I really enjoyed the
first podcast. It opened my mind to an
idea of art that I had never thought of before.
I think that having “an aesthetic force” be what makes society call for
action makes sense. I’ve never thought
of art in that way, but it is true that seeing something or hearing something
that appeals to the emotions causes people to raise awareness. It’s easy to tell people something is a
problem, but to actually see it or experience it, makes people more aware and
makes them want to help. For example, the
commercials for the SPCA with that sad song and showing all the animals looking
so sad really affects people. It makes
people want to donate their time and money to the SPCA. Art (pictures, videos, songs, etc.) really
can influence society. Sarah Lewis’ argument is the multiple examples she uses
that show that art has had more of an impact on our biggest social movement,
not rational argument.
Another thing that was discussed in the podcast was how art interpretation has changed. Art used to be about what it meant and how it made people feel, but the speakers in the podcast suggest that art is now about commerce. By commerce they mean money, fame, and “likes.” This is true in a sense; our society has become more about tangible things such as money and likes, instead of the raw appeal of what the art is supposed to mean. The speakers suggest that to mediate subjectivity one needs to be relaxed and ready to interpret art, not stressed out and doing daily things.
A work that stood out to me in the Smithsonian American Art Museum Exhibit was Flower. Flower is a video made so that the person viewing the art is the wind. The video makes the viewer feel like they are floating with the wind, touching the surroundings, and blowing things around. I think this art supports both points made by the speakers above. The description of Flower says that it was made in response to rural and urban space and to be interpreted as an emotional arc. The artist was trying to make people feel something and be aware of an issue, like Sarah Lewis was discussing. I also think this piece ties into the point about how to mediate subjectivity. They suggested that someone needs to go into art relaxed and ready to interpret, and that it true with this piece. If one isn’t relaxed and truly thinking, they wouldn’t pick up on Flower’s meaning.
The introduction to New
Media in Late 20th Century Art talks about how art used to be canvas
and painting but has rapidly changed to new media forms such as digital
art. It is a good thing that art has
evolved and changed but I think art shifting to technology clashes with points
made by the speakers in the podcast.
Because it has shifted to technology, that is why people are more
focused on getting likes and recognition.
It’s harder for people to relax and focus on the art when they have
phones and the internet at their fingertips.
But I do think that art shifting to technology helps with Lewis’ point
because technology and the internet makes it easier to get art into the world. When an artist can easily get their art and
messages out to people, the easier it is to start a social revolution.
Lauren, I thought you had a truly wonderful post and made very accurate points throughout your blog. I found one in particular, rather interesting. You said, "It's harder for people to relax and focus on the art when they have phones and the internet at their fingertips." Following your statement, you contradict it showing the accessibility technology has allowed society to experience. However, this current stage of art we are going through, this new media world, is evolving. It is a watershed period for new forms of digital art, whether it is through video, photography, personal art formed through photoshop or digital design, that ten years ago hardly existed. This is a period that is technologically advancing and creating new outlets for artists to have a new form of expression. I believe it is in the mix of an entirely huge social revolution through the use of online media to utilize messages of art to the public on a basis that will have an audience of millions. So from my eyes, although it can be a basis for distraction for other reasons, living within the age of millennials, it puts us at a huge advantage.
ReplyDeleteI loved your viewpoint that people need to be "ready to interpret art." It sparks a conversation on how people may be subconsciously taking in art through advertising or industry without truly understanding the work itself. Most people who are busy-minded are unaware that art is really the driving force in an abundance of things throughout a person's day. If people subjected themselves to the world of art; if people became more aware and ready to interpret art, they may find that each decision they make throughout the day is influenced by art in some way.
ReplyDeleteHi Lauren! I found the part where you talked about the SPCA very interesting and illuminating because I know I have volunteered at the SCPA from that same commercial they play all the time. In order for a message to transcend from person to person there definitely needs to be that aestheticism like you said. Another point you made about the Flower where there one needs to go in relaxed because it cals for a more stress-free and good quality work in the end. I also really liked your ending about having technology starting a social revolution! Nice post:)
ReplyDeleteHi Lauren, Flower was a fine example to use for someone who are going into art. It's true that if you're planning to interpret a piece of art, being too stiff and tense can negatively affect how you you really think about the piece. Another thing about Flower i'd like to point out about Flower, instead of having to go to the Smithsonian Art Museum, Flower was made more accessible to people since it was turned into a game people can play in their homes, letting people experience it more comfortably.
ReplyDeleteLauren,
ReplyDeleteI agreed with everything you had to say ! I was the same I never saw art as an "aesthetic force" until now . It is shocking that now in our modern day art is being interpreted simply by level of commerce , and I think we both can agree it should be much more then that. People need to learn to appreciate art not just by the amount of appeal or "likes" it has, but by what the piece of art means. Artists have the potential to start a big social revolution they just need a push. I really enjoyed reading your post.