The Making: mAnifestoRT?

Sunday, January 27, 2008

mAnifestoRT?

Jackson Pollock, in action
The Pollock Manifesto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ

What counts as Art? post below. Include reference to one of the materials from the Reader.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...: In reference to Friedrich Wolf p.63 in the HCC reader, I agree with Wolf when he states that "Art Is A Weapon!"

I think art is a strong means of communication. Art can come in any form or shape. In reference to Chapter Eleven:Genre, I feel that art is its own genre a "system of classification, a set of conventions, and away of describing audiences" (93). Music, film, opera, novels, paintings-these are all forms of art. Art is making, since these people formed these pieces of art. These artists communicate their thoughts and feelings through their music, film, novels, etc. In relation to communication, art is also used to portray powerful messages. For example, artists like Michael Moore (make) direct films to show the bigger picture of what is going on. His movie "Sicko" is about the Health Insurance problems in the United States. These movies aren't only used as a means of communication, but are also used to provide knowledge and spread awareness. Another form of communication and art is photography. Historical photos illustrate how the world lived 50 years ago. Yet again, this piece of art shows what mistakes were made, and how we can take precautions to make sure we prevent these mistakes from occurring again.

So in my eyes, "Art Is A Weapon."
A weapon of communication- spreading awareness and knowledge.; January 29, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: What counts as art?
According to Friedrich Wolf, "Art is a Weapon".
Art is anything that communicates a strong message, feeling, or emotion. Music, paintings, sculptures, books, plays are just a few examples. Jackson Pullock's forms of art consisted of throwing paint on the floor. But in doing so, he communicated his emotions and feelings into his work and those who view his work is able to read the message. "Art is Weapon" because new ideas can be passed onto others in art. Art can be used to unites people into a common cause. As stated on page 85 of the reader, Adolf Hitler wrote his book, Mein Kamf that communicated across his radical ideas to the German people. Art can be a weapon that can used for spreading ideas that can change the world.; January 29, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Anonymous said...: As cliche as it may sound, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about art is expression. Art is a means of combining all the thoughts and ideas that are running through one's mind and transferring them to a blank sheet of paper or canvas. I don't think an art piece necessarily has to have a universal meaning; maybe the artist himself didn't even have an adequate meaning. Like Jill stated, art is a means of communication. In reference to "The Art Scab" by Heartfield and Grosz, I agree with the idea that "in works of art they preach escape for feelings and thoughts, away from the unberable conditions of the earth...". In this case, the artists are creating/making to get away from their harsh reality of violence, class struggle, sickness and death. Art really does provide escape.
Art isn't always something that is hanging on a wall; it could be something that was drawn on the back of a math test or something drawn with chalk on the sidewalk. Usually art depicts something that helps others break away from reality for awhile and really contemplate for a deeper meaning, whether it be of the painting itself, themselves or the world in general.
Art can be a vintage landscape painting, a poem, a photo, or a movie. Each one is expressing something different in relation to an issue that may or may not evoke doubt, provoke deep thought, or arouse emotions. Take the Mona Lisa for example. This piece of art has stunned tourists, artists and art historians for decades. Her expression provided doubt, thought, and stirred emotions. If DaVinci planned this, I don't know, but it just shows that art doesn't have a right or wrong interpretation. Each artsist wants to communicate his or her own idea of how they see the world and what's happening in it.; January 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: as stated in the previous posts "Art is a Weapon" according to Friedrich Wolf. it's not just something to look at but it expresses feelings and emotions and sometimes tells a story. You can sense alot from the painter by the artwork he creates. In the case of Jackson PUllock, he had his canvas on the ground, and then randomly threw paint all over it. TO many this can mean nothing, but those random splurts of paint had meaning to Pullock. Depending on whether he felt angry, sad, or happy that day, you could possibly tell by the styles in which he splurted the paint. IF he was angry there were probably rough, clumpy spots where he just threw paint. if he was in a happier mood, the strokes might have been more "pleasant" looking on the canvas. Even though at the end it was just lines on a canvas, it was still considered art, because it expresses his feelings and emotions; January 29, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Anonymous said...: mAnifestoRT
Friedrich Wolf said, "Art is a Weapon". (p. 63 HCC reader)
Art is anything that has a strong message behind it, and leaves strong pathos felt by the viewer. "Art is Weapon" because it can be used as a tool to pass on new ideas to its viewers. Art is not restricted to paintings or sculptures it is also present in music, movies/media, dance, poetry, books etc...With regards to books as an art form, Wolf mentions Hitler on page 85 of the HCC reader. Hitler wrote his novel, Mein Kampf that basically laid out his plans for Germany,prior to being the dictator, while he was imprisoned. Though those plans he wrote of were diabolical at times, it lead to many followers of his beliefs and enire countries under his tyranical control. Art can be a quite powerful tool to get across ones message, whether its message is political or not.; January 29, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Art is a form of expression that "depicts emotional responses" p. 41. Some art strays far from reality like the Expressionist art, as it goes into the imaginary/fantasy world. Art also conveys many messages, like in "The Art Scab". It makes people angry and it makes people respond(pathos), as it did with the content of the art in this reading. The content of the art did not satisfy Grosz and Heartfield because in this case, it was idealistic and did not portray the turmoil of the time. So art can be real and in your face, or straying away from political situations.; January 30, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Art is completly a weapon. Any major politica party has some for of art attacking it. Just like the Hitler painting.. or "God Save The Queen". Political art usually is very explicit and really evokes emotion. That is another reason why it is a weapon. Art can really hurt or cause pain against people. Destroying art can as well. When people in the past destroy art... like the statue of Saddam, or the giant Buddah's in the side of a mountain. Now what is art is a different question that I have struggled with many a time. Pollak's art im my opinion isnt really that advaced. It's mere splatter painting, but it's what it means. Pollak changed art... he was the first... so although if it doesnt appear advanced it changed art!; January 30, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Art is a Weapon
Pg. 63 in HCC reader

Art can be used as a means to communicate many messages, any feelings or thoughts can be expressed through art. Using art as a weapon does not necessarily mean that it is used violently. A weapon can be thought to be several things, such as an instrument of power or a tool for change. it isn't used for physical damage in this sense as most weapons are used for. I believe it is referring to the power to move people and to make them feel a certain way about a subject. Hitler used his art form of speaking to influence people into believing what he wants. Though he used it as a weapon to harm others, this is not true for every situation in which art is used. It can be used to manipulate others for the good. Art is primarily based on interpretation rather than facts presented.; January 31, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Webster defines art as a noun - decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter. This statement struck me as bland and too one-sided. In my own terms, art is about expression (Cliché yes, but it is without a doubt, the essence of art). It is through works created by the skilled that their expression comes to light. Art itself is a medium for one to communicate and convey themselves and their ideas in a manner which may not be available to them in words, but instead through pictures, colors, lines, etc. As powerful as words are, I believe art is just as – arguably, in some idea even more than – powerful than words itself. Because the artist molds so many elements into one portrait/picture/painting/etc, the viewer is forced into interpreting every single detail and the (skilled) viewer will learn how to incorporate the artist’s visions into the artist’s statement. Art, make the viewer question the aesthetics of the artist. This, I believe, is the meaning of art – to question the viewer and make the viewer see things in a different light, in ways he never thought possible, to illuminate different ideals and feelings towards that particular work.; January 31, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Additionally, because I forgot to allude to the HCC reader, page 54 “Work Council for Art Manifesto” exemplifies my ideas toward art. That, “art and people must form a unity. Art shall no longer be the enjoyment of the few but the life and happiness of the masses. The aim is alliance of the arts under the wing of a great architecture.”; January 31, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Alex Roth said...: In my opinion, art is painting, poetry, music, theatre, and architecture, or any form of creative expression. On page 41, in "The Weimar Renaissance," the HCC reads, "Bauhus artists believed that they were creating a new world through their painting, poetry, music, theatre, and architecture." This I believe is the defining concept of art, that it's anything which creates a different "world" or another reality from creativity. For example, music is a form of art because when you listen to it or make it, you experience certain feelings and thoughts you otherwise would not have. Art allows you to do this because its objective is to evoke emotion from the person who sees or hears it. Art is also theater and poetry because this involves "making" and the use of creativity. When you stage a play or write a poem you are taking something from imagination, and using creativity to make what you envisioned real. Art is painting and architecture because these are also forms of creative communication. In all of these forms of art they share something in common which is their purpose in communicating and evoking emotion through creative expression. Art is anything that anyone can perceive and get the same emotional response from regardless of whether one is rich, poor, educated, or not educated. The HCC describes this as an “artistic approach known as Expressionism; they were interested in depicting their emotional responses to reality rather than reality itself.” (pg. 41); January 31, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Erin Trapp said...: great new comments. a trend i'm picking up in these, and in some of the earlier ones, too, is that art is not only expression, but also something used to "evoke emotion." alex writes that art is "anything anyone can perceive and get same emotional response." are "expression" and "evoking emotion" part of the same task? are there examples you can think of? or do they oppose? examples?; February 1, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Alex Wong:

Rainer Maria Rilke's statement that "Poetry is a great radiance from within" on page 65 within "The Art Scab" is a good characterization of what I feel about art. It seems to me that art is supposed to be a very individualized pursuit that is very personal. However, I think this only has value to a society which has no social ills.
In education (as in the previous half of this "making" quarter), classical art is often studied simply because it is classical art. There is very little benefit for the average person within these pieces of art. For example, Botticelli's "Primavera" is packed with metaphorical images which the average student or individual wouldn't bother to translate. In this sense, art was something very much removed from the people at large.
I think as a reaction against this separation from the people, today's art is very much about the angst of the "oppressed" working class artist or of larger societal ills. While this view on art is better than the art for only the privledged view, I think something of the quality of art from the past has been lossed. For example, I could doodle something on a piece of notebook paper today and present it to the world as a piece of fine art charged with artistic expression and social commentary. To me, this wouldn't be a piece of art but today's society is receptive to it being a piece of art. In the past, this doodle would never qualify as art. In the end, I feel ambiguous about what art truly is.; February 1, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Dana said...: I believe art brings out interpretations from the viewer that are unrestricted to the artist's own views. Although the artist has their own idea of what the art can mean, it's how the viewer understands, relates, and responds to the painting which makes art unique to the individual as it is a trademark to the artist.

With this, many different factors contribute to the ambiguity of art. Age plays a significant role with the interpretations of one piece of art can be different for a child, a teen, and an adult. Even from the same person, as their intellect develops, so too does their depth of understanding in art develop. Perception of color plays a role, as well. A person who is color blind may interpret art in a different way because of their slight inability to discern some colors from another. In a way, they lose some meaning, but they can also create their own, despite being unable to see some color in the art. These were just a few examples of many.

Art brings out interpretation that can be hard to place in words. It brings out emotion that in some ways are difficult or uncommonly expressed. It brings out wonder, perplexity, contemplation, understanding, confusion. Art can bring out all of these from humans which cannot merely be expressed in words or through actions, but simply and intricately within the soul of the beholder.; February 1, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Alex Wong:

This is in response to Christina S's comment:

I think that "The Art Scab" would completely reject Jackson Polluck's art as the art which sits in the museum while people outside starve. Polluck's art is about individual feelings and emotions rather than the collective proliteriat struggle against the bourgeoisie. So, I think "The Art Scab" is arguing that art must be more than expression of individual emotions; good art must have collective benefit for the workers not just cathartic individual benefit.; February 1, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Erin Trapp said...: we're getting a constellation of ideas about art: as communication, expression, documentary, as to evoke emotions, to change, as the creation of a new world, as something to perceive, as something to bring unity, and finally (and this is great) as utterly ambiguous. nice thinking, everyone.; February 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Shannan's post: What counts as art?

Art is used to bring beauty into making. Walter Gropius reveals that art and craft should be combined to create decorative acrhitecture when he says that "proficiency in a craft is essential to every artist" (HCC Reader 59). With Gropius's vision for a combination of craft and art, i gather that art should create gorgeous buildings and products for the improved future of a community.

Gropius also believes that the fusion of artistic and crafty skills will bring a community closer to God. He says that "architecture and sculpture and painting in one unity [which] will one day [raise the community] toward heaven"(59). Incorporation of art into buildings and products does not only improve a community, but it also (in the eyes of some) can bring the people to achieve a higher religious connection.; February 1, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Art is a means of expressing yourself, in any way shape or form. It is a method to get your ideas out to the masses, so art a form of propaganda almost, because your expressing your ideas on others. Which would make an easy link to say that art is a weapon.; February 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Art is a mean to communicate messages and depending on how others interpret the art, the messages that are conveyed will vary. Art helps to establish a connection between the artist and the audience; through art, various feelings and thoughts are evoked. Art is something that can be enjoyed by everyone. According to “The Art Scab”, art can help people to escape “away from the unbearable conditions of the earth, to the moon and the stars”. I agree with this because I believe in a sense that art does gives people an opportunity to forget about their own reality and enter that of the artist.; February 1, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Art is an instrument of influence. It holds a mystifying power that draws the viewers to be entranced in its details, its colors, its style, its many different features and aspects that provides an abundance of meaning. According to Friedrich Wolf in p. 63, "Art is a Weapon." He says that "'art' is neither a means for edification in the hands of the pedagogues, headmasters, and bearded scholars imposed upon manual workers "starving for education[.]" Art does not provide statistics, facts, evidence, for its foundation is the bias of the maker of the select art. It does not educate for it leaves room for interpretation; since education must be grounded by solid evidence, not subjective interpretations. Art can only demolish opposing forces or annihilate what already exists so that we can have a leveled stage to rebuild society in its political, economic, socio-cultural arenas with other instruments and tools.; February 1, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: alex writes that art is "anything anyone can perceive and get same emotional response."

Does art really have to evoke the same emotions to everyone? An art work usually does not stir the same emotional responses from everyone. The beauty of art can be its many forms of how we may interpret it, and it may not just be black or white. One of the examples is the one on this blog, with the various square tiles. To one, it may seem just like a bunch of patterned tiles. To someone with more time to waste thinking about it, the squares could represent plots of houses, a living community of colors.; February 1, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...: I believe that arts functions as a form of communication. As such, art encompasses all forms of communication because art can be seen in all communicative forms, such as literature, painting, drawing, and even speech. Art also involves the three elements of the HCC because to create art, one must think, make, and do in order to create what is being thought about. According to Frederick Wolf, "art is a weapon" (63), and as such, art does have innate and powerful properties. Such examples of the power of art can be seen through German propaganda during World War II, and political campaign speeches. All these forms of art reveal the innate power that art has to persuade and evoke emotion within an audience. Thus Wolf was correct in his claim that art is a weapon because at has the power to persuade and drive people towards a goal.; February 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM

The Making

Sunday, January 27, 2008

mAnifestoRT?

22 comments:

Humanities Core: Winter 2008

Major Due Dates

Schedule of Genre Presents

Labels

Links

Reading

Meanings

Blog Archive

About Me