In Response to Brandon's Question

I think that there are several paintings or movie scenes that could be argued as considered better than those which exist in the natural world. Artists may be inspired by the natural world, but chose to alter it in a way in which their painting adds something to the natural world which does not exist in reality. Paintings or movie scenes based off of the natural world but altered to add something that does not exist can add an element of mystery or wonder which is enjoyed by the viewer. Many artists take into consideration what is appealing to the majority of the audience when beginning their creations. In the world of dance, dances are often created on the basis of what the audience has best responded to in the past and based off of this knowledge new dances can be created theorizing about what the audience would like to see because of their reactive history. Painters could easily do the same with their paintings by seeing which of their past pieces created received the most enjoyment and taking that into consideration when creating a new painting (one which may even be considered to be an improvement of their previous works). Here, imitation is not a bad thing because it could help with improvement. Should painters keep their viewers perspective in mind when creating a new painting, or does this hinder the possibilities that could arise if the painter paints without thinking of the viewer’s reactions to the work?

Art and Location

In his essay, Carlson makes the statement in reference to art pieces (in particular, paintings) stating that “its colors are aesthetically important, but where it hangs is not,” (page 538). This statement implies that no matter where an art piece is presented, it will always be considered art. I disagree with this idea because I believe that for some, but not all, works of art the location of its presentation is necessary for its consideration as art. When a painting is presented in a well known art museum which has good standing, it is less likely that a viewer would look at the work and think “I do not know whether or not I would consider this to be art”. Works hung in art museums are less likely to be debated about as falling under the category of “art” because it has seemingly already been decided as so granted that it is hung in a location that centers itself around art. The most prevalent example of this occurring is with many works of modern art. Take a modern art work which consists of just a splash of color as if flicked off from an artist’s paintbrush. Here the artist intended to flick his brush off and let the color splash onto a canvas and then the work was framed and put into a highly recognized art museum. The same artist could do the same thing but to a different location, and have it debatable as to whether or not it should be considered as art. For example, the artist could flick the paintbrush so that some paint landed in a trash can instead of on a nicely presented canvas. Here the artist’s intent was the same, but from an on lookers perspective, the paint flicked onto the canvas which was hung in the art museum would be more likely to be accepted as art than the paint flicked into the trashcan even though intent was the same. Although the argument still exists as to the paint flicked into the trash can as being art, it could be assumed that the paint in the trash can is more debatable as art than the same work being hung in a well known art museum. What is your opinion on this subject matter? Is location important to some art pieces?

In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 10)

Carlson’s theory on how to appreciate art in comparison to how to appreciate nature is distinctly different. Carlson discusses the variety of means to appreciate art which include behaviors exhibited such as contemplation, scanning, studying, observing, surveying, inspecting, and examining. He theorizes that humans instinctually know which aspects of works of art are significant and how to appreciate them because they are manmade creations. On the contrary, nature cannot be appreciated in the same way because it is not manmade, a central qualification to Carlson’s theory on art appreciation. From Carlson’s perspective, nature is appreciated by means of distinguishing specific features of the environment which deserve attention and appreciation. Often the focus of nature revolves around the colors or designs that nature provides for us. In his essay, Carlson also places emphasis on the ability to divide the existing environment into scenes so the scenes can be looked at from a particular perspective, instead of taking in all that the environment has to offer at once. Just as Carlson argues that we instinctually know how to appreciate manmade art, Carlson argues a similar perspective about how to appreciate nature by stating that we know a lot about nature via common sense and scientific knowledge. Through this common sense and scientific knowledge we can gauge what aspects of nature there are to appreciate and how to appreciate them. Although Carlson’s theories on art appreciation versus nature appreciation are similar, the two are distinctly different. Carlson places great emphasis on the idea that as humans we cannot appreciate everything because without limiting our appreciation we would only experience “a meld of physical sensations”. Do you agree with this idea? Why or why not?