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.