Idea Essay #2: What is Art?

This is a clip from the movie Mona Lisa Smile. For those of you who haven't seen the film, it's set in 1953 and is about an graduate student from California (Julia Roberts) who takes a job as the art history professor at Wellesley College, a highly conservative women's college in Massachusetts. The movie explores ideas regarding the role of women in society as well as the concept "What is art?" This clip is of the second class Ms. Watson taught at Wellesley. In the previous class, all the girls knew every piece of art and it's history, and had already read their entire text. In this class, however, Ms. Watson begins to challenge their concept of art. When she shows the Soutine painting the girls are shocked because they have never before been presented this idea of art. Betty (Kirsten Dunst) objects to this as art because it doesn't subscribe to the "standards" of art like color and form, essentially a formalist argument. Another character, Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal) claims that the painting is aggressive and erotic. The arguments of many of the philosophers of art are buried in the dialogue of this scene. It explores the very idea that we have been talking about all semester: What is art? This is one of those questions which will never be fully answered. In this movie it is argued that art is not up to the standards of the infamous "them". The standards of art are determined by each individual and what their values are. To some, their child's painting is the greatest work of art in the world. To others, no artists can live up to the great Michelangelo or DaVinci. Some just want their art to be pretty and consider paintings like the Soutine "grotesque". But as Connie (Ginniger Goodwin) says, "Is there a rule against art being grotesque?" Throughout history, different generations have had different standards for the art of their time. But for me art is a personal experience. Part of it is about the composition, the colors, the form. But if it doesn't spark any thought, any emotion, it doesn't hold much meaning for me. It can still be art in the technical sense, but real art for me is art which I can look at time and time again and still connect to. I can learn something from it, it can influence my emotions, or sometimes it can just make me smile. Art can't just be paint on a canvas. It's something deeper, more meaningful, and it's not up to a textbook or elite few to tell us what good art has to be. If you love tacky velvet paintings, well then that's art for you. Most people may not share that opinion but why does that matter? Art is a personal experience, and while it can be influenced by standards, it's ultimately up to the individual to look past the paint.

BBC's Hamlet

This is a scene from the new BBC production of Hamlet where David Tennant plays the title character. The part I want to talk about is Hamlet’s advice to the actors which only goes until 2:11.

Hamlet’s advice to the actors is one of the most overlooked monologues from this play. The speech is not as theatrical as Hamlet’s other monologues; it isn’t as dark and depressing. But I really enjoy this monologue because it is instructional. It holds true even today.

People often forget that the theatrical arts are very precise and very technical. Not everyone can just get on stage and perform, though this is not true for film (sorry, stage actor joke…). There are certain rules to follow. One should be creative, but should not stray from what the author has written. An actor must know when gestures further the words and when they are too much (my old acting coach would say “To gesticulate or not to gesticulate. That is the real question.” And depending on the method the actor chooses to follow, one must “act natural”. It should appear to the audience as if one were “to hold … the mirror up to nature”, to represent reality to the best of their ability. Stereotypes of actors always have the over dramatic performer flailing about onstage, over emphasizing words and crying without cause. This is actually considered “bad acting”, or as I like to put it: *fakes gagging noises*

Here is a link to Hamlet’s famous “To be, or not to be” soliloquy where Tennant takes his own advice. His performance is breath taking. People don’t generally walk around speaking poetry to themselves (let’s not discuss whether or not Hamlet is actually crazy by this point or not). However, if they did express their inner monologue, this is how it would look. Notice how emotional he gets. These are not David Tennant’s words, and yet he tears up. He does not act, he is Hamlet, he feels what Hamlet feels. Perhaps I’m glorifying him too much, I am biased. But of all the Hamlet soliloquies I’ve seen, none have been so specific, so real. Most are *fake gagging noises* acting. This is personal, this is intense, this is real.

To conclude, the performing arts have as many rules, techniques, and difficulty as any other art and not everyone can pull it off. But Shakespeare provides wonderful advice on how to better the performance and David Tennant certainly exemplifies it in both of his scenes above.

This poem (below), The Broken Heart by John Donne is one of my favorites! Written in Sonnet form of ABABCCDD, John Donne’s poetry greatly resembles that of Shakespeare’s.

I first came across this poem my senior year of high school in English class. As an angst-y teenager, it spoke to me and offered me a new cynical outlook on love and life. Since, I’ve grown to form my own opinions on the matter, and to appreciate the poem more objectively.

The first thing, anyone notices in analyzing the poem is the ample use of imagery. “By him, as by chain'd shot, whole ranks do die ; He is the tyrant pike, our hearts the fry” (Donne). This is my favorite line. Donne offers brilliant and dark pictures of how love destroys. If imagining two cannon balls chained together, killing everyone in their path is not enough to turn you off, imagine, then that ugly fish, the pike ripping a tiny minnow to shreds. Lovely isn’t it?

It is a fair assumption to say that whatever heart break Donne was going through was recent and messy. He’s not at a state in his healing where he can rationally deal with the emotions going through his head. He tries to reason through the recent events in his last two stanzas. He talks about how he had a whole heart before meeting this woman, and after departing found that there was something missing. He reasons that if he had actually given her his heart, his heart would have been able to teach hers about love and compassion, but seeing that this is not the case, Donne decides that this woman simply shattered his heart (maliciously, I assume). Obviously, this isn’t rational, but it is how John Donne chooses to reason through his emotion.

I’ve always been a dreamer, myself and I am saddened by the heartbreak in the world and children growing up too fast, but I maintain that a healthy dose of cynicism keeps you grounded and prevents greater heartbreak later. Perhaps this poem takes that philosophy to the extreme – “…after one such love, will love no more” – but I feel Donne’s idea of a heart scarring every time it is broken is pretty accurate. One may have lost a love, but the wounds they wear are only proof that they have been strong enough to make themselves vulnerable for someone they cared about. A new scar, a newly lost love. This is not the death of your heart, per say, but there is always a reminder of what once was. And one must use it as a means to move forward. (If that makes sense)

The Broken Heart by John Donne is a beautiful poem excellently composed. It is simple, I know, but the amble use of imagery and emotional context make it one of my favorite poems to read. I feel very connected to the poem (even past my more angst-y years) and hope that you enjoy it as well.

THE BROKEN HEART.

by John Donne

He is stark mad, whoever says,

That he hath been in love an hour,

Yet not that love so soon decays,

But that it can ten in less space devour ;

Who will believe me, if I swear

That I have had the plague a year?

Who would not laugh at me, if I should say

I saw a flash of powder burn a day?

Ah, what a trifle is a heart,

If once into love's hands it come !

All other griefs allow a part

To other griefs, and ask themselves but some ;

They come to us, but us love draws ;

He swallows us and never chaws ;

By him, as by chain'd shot, whole ranks do die ;

He is the tyrant pike, our hearts the fry.

If 'twere not so, what did become

Of my heart when I first saw thee?

I brought a heart into the room,

But from the room I carried none with me.

If it had gone to thee, I know

Mine would have taught thine heart to show

More pity unto me ; but Love, alas !

At one first blow did shiver it as glass.

Yet nothing can to nothing fall,

Nor any place be empty quite ;

Therefore I think my breast hath all

Those pieces still, though they be not unite ;

And now, as broken glasses show

A hundred lesser faces, so

My rags of heart can like, wish, and adore,

But after one such love, can love no more.

Vale Decem

This is one of the most beautiful songs I currently know. It is called “Vale Decem” and was written for the final episode of the Doctor Who 2010 season. Vale Decem is Latin for “Farewell Ten” and was written specifically for the regeneration (or death and rebirth) of the 10^th Doctor into the 11^th Doctor.

Aside from the obviously beautiful music and haunting melody, I find the song particularly interesting because the composer/lyricist wrote it in a dead language for a tv show! This is not something people do every day. Something/someone has to be very special to dig up a dead language for them. And all biases aside, David Tennant as the 10^th Doctor is very special.

What amazes me further is that the singer hitting all of the amazing high notes is, in fact, a male singer. This is called a counter tenor. How he is able to hit notes I could not even dream of, astounds me! My voice teacher tells me she hates men like him because they take our (mezzo sopranos’) jobs. Counter tenors are just so novel! Who wants to see a girl sing high, when there’s a man out there who can do it too? I see her point, but I have no room to agree. I have a vast range of lower notes and, for the first few musicals of my life, I was cast as a male. When singing with friends, I will often take the male part because I can. In middle school our chorale group did a Phantom of the Opera medley where one of my friends, Nathan and I sang “All I Ask of You”; except I was Raoul and he was Christine. Perhaps it is ok for men to sing like women and vice versa. If you are gifted with a beautiful voice, no matter the range, you should show it off! This man sings the song beautifully.

Finally, the lyrics to the song are just beautiful. As I stated above, they were written in Latin and are as follows:

Lyric (rough translation)

Vale Decem (Farewell Ten)

Honore Res Quara (In Your Honour)
Emerio (Its Deserved)
Alter Altera (This Other One)
Vale Decem (Farewell Ten)
Emerio (This is deserved)
Alter (This Other One)
Alteri Te (This Other One Of You Begins)
Vale Decem (Farewell Ten)
Vale Stragem (Farewell Carnage)
Valde Temptua (Intense Trials)
De Glorio (In Matters Of Pride)
Vale De Temptua (Bid Farewell To These Trials)
Vale Decet (Bid Farewell Ten)
Honora (With Honour)
Res Quare (This Occurence)
Alter Cerna (This Seperation)
Armis (Is By Force Of Arms)
Grata Tunc (So Leave With Joy)
Usquera (All The Way)
Emani (And Arise)

Vale (Farewell)

Perhaps I am emotionally biased to the song because it is related to a show I am very emotionally invested in. David Tennant was my first Doctor of the series, and though he will not be my last, I will always hold him in the highest honor. He was, indeed, one of the best representations of this majestic creature in a very long time. And the creators of the show know it. He was given all the due respect and applaud with this last episode, and this beautiful farewell song.

I shall tell you a tale of a piece of art I encountered over break. This Spring Break, for my birthday, I received a gift I was almost ashamed to have used. My aunt handed me a beautiful box containing several beautifully painted shapes. I smiled at her, not entirely sure I knew what I was holding. “They are from this new place by my house,” she said, “Aren’t they pretty neat? And they come in interesting flavors too!” I began to perceive that I was, indeed, holding a box of chocolates! Some could pass as candy (natural chocolate-y color with some embellishment) but some were shiny, sparkly, and had interesting colors of green, orange, red, etc. How could anyone eat these chocolates? How could they destroy this art?!

Of course, I had to eat them eventually (I have no self control with chocolates). I tried an orange Reeces©-looking piece. It tasted pretty normal – peanut butter/chocolate – and then I reached for my water! It had curry in it! Looking at the list of flavors that comes in most boxes, I noticed most of them had unusual flavors: cider caramel, lavender, Tahitian vanilla, crème brulée, etc. Some were too odd for me, others were delicious! All were beautiful!

Today, the box is empty. Food art is not meant to last as long. Which makes me wonder why this art is created at all? I know what food looks like after being chewed, being digested, and where it ends up (please excuse the toilet talk; I hope it isn’t too base a subject, and I shall not expand). What artist could put such work into their creation only to have it digested?

Is food art really art if it is created for the express purpose of being destroyed? We see all of these new cake shows that glorify cake art but we never see how it ends. Yes it is wonderful to see and it is WONDERFUL to eat, but how do we analyze it? Can food art skimp on flavor for the sake of more creative art? Or could one forgive the sloppy art if it tastes great?

I know I would have preferred more taste than looks. Plain old peanut butter and chocolate would have sufficed for me; leave the curry out of it. Yes the lavender chocolate tasted great! But it wasn’t the prettiest to look at – nothing more than a chocolate square with purple on top. Does aesthetic compromise flavor and vice versa? Can one exist without the other? Then why does food art exist? If art is to be created and appreciated, shouldn’t it be preserved?

I personally don’t believe that food art is worth the time and money. On my plate, I prefer a tasty meal over an artistic showcase. I would never eat the Mona Lisa, nor would I be able to eat most food art. This is not to say that people should stop making food art. Let them have their talent and create how they will, but I will not be eating it. The Cake Boss is my guilty pleasure, but I watch it to watch art, not to watch food.

Art Essay 4

For my final art essay I decided to take an argumentative approach and tackle something which may or may not actually be art, graffiti. I was actually inspired by a film that we watched during my first year seminar, "Bomb It", which dealt with that question. Anyone else who took that class may remember the debate we had on whether graffiti counts as art, but now I would like to analyze graffiti from some the prespectives we have discussed in class. For the sake of length, I will not discuss the fact that graffiti is illegal and keep my arguments about it as aesthetically based as possible. Also I will limit my arguments to common graffiti found in the United States, as it does look different in Europe. So the question, is graffiti art or good art according to the criteria we have discussed in class?

Graffiti could be considered art from a formalist perspective. Formalist art could be described as art that is about itself, its own medium. Graffiti, is arguably about the location it is placed and how it is applied. Admittedly, this does not apply to political graffiti or name graffiti, but rather simple designs. Some graffiti artists, known as bombers, claim that their work is not actually graffiti if it is done on canvas in a studio. It is about marking a surface in a particular place. It could therefore be argued that it is about the surface, about itself.

Graffiti could also be considered art from an expressivist perspective. It can express the emotions of the artist. Many graffiti artists have what I see as a Romantic view of marking the world with their own names. Overall, a form of art that is about the artist.

Finally, one could argue that graffiti is art from a pragmatic perspective It is about how it influences those who encounter it. Whether these influences are a good thing or not is not the issue that I wish to discuss. This applies in particular to politically motivated graffiti, which makes a pragmatic statement.

I have never said that I find graffiti beautiful, in fact I do not find it beautiful, but the question I wish to tackle is could it if judged by the standards we have discussed be considered a work of art. I am not suggesting that anyone experiment with spray paint in the dead of night, but could we still call graffiti art?

-Laurel

Idea Essay #2: Formalism

Alright so as we know my peers and I tend to lean towards a romantic view of aesthetics. In the past few weeks, though, I am finding that when it comes to things that I am proficient in, I'm quite a formalist critic. Because of this I thought I'd take a peek at what the "less bad" parts of formalism are!
So my understanding of formalism is that the philosophy is based on the form of the piece. Meaning that its aesthetic value is based solely on its composition and its craftsmanship rather than any emotional or content-driven argument. In visual art this creates pieces with little to no storyline and creates paintings like this one by Mondrian:
As you can see this painting has no emotional content, it is simply a depiction of form (mainly the artistic qualities of line and color). While you might say that this is boring and pointless and uninteresting (I tend to think so), try applying formalist ideas to a more romantic piece. Think of the Mona Lisa:If Da Vinci hadn't had some sense of formalism, this painting would have absolutely no power at all. It would be sloppy, poorly painted, and uninteresting to look at. Formalism is what keeps "great art" great. Ironically formalist painters rely too heavily on a formalist aesthetic and simply paint lines, boxes, etc. ruining their potential greatness.

Formalism is necessary. It has always existed and is at the heart of great art of any kind (be it painting, poetry, film, etc.). My qualms with formalism come with extreme formalism that discredits anything that isn't purely based on technical mastery. To make truly great art one needs to be technical but they must also have pure artistic genius (usually enhanced by technical mastery).

In my opinion formalism isn't all bad (to anyone that has studied with professor Oakley, I would label him as a strongly formalist musician but his choirs sing beautiful music). I do think that extreme formalism is detrimental to art, but aspects of the formalist aesthetic are quite necessary for art. What do you guys think?

-Allijah

P.S. The views discussed in this blog post are my own and do not express the opinions of Da Vinci or Mondrian :-P