Picture from comment on Su Sun's Blog

In response to ssnitrousoxide: Micro-photography: Not only a change of way of seeing (2)

Why are the arts important?

 By: Dee Dickinson

1.    They are languages that all people speak that cut across racial, cultural, social, educational, and economic barriers and enhance cultural appreciation and awareness.

2.    They are symbol systems as important as letters and numbers.

3.    They integrate mind, body, and spirit.

4.    They provide opportunities for self-expression, bringing the inner world into the outer world of concrete reality.

5.    They offer the avenue to "flow states" and peak experiences.

6.    They create a seamless connection between motivation, instruction, assessment, and practical application--leading to deep understanding.

7.    They are an opportunity to experience processes from beginning to end.

8.    They develop both independence and collaboration.

9.    They provide immediate feedback and opportunities for reflection.

10. They make it possible to use personal strengths in meaningful ways and to bridge into understanding sometimes difficult abstractions through these strengths.

11. They merge the learning of process and content.

12. They improve academic achievement -- enhancing test scores, attitudes, social skills, critical and creative thinking.

13. They exercise and develop higher order thinking skills including analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and "problem-finding."

14. They are essential components of any alternative assessment program.

15. They provide the means for every student to learn.

SOUTH BEACH

In Miami, there lies a prosperous, growing area that lies right next to the beach. This area has been developed into one of the most exciting cities to visit today. South Beach has grown very rapidly to become a major tourist attraction of the United States and many other areas such as Europe and Latin America. 

South Beach is built in art deco form so the surrounding buildings are very interesting to look at when there. Art Deco was first created during the Weimar War Era in Europe, Flourishing throughout the 20s and 30s influencing architecture and many other areas of design. The characteristics of art deco such as, pastel colors, and streamlined rectilinear forms developed out of more ornate French art. These designs were used to attract rich clients to a not yet popular area so they would be able to develop that area. 
As this area progressed, more and more people came to visit this area. When the people started to come, then several businesses that saw this as a profit-making venue decided to open up businesses there. One business that has prospered from this area is the clubs and the nightlife. South beach has become known for its nightlife and has attracted several people. The nightlife attracts several thousands of people ranging from 18-80 having such things to do such as clubbing, fine dining, or just relaxing. Businesses that have opened up have also aided in the boom of the hotel rental around there. 
Even now this area continues to grow at a rapid rate and it has the potential because of the location and the weather to be a very premier place to stay and a nice place to visit. 

Check it out!

Check out this cool website!

http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/

This one is my favorite. It is called On a Windy Day By: Bob "Grandpa" Roots

Which one is your favorite?

Photography - Barthes

      The Barthes reading made some very interesting points and arguments. First, I noted that in chapter 6 Bathes says “photographs come from the world to me.” This made me think about Berger and the discussion of reproductions. Because there are so many reproductions, art has become much more accessible. But, as we noted in the Berger piece and again in the Illuminations piece, reproductions lack something the original has.

      Secondly, I found the discussion of adventure very interesting. Barthes says, “I should like to know what there is in it that sets me off” (speaking of a photograph). He/she makes the point that adventure can, at least temporarily, denote the attraction certain photographs have upon one.

      Thirdly, I found yet again, another reference to a “sign” similar to the Semiotics and Art History reading. “They drift between the shores of perception, between sign and image, without ever approaching either.”

      Finally, in chapter 10, I found the argument made about the themes of photography very intriguing. Barthes divides Photography into two themes: studium and punctum. Studium means application to a thing, taste for someone, or a kind of general enthusiastic commitment. Here Barthes brings in the idea of culture a lot. The second element is described in a very sharp language. Words like: “rises”, “shoots”, “pierces” all sound harsh. This is because the second element will disturb the first and which Barthes describes as “that accident which pricks me.”

One question I have about this piece is, why is Photography always capitalized?

Aesthetics? or More?

The reading: A Rough History of Modern Aesthetics by Seel led me to look back at my blog about my first trip to the High Museum. When I went through the European Art exhibit, I made the comment that many of the pieces were for purely aesthetic and not functional use. But going through the High Museum this past weekend, looking for a piece for the Rhetorical Analysis project, I realized something. I had in mind that I was looking for a piece to analyze, so I looked for a piece of art that made an argument. What I realized is that when I went through the first time, I was ignorant of the many arguments being made. The pieces I admired for their aesthetic beauty also made an argument about something. They might not have served a functional purpose (you wouldn’t sit in some of the chairs created by Ron Arad) but they certainly serve a purpose beyond looking pretty.

Illuminate!

Illuminations by Walter Benjamin makes some very interesting points and relates to some of the pieces we have already read. The first two sections make an argument about reproductions similar to Berger’s. We are introduced to the many means of reproduction that have come about through history. These include founding and stamping, woodcut, print, engraving, etching, lithography, photography, and film. “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership.” This quote is similar to Berger’s argument that reproductions are not good representations of an artwork because they lack so much authenticity (authenticity is another concept discussed in section 2). Section 3 explains that “the mode of human sense perception chances with humanity’s entire mode of existence. The last sentence of section 3 discusses a “process”; this is similar to the Semiotics and Art History reading. Section 4 introduces politics; “the instant criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice-politics.” Part 5 discussed the fact that works of art are received and values completely different (“polar”) ways. The two main ways examined here are “accent on cult value” and “exhibition value of the work.” Section 5 makes an interesting remark about context that is similar to that in Semiotics and Art History. What is around the work of art (what context the art is in) has an effect on its interpretation and the experience one has when observing the artwork. Section 7 discusses the question of whether photography is an art. In my opinion, as someone who loves photography, it is definitely and art form. I certainly let my creative juices flow when taking pictures…it is in a huge way, how I express myself. Section 14 introduces Dadaism. Marc Lowenthal said, “Dada (Dadaism) is the groundwork to abstract art and sound poetry, a starting point for performance art, a prelude to postmodernism, an influence on pop art, a celebration of anti-art to be later embraced for anarcho-political uses in the 1960s and the movement that lay the foundation for Surrealism.” This section also discusses and compares many things with film. I think section 15 makes a very interesting argument when Benjamin says, “Since…individuals are tempted to avoid such tasks, art will tackle the most difficult and most important ones where it is able to mobilize the masses. The epilogue confused me a little bit. Where did all this discussion about war come from? Can anyone explain this portion?

Maids of Honor

Check out this interesting link about Las Meninas!

http://www.evl.uic.edu/chris/meninas/

This reading threw me off at first. As dumb as it probably is…I didn’t look at the picture on the last page until I finished reading the whole thing. Although I had to go back through the reading a second time, after I looked at the picture, to really understand it, I think I’m better off because I understand the reading really well now. To begin, I noticed that the reason I was so confused at first is because this essay is kind of an argument in reverse. There is no thesis and thus we do not know the authors intentions for the rest of the paper. I was wandering what all this discussion about “invisible” meant. It is important to notice that a lot of words on the first page, including: spectator, appeared, observing and blind point, all relate to vision.

Throughout the rest of the essay, Foucault explains the painting in a very detailed and abstract manner. I say abstract because some of the concepts he brings up, are not ones that a reader would necessarily be able to produce. For example, when discussing the composition of Las Meninas, Foucault mentions an invisible “X” across the lower half. The center of the “X” meets right in the middle of “Infanta’s” eyes. This further supports his argument that she is an important figure in the lives of King Philip and his wife Mariana. This “X” makes perfect sense once we read about it, but I, for one, certainly would not have been able to come up with the idea on my own…

            On the last two pages of the essay, Foucault pretty much sums up his argument and his thoughts on Velazquez’s argument (through the painting). “Perhaps there exists in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were, of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us. And, indeed, representation undertakes to represent itself here in all its elements, with its images, the eyes to which it is offered, the faces it makes visible, the gestures that call it into being. But there, in the midst of this dispersion which it is simultaneously grouping together and spreading out before us, indicated compellingly from every side, is an essential void: the necessary disappearance of that which is its foundation - of the person it resembles and the person in whose eyes it is only a resemblance. This very subject - which is the same - has been elided. And representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form.” Ultimately I believe Velazquez’s argument here is that a painting of what goes on around the King and his wife is more descriptive and gives more insight than a simple portrait would. The viewer gets a better impression of King Philip and Mariana’s lives from Las Meninas than the viewer would from a portrait.

Semiotics and Art History

The Bal and Bryson reading starts off by defining semiotics as the theory of sign and sign use. The Oxford English Dictionary defines semiotics as the science of communication studied through the interpretation of signs and symbols as they operate in various fields, esp. language. The audience of this piece is a very narrow audience. It is important to note that this piece came from Journal called The Art Bulletin. The audience is assumed to be very scholarly and well versed in famous artists and art works, as many examples of famous art and artists are presented throughout the article.

It is also important to notice the organization of the article. The authors, Bal and Bryson did a very nice job organizing the article into 8 subsections. Each subsection is titled which gives the reader a hint at what is soon to come. They also occasionally “sign-post,” which is helpful because it reminds the reader what has already been discussed and often times explains what will be discussed in the rest of the article.

Section 1 is all about context. One particularly interesting quote about context came from the introduction: “Context…is a text itself, and it thus consists of signs that require interpretation. What we take to be positive knowledge is the product of interpretative choices.” This related back to what Berger said in the “Ways of Seeing” article. In section 1, it is important to note that context can always be extended. Looking at art is a process because context is endless. Context from one moment in time and place is completely different than context in any other moment or place. Section 2 is titled “Senders”. In relation to semiotics, this section emphasizes that signs are sent out. It is interesting to consider what other things can be considered “senders”; maybe writers could be considered senders. This section also says “the ‘author’ is essentially transparent, like a window through which we look to see the causal factors that helped to produce the work.” The problem of the author is not so different from the problem of context – potentially infinite regressions and expansions. Section 3 is titled Receivers, and it is important to note that signs are received. Receivers could be readers that read writings. The audience is part of the communicative chain. Everyone has his or her own personal background that affects how he or she approaches a ‘text’. Each individual’s approach is their own ‘code’. “Different groups possess different codes for viewing even the same work”. Section 4 and 5 cover two traditions of semiotics that stem from the famous works of Charles Sanders Pierce (4) and Ferdinand de Saussure (5). Pierce was an American philosopher, logician, mathematician, and scientist, born in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was educated as a chemist and employed as a scientist for 30 years. It is largely his contributions to logic, mathematics, philosophy, and semiotics that are appreciated today. He saw logic as the formal branch of semiotics (of which he is a founder). In section 4, it is important to note “the symbolic sign in Pierce’s theory must not be confused with the many different and often vague colloquial meanings of the word ‘symbol’”. The most important passage from section 4 is: “Pierce’s semiotic theory is relevant for the study of art because it helps us think about the aspects of the process of art in society, in history, in a way that is not bound up with the artist’s intention.” This quote directly states Bal and Bryson’s argument. (Section 5) Saussure was a Swiss linguist whose ideas laid a foundation for many significant developments in linguistics in the 20th century. Saussure is widely considered to be one of the fathers of 20th-century linguistics and of semiotics, and his ideas have had a monumental impact throughout the humanities and social sciences. An interesting quote from section 5, “the vocabulary of our languages is able to scan for only a fraction of the hues that a painting presents us” make a point of how complex a painting is. We don’t even have words in our vocabulary to describe some of the hues in a painting. Also, I thought this quote was fantastic: “to think of semiosis as process and as movement is to conceive the sign not as a thing but as an event, the issue being not to delimit and isolate the one sign from other signs but to trace the possible emergence of the sign in a concrete situation, as an event in the world. Section 6 discusses Psychoanalysis as a Semiotic Theory. Psychoanalysis is defined here as “a mode of reading the unconscious and its relationship to expression, and as such it is a semiotic theory. Also, an interesting metaphor is presented; “If psychoanalysis, tends to take on the status of a master code that can be “applied” to art, one can also argue that the critic is the patient who does the talking, while the work of art is the analyst who orients the analytic work.” There is a lot of discussion about comparisons to the analogical model throughout Section 6. Some key words to notice throughout this passage include specification, overt theme, perspective, allegorical, hermeneutic model, condensation, displacement, gaze, symbolic, imaginary, anamorphous  The most important thing to note about Section 7, “Narratology”, is that “narrative semiotics provides insight into visual narrative, as distinct from analysis of visual allusions to verbal narratives.” To conclude, Section 8 does a great job of reminding us what we have discussed thus far and summarizes it us for us. “A sign, then, is not a thing but, as we have said, an event that takes place in a historically and socially specific situation. Sign events occur in specific circumstances and according to a finite number of culturally valid, conventional, yet not unalterable rules, which semiotics calls codes. The selection of those rules and their contribution leads to specific interpretative behavior. That behavior is socially frames, and any semiotic view that is to be socially relevant will have to deal with this framing, precisely on the basis of the fundamental polysemy of signs and the subsequent possibility of dissemination. In then end, there is no way around considerations of power, inside and outside the academy.”

Oh Susan...

This reading, Against Interpretation By: Susan Sontag, was very complex but at the same time very intriguing. First, I have a question; what is the Mimetic Theory???

        In my previous posts, I have discussed the definition of art. On the first page, Sontag directly says, "As it's usually put today, that a work of art by definition says something." (We see later that she highly disapproves of this statement.) This is in discussion of an artwork's content. In part 1, I gathered that we often try to determine what art is saying rather than purely appreciating its form. In the second part, Sontag says, "From now to the end of consciousness, we are struck with the task of defending art." I found this statement interesting. In this part, the author's views clearly show through. She must feel that interpreting art is wrong and pointless (hence the title: Against Interpretation). She says that the idea of content is a hindrance, and the overemphasis on content leads people to try to interpret artwork. In part 3, Sontag clarifies that she means interpretations as a conscious act of the mind that illustrates a certain code. When applied to art, she feels that interpretation is "plucking a set of elements from the whole work.” She claims that an interpreter will inevitably alter whatever he or she is interpreting. Parts 4 through 6 further Sontag's argument that we should not focus on interpreting art. My favorite quote from this piece is at the end of part 6. Sontag says, "Interpretation, based on the highly dubious theory that a work of art is composed of items of content, violates art. It makes art into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories." In part 7, Sontag explains that interpretation does not always prevail; some things do prove to be uninterpretable. Part 8 opens with asking the question, "What kind of criticism, of commentary on the arts, is desirable today?" I agree with Sontag that we need to spend more time focusing on the form of artwork instead of content. In part 9, she says, "Transparence is the highest, most liberating value in art - and in criticism - today...experiencing the luminousness of the thing itself, of things being what they are." This stuck with me because "interpretation takes the sensory experience of the work of art for granted".  I agree with Sontag when she concludes that "our task is to cut back content so we can see the thing (piece of art) at all. The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art...more, rather than less, real to us."