Students: Welcome to the Reviewing the Arts Class Blog!Every week, you will be expected to blog here. Respond to each assignment by clicking on the “comments” link (until someone posts the first comment, it’ll read
“no comments”). The assignments will vary – between responses to your readings, writing short reviews, thoughts about class discussions, assignments to locate images and/or other articles/blogs that refer to the topic, etc. So be sure that you check this blog before each and every class!
I expect you to also engage your fellow classmates in discussions. Be sure to read the comments that precede yours so that you are not merely reiterating a point that has already been made, but are rather adding to, enriching, and expanding the discussion that is taking place.
I am more concerned about quality of writing than quantity. In other words, I will not ask that you write a certain length or amount, but am rather more interested that your responses are critical, thoughtful, and creative.
In order to receive credit, you must put your first name on all posts and enter the email address to which you want to receive your grades for each post. I respond to all posts via email to whatever email address you enter, with grades, so be sure to enter the email address you use most often.
Adding additional resources and comments will be looked upon favorably, when the time comes to turn in final grades, and could be particularly useful for those who may need an extra boost at the end of the semester (hint, hint). HOWEVER, adding websites and resources WILL NOT replace your required weekly journal responses. If you are experiencing problems with this online discussion board, please inform me immediately.
* If, after your first or second posting, you do not see your blog post right away, it’s because it has probably gone into moderation (for me to approve), so don’t panic. After a few postings, the blog will then begin to automatically accept your posts without the need for moderator approval.
3 responses so far ↓
rachel galicia // May 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
In “The Aesthetic Hypothesis” Clive explains that the difference between aesthetics and criticism is being able to make the viewer feel emotions. He states “The starting-point for all systems of aesthetics must be the personal experience of a peculiar emotion.”
Also he explains that, “A good critic may be able to make me see in a picture that had left me cold things that I had overlooked, till at last, receiving the aesthetic emotion, I recognize it as a work of art.”
In this he is saying that in order for someone to use aesthetics, they have to be able to make the audience/reader feel something for himself. The critic can’t just tell you what to feel or tell you that it is art. He has to make the reader see something that then, in turn, stirs emotions. Only then is it aesthetics, otherwise if the critic is just telling us the technique used in the artwork, or just spitting out that the artwork is wonderful in certain ways and bad in other ways, he is only criticizing the art.
I agree with this view very much. But still to say that he doesn’t recognize art as a real piece of art if he doesn’t become filled with a certain emotion is crap.
Ashley // May 29, 2008 at 11:07 am |
Tolstoy believes art is a communication tool. He says that feelings are communicated through art and that without this feeling being transmitted from person to person whatever object or performance is not provoking this communication of feelings it is not art.
Since speech/communication is an essential tool for human survival, as well as the survival of many other mammals that are considered intelligent. Tolstoy believes that if there was no art we humans would become savages, separated from one another, we would become more hostile towards each other.
I agree with Tolstoy for the most part I believe that art is a communication tool and a powerful one that can infest people and cause them to feel certain things and take certain actions. Just look at D.W. Griffith’s Birth of A Nation the most amazing work of cinema during its time, to this day it is still the biggest blockbuster. However it was an extremely racist film that set back the progress of African American and white relationships in America ,after the film was released there where more lynching in America then any other year. So clearly Tolstoy is right art does communicate, it unites people it stirs up feeling in this case it was a negative feelings that caused horrific negative affects but it is true.
However I don’t believe all art has to generate feelings that are passed from person to person. Since I believe that just about any type of creation is art and that not all creation creates feelings I don’t agree with Tolstoy. For example I think of my mother as an artists, she is the senior vice president of Scan Tron. Over the years I have watched her work for many different companies who have all gone through extreme changes where people get laid off and fired, yet my mother is never one of these people she is always given a promotion. And it is because of her art of selling, she has mastered the art of sells. Her art brings action she gets people to buy things. Possibly she does create the feeling of want and greed but it is not a wide spread thing as Tolstoy seems to saying my mothers art is directed to a very small audience her art will not provoke feelings in many outsiders such as myself. And her feelings are not necessarily what she is selling. But I still consider this an art form, it is a craft that she has mastered and requires great skill her profits are her awards and standing ovations, her clients money is her art. She is an artist, Tolstoy may not agree but that is how I see things.
Ashley // May 29, 2008 at 11:08 am |
In Bell’s writing from “The Aesthetic Hypothesis,” he says, “Without sensibility a man can have no aesthetic experience, and, obviously, theories not based on broad and deep aesthetic experience are worthless.” Now I am not quiet sure what he means by this but I have an idea. To me Bell is saying there is a certain amount of emotional experience and intellectual experience one must have in order to view art aesthetically. Since he believes that art evokes emotions, one must have emotional experiences to understand art. For example if a painting is created to give the feeling of grief and the viewer or critic has never felt that feeling before he or she cannot understand the painting they have no experience with this emotion therefore there theories or interpretations of the painting will be purely based on form making the interpretation false and the piece of art is no longer a piece of art for that person because according to Bell art evokes emotion and this person is unable to experience that.
I believe intellectual experiences are also what Bell is speaking about in this quote. That having an intellectual background with knowledge and history of art is necessary for appreciating and interpreting art. Without this one is just basing the art off of emotion and form is left behind both things form and emotion must be understood to be able to understand a piece of art. At least that is how I interpret this quote.
I believe that many of today’s critics who are honest and true for the most part agree with Bell. I myself do not read many reviews actually the only man’s reviews I read are Roger Ebert’s and he definitely follows these guidelines that Bell has set. He speaks of form and emotion and if only one is present in the film he makes it a point to announce it to his viewers. For example if he was not pulled into the film emotionally he makes a point of saying something around the lines of “I myself was never pulled into the emotional crisis that this character was supposedly going through making the film dry and…” Same goes with form, however today’s critics or at least Roger Ebert seems to be more forgiving on form, he cares more about that emotional connection then the form of the film. And I agree with this, well at least with film, which is such a new art form that many new formulas are being created, it is still changing.
All in all I feel that Bell for the most part is correct in his theory. Emotion and intellect are needed to understand art.