Saturday, March 3, 2012
Free Write: Weitz
Weitz for me is definitely my favorite thus far. He presents a logical and agreeable view of art. Instead of pushing some elitist jargon and criteria upon art, he simply states that there can't be a meaning. It is important to stress the importance of art, but in schools and other places specific pieces and old classics are shoved into students faces and it ruins the entire experience for people. I myself found no love for classics until I went out of my own way to act in a Shakespeare show and it was then, in my own moment of realization that I acquired the taste to see why Shakespeare is so great. "Great Art" should not be pushed, it should be preserved for those like me to find it for themselves. What should be pushed is finding a great art form that people personally enjoy.If in school I was encouraged to bring a book of my own choice to study, I'd find more interesting books and through personal growth, eventually come upon the great books. Instead, schools push high level books with dry, uninteresting ways and it pushes people away. Art should be pushed for, but in better more open ways.
Question of the Week: Weitz
Give reasons for and against the proposal that things, which are not human-made, could be called art. At which point do we call something human-made? (We make sculptures out of marble, but we don't make the marble, so could putting driftwood in a museum be sufficient to be called "human-made"?)
There are many things out in nature that can be arguably called art, like the songs of birds, mountain sides, forests, precious gems and sunsets. These things are all used and replicated in art to the point where it is almost a truth that the things themselves are art. However, even with the prominent use of things of nature in art, is it really art? If there was no emotional meaning behind it put by an artist can it really be labeled art? Art has had a large emotional expression about it in the recent times, however, it is not always been so and yet there was art. So it becomes something that should be observed by someone, art is really what people see it to be, no matter what theory of aesthetics presented.
There are many things out in nature that can be arguably called art, like the songs of birds, mountain sides, forests, precious gems and sunsets. These things are all used and replicated in art to the point where it is almost a truth that the things themselves are art. However, even with the prominent use of things of nature in art, is it really art? If there was no emotional meaning behind it put by an artist can it really be labeled art? Art has had a large emotional expression about it in the recent times, however, it is not always been so and yet there was art. So it becomes something that should be observed by someone, art is really what people see it to be, no matter what theory of aesthetics presented.
Q+A Weitz 2
How would aesthetic theory continue without the search for a definition of art?
When it comes to Weitz, Aesthetic theory is used to help define the quality of art and outline different arts. It's the attempts to find a deeper meaning to art that stems these aesthetic theories. The theories then help shape art of the time and attributes the variety in art and culture over time. Without these theories supporting new versions of art and changing old ones, the art world may grow stagnant and may not be able to advance. Weitz suggests that the field of aesthetic theory has plenty of merit and should be continued.
When it comes to Weitz, Aesthetic theory is used to help define the quality of art and outline different arts. It's the attempts to find a deeper meaning to art that stems these aesthetic theories. The theories then help shape art of the time and attributes the variety in art and culture over time. Without these theories supporting new versions of art and changing old ones, the art world may grow stagnant and may not be able to advance. Weitz suggests that the field of aesthetic theory has plenty of merit and should be continued.
Q+A Weitz 1
Can leaving art undefined be a good thing?
According to Weitz it's the proper course to choose for art. This is because throughout the ages, there have been in-numerous attempts to put down one solid definition of art. Now matter how many artists or philosophers try to put a label on art, it is only going to be edited by future minds and the future cultures that define art differently than the previous ones. So what point is there to put a classical definition of art? Instead of looking for one set of solid overarching criteria, one should look for the the similarities between art pieces and we will understand it as we see it.
Even still, Weitz is a proponent of the aesthetic theories, he believes that they are still very important to the quality and the creation of art. These theories create a basis for art to grow from and develop from, like representational and abstract arts. There should still be the continuing of aesthetic theory but in a way that is more relevant to the art itself then art as a whole.
According to Weitz it's the proper course to choose for art. This is because throughout the ages, there have been in-numerous attempts to put down one solid definition of art. Now matter how many artists or philosophers try to put a label on art, it is only going to be edited by future minds and the future cultures that define art differently than the previous ones. So what point is there to put a classical definition of art? Instead of looking for one set of solid overarching criteria, one should look for the the similarities between art pieces and we will understand it as we see it.
Even still, Weitz is a proponent of the aesthetic theories, he believes that they are still very important to the quality and the creation of art. These theories create a basis for art to grow from and develop from, like representational and abstract arts. There should still be the continuing of aesthetic theory but in a way that is more relevant to the art itself then art as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)