Children's art

I am responding to Aditi's post on children's art. I think that there is a line drawn between children's art and adult's art. I can't think of a museum where a 5 year old's picture would be presented next to and 30 or 40 year old's piece. If you go to a book store you rarely see an adult in the kids section unless they have kids. I have never seen an adult that buys kids books just for themselves to read. I think it is because adults hold themselves on a higher level than kids. When kids do have talent, it is quite difficult to get it compared to that of older artists. I think this is in part because the older you are, the time you have had to learn, and i think to most people it is frustrating to discover that someone who did not take the classes you did or took the time to practice like you did is better than you.
As for where the line would be drawn to distinguish between the two, I have no idea. I do know that there is a line though, because of the way our society is. If you have ever seen the cartoon Madeline,there was one episode where she discovered that she was an amazing artist and someone saw her painting when it was done and thought it was magnificent. They did not know that she drew it though. Hundreds of people came to see her beautiful picture, and then towards the end discovered it was her picture, and did not like it anymore because she was a child. I feel like that definitely happens sometimes. I also know that the children's books i read as a child had a bigger impact on me in comparison to some of the books i read now. The phantom tollbooth was one of my favorite books, and it taught me that you shouldn't complain, and that there is always something to do when your bored.
Question: Should children's artwork have more recognition in the world? Or are things fine the way they are now?

To be Unique

Adrian Pipers view on art objects is that once they are perceived by us, they lose their unique identities because they "are absorbed into the plans and projects we view them as serving. I do not agree with this because I think that we can look at an object and just appreciate it. I think that the biggest problem is whether people want to take the time to appreciate said object. There are so many beautiful and interesting things in the world that we cannot admire all of them. For example, you normally will not see someone admiring the design of a fork, but many people stop to admire the flowers or trees around campus. In my opinion, the flowers are far more interesting to look at than the fork is. I think that many people just do not want to think in depth about certain objects around them. I need my chair to sit in and do homework but I do not find it particularly amazing. Even if it was in a picture or was just on display,I still do not think I would find depth to it.
If piper is right and objects lose their uniqueness through perception, does that apply to people as well? If not, then why would objects made by unique people lose their uniqueness when people don't?

Bad artists?

I am responding to Skyla's post question: Is there really such thing as a bad artist or is a bad artist not actually an artist at all?
I don't think there are bad artists because everyone in the world likes different things. I might have the opinion that a specific artist has bad work, but that does not make them a bad artist because I know that someone else probably loved their work. Mass Moca is a good example. I go there and look at somethings and think" uck, i strongly dissaprove of this" but if it was dissaproved of by everyone, it wouldn't be there, so clearly someone thought it was good. I think that experience obviously helps improve art aesthetically. That just means that with more practice, more people will like your art, But i do not think that there are bad artists.
Question: If someone says they are not an artist, but we think of them as one, what does that make them?

Teaching Art

In response to Lisa's Question "Do you think there is a specific way of teaching art?"
I do. I think that teachers should first go over the fundamentals. So they would teach students how to draw easy things first and then progressively get more difficult as time moves on. I also think that when teaching art, it is important to cover what other artists have done, and what was successful and what wasn't. I feel like art history is an important part of learning how to do art. There are so many different kinds of art that classes need to be broken down. I think they did a good job of that here at the college. For example; painting and drawing are separate classes. This way, you get to learn more about the subject. It is also good to separate the subjects because you are supposed to take different approaches to each. If you take a paintbrush to drawing class, then you are not going to be able to accomplish anything. People always think of art as being very unstructured and free, but there are a lot of rules to follow depending on what you are doing. It takes a long time, and like music, you can only get better with practice. I am one of the types of people that have trouble learning when there aren't rules to follow. It is nice to have that secure learning environment where you know exactly what the teacher wants from you and how you can improve on your next assignment. So an art class professor would assign homework like "go home and draw eight people in different area's using charcoal pencil. Don't use any shading for this assignment." I am taking art classes right now and I have those types of assignments all the time.
question: Should teachers use multiple teaching methods in class to attempt to reach everyone? or just stick to one distinct style?

In response to Marek's post on Plastic surgery.
I think it is funny that in society, you will hear a majority of people respond negatively to plastic surgery. I think it's funny because it is a form of body alteration and other forms of body alteration are more accepted. Tattoo's for example, are not looked down upon as much as plastic surgery is. Especially if they have meaning and aren't stupid looking. I think that our society is slowly adjusting to the idea of plastic surgery because it has helped so many people that need it but I think there are still many who disapprove. I agree with Marek and i think that if it is going to help you excel in life and has the possibility of making you happy, then it is okay. Piercings (like ear piercings) are super popular In today's culture, but they weren't at one point in time, so i think it is only a matter of time before things like plastic surgery are completely fine.
question: Do you think society will reach a point when it becomes completely passive? (passive in general, like is there a point where we will have done so much that it just doesn't surprise people anymore?)

Imagination ......

In response to Shawna's question: Do you think that it is possible for adults to gain the imagination that children have? And therefore also gain their creativity?
I think that there are some adults that have better imagination then children ever will. I don't really think kids have the best imagination. I think they have the best potential but it truly depends on what environment you are raised in. Kids now have no need for imagination because of everyone else's imagination they have at their exposure. They can sit for hours on end watching television or playing video games. I believe that many people who have amazing imaginations are people who were at a disadvantage at some point in their lives. I think that many adult have creativity but we don't think about it as much because it surfaces differently.
When you are a child you are still new to the world and its wonders and you don't necessarily know how to express yourself. Once you grow up, you know how to express your self better and more subtly in some cases. The creativity of children is seen through attempts at learning native language, or scribbles on paper. The creativity of adults is seen through paintings and movies, and theartre. I think that imagination is having trouble developing in today's society because People don't read as much as they used to. Instead we watch television, or go on facebook. I feel like these things don't offer the same intellectual profit that reading does. I feel like reading and drawing influence people to use their imagination more.
question: When you were a child, What was your favorite book, and why? - I know this may not be the most philosophical question in the world, but I would really like to know.

In response to Snow White.

In response to Nicole's blog on Snow White. I think that a big problem is that most people want to associate good with beauty. Specifically in the movie, the witch takes on the form of an old hag and she does evil deeds. Snow White is beautiful and has many qualities we associate with beauty. I don't know why people do this but it happens quite often. When I see a pretty flower, most of the time I assume it will smell nice to. In reality these beautiful things we are so used to might not actually be nice. There is a probability that if you find a really beautiful girl, that she could be awful and horrid.
I personally like to believe that if Snow white was less attractive that she still would have had a good life. If she had to flee her step mothers I think that the hunter still would have let her go because he knows killing is unethical. I also think that had she encountered the dwarfs after cleaning their house, they still would have let her stay there. I do think that aesthetics and ethics are closely related though. especially through reactions people have to movies, and art, and things. I think the fact that Snow White was beautiful made it easier for people to want to trust her and believe she was a moral person.
Question: I know this is an awful question, but I'm going to ask anyways; Do you judge people based on aesthetics? or is it just their ethics? or a combination of the two? so basically when you see someone, do you think "wow that person is really morally sound!" or do you think "wow that person is pretty" which one is more important?

In response to Marek's post

This is in response to Marek's post. I find it funny that you picture art viewers that way, because I have always thought of them the same way without even meaning to. I feel like the stereotypical image of a fat bald man looking at art has been ingrained into my mind over time. I do not think that you have to react to art like that man though, and you don't have to look like him either. The way I think about art is that it is different and always changing, so you can have any opinion you want as long as you can back it up. I believe that you can waltz into a museum looking absolutely ridiculous and admire art for as long as you like(whether it be a second or an hour) and then leave feeling completely comfortable.
question: are there social restraints put on what kind of clothes we can wear in public? can we wear whatever we feel like? what kind of consequences would there be for wearing something ridiculous?

Books are well written, or badly writtem....

I like this quote from the reading we had to do on link (A). The quote is: There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. – Oscar Wilde
I am really excited to read this because I like this quote a lot. Mainly because I agree with it. My Interpretation of it is as follows: I think Wilde is saying that as long you make a convincing argument in your favor, it doesn't matter if what you're saying is awful. Someone could write about war or death, but as long as they are taking the time to create a good story, the book should be good.
This quote specifically makes me think of people who always try to ban things because they are too "outrageous". Art for example is questioned sometimes as going to far. If you have an opinion about something and you share it with people, some may get offended and try to censor your opinion, or tell you to be quiet. I feel like Wilde is kind of saying it doesn't matter if people are getting offended or not, as long as you make a good point.
I also like the end of the quote where Wilde states that books are either well written or badly written because he doesn't leave room for the gray area. He just states that there are good books, and then there are bad books. I feel that with books that is the case. Most people either like a book or they don't. I personally separate books into two different categories. Books worth reading v.s. books that aren't worth reading.
question: are there books that are just okay that you would read if you had a choice to? Like if they weren't great but weren't awful do you think you would read them? especially when you have books out there that are great?

childs play

I am responding to Katherine's blog question "Children entertain themselves (in the broadest sense of the term) by playing games like tag and hide & seek. Child's play is certainly appreciated by most people, but is it a form of art?"
I agree with your opinion in your blog. I think that to truly appreciate art you have to understand it to a certain point. Like when you see a beautiful masterpiece, you feel appreciation towards how it makes you feel. Then later, when you discover that the masterpiece was created with rare home-made paints and took a lifetime to create, you build on that appreciation.
I think that your question belongs in the gray area because there are certain things that i personally do not know if I would classify as art or not. Example; When people create things out of nature and then let them deteriorate because of the weather. I feel like saying that creation is art would be generalizing the word too much. People make houses that get worn away after years of bad weather. there are many things made out of nature by people and if we include them all in the definition we can just about relate art to everything. I feel like there has to be a separation between nature and art. Not that they don't have similarities, it's just that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Children playing is appreciated. By calling it art based only on the fact that people appreciate it, aren't we saying that anything that can be appreciated is art? Is that true?

The more art the better ^_^

I am responding to Jen's blog question "Do you think teachers should incorporate art in their lessons, whether they use paintings, music, or other forms of medium?"
I think that teachers should definitely incorporate art into their teaching. Different people learn through different methods and using a larger variety of methods helps the people more. Some people need things explained to them, while others need things shown to them to understand. Some people learn best by practice. I think a good point to make is that there are no negative effects to incorporating art into various lessons. In a way it is like using an analogy, which teachers do quite often. It would be more convenient because more people can relate to a work of art than they can to an analogy. The reasoning I have behind this opinion is that art is more open to interpretation and therefore has a larger audience possibility. But i definitely think that it would be a good idea to incorporate art into lessons.
question: Is there a reason why this would be a bad idea?

where is the line drawn?

In response to Skyla's question.In your opinion, where is the line drawn between something that can be considered a work of art and something that doesn't quite meet the standards?

I think that it is very hard to distinguish a line between good art and art that doesn't quite meet standards.In my opinion, the line is drawn when a piece of work shows no effort. As i have said before, I prefer works that take time to complete. When it comes down to it, I would call Michelangelo's works art over many other pieces I have come into contact with. I think it is far easier to create a definition based on exclusion, as compared to inclusion though. For me at least, it is easier to see something and say no, that's not art, instead of looking at art that has been created and trying to decide whether time has been put in or not. although, I guess it could go both ways. sometimes it is very hard to decide whether art is art or not.
question: Are there many cases where someone spends a ton of time on a piece and it turns out awful looking?

My taste in art over the years...

In response to Jillian Covey's blog question "How has your taste in visual art, music, or poetry/prose changed or evolved throughout the years? Have there been any significant events in your life that have drastically altered or affected these preferences?"
As a child, I loved art. I loved the idea of art, I loved anything called art, and I loved to create art. My dads whole side of the family was into art and they were all quite good at it. I admired their ability to express their thoughts using images. After I got into visual art, I attained an appreciation for many other kinds too. I love music and poetry. The difference between what I thought when I was little and what I think now is that when I was little I appreciated art just because people called it art. Now my taste is a lot more selective.I can tell when people have put in the effort and paid attention to detail. I know when someone spends an hour on a painting in comparison to 10 minutes and I know when someone writes a song and puts their heart into it, in comparison to someone just trying to make some quick cash. Noticing these things over time has helped me come to appreciate certain art more.
Circumstances that have drastically altered or affected my taste in art definitely occurred. I feel like those circumstances are unavoidable for anyone. If someone died, then people would be drawn to art portraying feelings of loneliness. If someone had a baby, people would be drawn to art that portrayed happiness or cuteness. Specific circumstances have occurred in my life similar to the examples i have given and they definitely affected my tastes in the arts.
question: Does the kind of art people create affect the way they are judged/interpreted by society?

Repsonse to nicoles post

I am responding to Nicole's post question. "Question:Do you think a picture is worth it, when the viewer must know many obscure references and spend a lot of time and effort to even grasp what is shown?"
I think that it is absolutely worth it to create or observe a picture that references other things. Not only is that picture influencing you to expand your knowledge, but when you do you gain a better appreciation of the art. I personally appreciate things more when they have a purpose or a reason behind them, instead of when they just exist. For example, when you see a picture of a person, you just admire the aesthetically pleasing parts of the picture. Once you get to understand meaning the person has in the picture, or the influence that person has had on society, you tend to appreciate the work of art more because you know more about it.
Do you agree that you tend to appreciate people more when you know more about them? (excluding the instances where you grow to dislike people more as you get to know them)

respinse to Shawna's post

I am Responding to Shawna's post question. "Do you think that it is possible for someone to be consistent in their feelings towards a particular piece of art though? Meaning not change the interpretation at all in the slightest."
I don't think it is possible for someone's interpretation to stay one hundred percent the same as they go through life. I think that when you experience something, you think about it and all things concerning it that you know about, but as you go through life the category of things you know about expands, so your interpretation of the piece would as well. So if you are in college, you probably have a good understanding of the world around you. With that understanding you might interpret a piece of work. Even if you get a firm grip on your concept of what is, there is nothing to stop that interpretation from changing or expanding, so my answer is no, it will never be the same.
Does how old you are change how you perceive things? are there exceptions to this?

Artists and Improvement

In response to Mary's post question. " My question right now is what is an artist to do once they have reached the peak of their performance and can no longer improve?"
I think that artists can never really reach that point where there is no room for improvement. There are so many different art styles and emotions to experiment with and perfect that it is impossible to perfect them all in the short period of time we have to live. If an artist truly reaches the peak of their performance then they will probably make a lot of money. There are exceptions to that obviously if a person is handicapped and cannot improve then, because society would most likely be understanding towards that individual, but otherwise people are genetically designed to adapt and improve.
Question: What do you think?

Pressure on famous artists

I m responding to chelsea's post question. Her question is :Do you think famous artists produce better or worse work because of the pressures on them to keep being great?
I think that all depends on the person producing the art. Some people buckle under pressure and cannot achieve what is expected of them. Where others would over-achieve and excel under pressure. I believe that some of the greatest works of art are created because artists are expressing themselves whether people will like it or not and it has meaning. When artists become famous, they can still express themselves through the art, but they have more motivation to give people what they want, instead of creating something that came from their soul. On the other hand, I think that famous artists are motivated to try harder to produce good work. my point was when artists have this pressure pushed on them, they will not always be able to create good works of art, even if they do try harder. Like when some people take tests and they forget all the answers even though they studied for hours because there is so much pressure to do well.
Question: do you agree that artists create better work a majority of the time, when they are just expressing themselves, instead of trying to make money?

Hamster

Why are we greedy?

This is in response to Nicole B.'s question on one of her posts. The question is :Why are we biologically and psychologically greedy and envious creatures?
My answer is that we are greedy and envious because it makes sense to be. Many people on average, want to be successful. I do no think there is one person that has made it through life without looking at something and wanting it, whether that something was a new car or a better figure. We want things because we believe that if we have them, we can lead a happier life. Commercials do not help us with this issue. In advertising, you see a person running on the beach with all their friends, and then as their laughing and having a good time, you see one of them pick up a drink. the whole message this commercial conveys is that if you buy the drink you can be happy like the people in the commercial. Many people in society may not be able to afford the drink, but that does not stop them from wanting it. I think that in some cases being "greedy" is healthy. Greedy being defined as wanting something. When you want something bad enough you are motivated to get things done to get that something.
question: Can greed be a good thing?

Food time!

In America, the average family is expected to eat three meals a day. Sometimes I wonder why we do this. Like whether we are truly hungry at dinner time, or whether we just think we are hungry around dinner because we have been raised to believe that dinner time is when we need to eat. So I am basically wondering whether our brain is telling us to eat based on our schedule, or if we are truly hungry. This article :http://ezinearticles.com/?Eating-3-Meals-a-Day-Helps-to-Keep-You-in-Shape&id=1554214 says that it is bad not to eat three meals a day because your body stores calories and conserves energy, so the less time you take to eat the more weight you can gain because your metabolism goes down. Part of the reason people say not to eat the smaller meals six times a day is because your body will not conserve any energy or calories. That means if you skip a meal, chances are you will not feel good.
Do you think it is a good idea to eat three meals a day? or do you have a different eating schedule?