toward women in the books that would be viewed as sexism which were not viewed as such during that time period.

According to Hume, we would find the beauty in these works and there would be a general consensus that they are beautiful and a worthy production of art. However, these works would eventually become less and less read except by a select group of people, like how literary classics today are only mostly read by English teachers or majors or mature individuals. However, to look at Hume as a person: he grew up in a rather wealthy household so he could not see what the lower class was thinking of art. Therefore, his view is inherently skewed.

My Own Random Musings

This essay What Is Art? has made me think of art today, more specifically what some people call "modern" or "contemporary art" and the kind of experience I have had with that is in seeing art in MassMOCA and one other art museum. I feel that art since around the 1960's has become less sincere. Artists these days seem to be trying to give a message or make a piece of art for their generation and it does not really reflect the individual. For example, there was a piece of art in one museum I went to which had a photographed, mixed around picture which had symbols of microphones and dirt and such to show the degradation of the music industry.

In MassMOCA, there is an exhibit showing distorted and twisted birds to show certain emotions and while I feel this art is sincere and took a long time to produce, I feel the idea is cliche and borrowed from other sources. I feel many artists and writers rely upon cliches and stealing ideas and this makes the art very insincere. One needs only to look at the movies that are put out today and one can see the imitations of one film to the next. It is actually quite disgusting how little creativity actually exists in the mainstream. And to think that back in his day, Charles Dickens would have been mainstream and now the mainstream is something like Live Free or Die Hard. It is quite upsetting.