What is art today?

When someone is asked about what his or her favorite piece of art is, they normally would refer to either a painting or perhaps a sculpture. This is a case where the people of the present day have been subjected to what is socially acceptable. Who the artist is, how much it was sold for, or where the artwork was shown sets the standards in today’s society determines whether something is good art or bad art. It is not to say that sculptures and paintings are not great examples of fine art but rather it is as though a person has tunnel vision when thinking about what their favorite art is because they have not been subjected to biased opinions and not having the ability to see the many different art forms that are out there.

Suzi Gablik argues in her essay titled The Nature of Beauty In Contemporary Art that art is starting to become more than just going to a gallery. She describes how “a new paradigm of an engaged, participatory and socially relevant art is emerging.” Ms. Gablik shows how a majority of artists are selling their work to a dealer and the process they go through in doing so, it is not helping today’s society in any way. She finds out from one artist that “No artist has ever changed anything for better or worse." They believe they are not socially responsible for helping out the world and making it a better place. Ms. Gablik states this is completely wrong.

She then describes how one of her close friends her and friends take time once a month to go and clean garbage out of a river. She describes this as true art for it is helping the wellbeing of society. Her friend also makes a deep connection with the river to a point where the relationship is more than just how she was trying to help clean it out. The connection she makes is one that is deeper than she could have ever made with a painting or something she is viewing at an art gallery or a museum. It is because she is personally making her own connection with society and using the river as her landscape for creating her masterpiece. The connection she makes with the earth is far greater than one could ever make while stroking a brush a crossed a canvas because she is changing the earth for the better.

Joseph Beuys is an artist who is a bit exotic compared to others. He is known for his sculptures but one of his most famous pieces of work is his three night stay in New York City with a coyote. Mr. Beuys spent the time with the coyote in hopes of making a certain connection. This is far different from the concept of most artists work. Although the idea has sketched me out more than made me think of his artwork as unique and interesting, you still have to respect Mr. Beuys work for he is trying to help society for the better in the way he was trying to understand a form of life better.

Art has given the world many great contributions. The problem is the contributions have not helped the world’s society change for the good. Paintings will not pick up the garbage that is killing our environment. Sculptures do not help decrease the air pollution. Art comes in all shapes and forms so when someone is out in a ditch doing their part to help the environment I believe they are making a bigger connection with helping today’s society than an artist’s connection he is making with his work in a gallery with a viewer.

Chris Pearce

Working Too Hard to Make Art More “Natural”
Within Suzi Gablik’s article, “The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art,” she explains within an interview with James Hillman that: “‘Aesthetics doesn’t serve anything but itself and its own ends. I would like that to change’” (Gablik 7). In a way, I can agree with what Gablik is saying; to me, art has always been about winning the onlooker over with a work of art’s apparent physicality. The colors, texture, patterns within a painting are what is most important. In a sense, what makes the painting visually appealing to a large audience, or even to a single person, is what will make the artist money and give them the fame that they want. In this way of thinking, art is all about aesthetics. On the other hand, Suzi Gablik and fellow artist Joseph Beuys would both agree that art is so much more than the physical design of art to impress others and to make money, it is about creating something that will have a lasting impact on society, and returning to the natural root of the arts to truly send a message to others.
Although I agree that Suzi Gablik has some very innovative ideas regarding the new “paradigms,” in which contemporary art needs to stem from in order to thrive, I personally believe that both Gablik and Beuys are trying way too hard to revive the contemporary arts, and by doing so, trying to turn contemporary art into something that isn’t art at all. In a sense, I derived that Gablik is trying to make all things left alone in nature, art, and to bring the artist back to this natural world in everyday life. This is a bizarre phenomena all it itself. Within an interview with James Hillman discussing the River Project of Dominque Mazeaud, Gablik tries to emphasize the fact that art can truly be an artist who is socially active, picking trash out of a river. There doesn’t have to be a camera taking pictures, there doesn’t have to be a paintbrush making brush strokes on a canvas, or a pencil stenciling on paper. It just is. The scene of Mazeaud picking up trash throughout the river is a symbol of what should be done in today’s world. By suggesting these actions as an artist, Gablik tries to explain that by being socially and environmentally involved, the artist is taking a major role in promoting these very important ideas. Thus, the artist is taking art to a whole new level: to the community, aka “art in service of humanity” (Gablik 6). Therefore, art is no longer something beautiful with a face value. Art is something beautiful and natural; art is something that cannot be paid for. It is something that an artist has to work for without receiving cash back. An artist works for it to bring art back to its natural foundations while bringing the community together. I have to admit, that this is the most bizarre translation of art that I have ever read about. It is within this interview with Hillman, that I truly think Gablik and even Mazeaud are trying way too hard to turn contemporary art into something more natural than it has ever been. When I think of returning art to the natural world, I think of depicting nature within works more than actually “being” a part of the natural world. I’m not sure that the every-day art viewer would be able to agree or truly understand this message, because I certainly do not. As a beginner student, this is a very difficult concept to grasp.
Likewise, in a critical essay regarding the work of Joseph Beuys, entitled, “American Beuys,” by David Levi Strauss, I view Beuys as some sort of deranged art wizard who devotes his life to turning art into something that it is truly not. Beuys hosts a three-day exhibit in which he lives in a dark room with a coyote in order to bring art back to its natural realm. The Earth is art, in a sense. At one point in this bizarre exhibition, there is light that surfaced when ironically enough, a coyote peed all over the Wall Street Journal, in the middle of the dark room. Beuys instantly thought that that was a sign from the art gods that coyotes are trying to tell artists and mankind alike that it is time to reintroduce ourselves to nature. In a sense, this coyote symbol is a reference for all of us to reject the materialism that goes with art, and accept art for its natural beauty. Similar to Gablik’s thoughts, art should not just have a face value, it should have true meaning behind it that will change the minds of others.
I seem to agree that art work has become something that we have decided to hang on our walls and buy for high prices and not even think outside of the box. Although we expect artwork to be beautiful, we completely dismiss the fact that it should have a purpose, and that purpose could be to socially affect the minds of others. In my personal opinion, I think that cleaning a river is an act of service, not of art, and pretending to be a coyote for three days is just a bizarre cry for help.

-Kara Livingston

Artistic Responsibility in a Changing World

Suzi Gablik’s article “The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art” attempts to tackle the idea of social responsibility and how it relates to both artists and the art they create.  She explains that while the older art paradigm placed little to no responsibility on artists, a newer vision has developed in which artists feel it is their societal duty to create different types of art, which ultimately comment on the world as a whole. 

            Gablik presents two different paradigms to define the “art world”.  The first is the older, yet more traditional outlook on art.  This world is comprised of the idea that artists are defined by whether or not their art is being shown or sold.  As pointed out by Sandro Chia, this artistic world is influenced by the desire for “money, prestige, and power”, which is highly reflective upon society as a whole.  This paradigm revolves around the idea that artists are reclusive beings, who are suppose to remain sheltered and oblivious to their social surroundings, resulting in a “relief of social responsibility”. 

            The second paradigm presented in Gablik’s article is a new movement within the art world, in which artists are realizing their role with in society and the importance that they develop a sense of “artistic responsibility”. This newfound artistic responsibility has caused many artists to begin addressing societal issues and crises within their work as a way of becoming more in tune with society.  In order to do this, artist must shy away from the more traditional forms of art that hang in museums and instead choose to create a more “visible manifestation”.  This form of art can be tied to David Levi Strauss’ essay “America Beuys”, which focuses on performance artists Joseph Beuys.  While I cannot fully comprehend how Beuys’ performance of living with a coyote for three days constitutes as art, it is still an example of how an artist can choose to take a different route of expression to make a statement about society.  Strauss theorizes that Beuys’ performance “called attention to the crisis brought about by mechanistic, materialistic, and positive thinking in the West”.  Essentially, Beuys was making a social statement that humans need to be capable of adapting with a changing world. 

            Another main focus of Gablik’s article, which I personally found interesting, is the idea of beauty within art.  Some art critics argue that when art is closely connected to the world, it loses its beauty.  They feel that art should be pure and untainted by the evils of society.  I, however, agree with Gablik’s opposing view; art that “compassionately responds” to whatever it is referring to makes the world more beautiful.  I feel that this idea is closely connected to the emotional response one feels towards art, and as long as art creates some type of emotion, whether it be a positive or negative, it is beautiful.

      In a conversation with Thomas Moore, Gablik ultimately concludes that placing the term “responsibility” upon artists gives it a negative connotation.  Artist should not have to feel pressure to create art that critiques society, however, art should “celebrate and participate robustly in the life-world”.  I particularly like Gablik’s use of the word celebrate.  By viewing art as a celebration of life, society, and the world, it takes away some of the pressure of the world responsibility.  While artists such as Beuys might not have been celebrating life, he was definitely using the newer paradigm to comment on his surroundings and to me art that it is socially aware and compassionate is exactly what this world needs to get people to stop and think.  

By Hildy

Lego Land or Broadway Boogie Woogie?

As I searched for a piece of artwork that was unusual, I came across Piet Mondrian's Broadway Boogie Woogie. This painting reminded me of my childhood days when I was obsessed with legos. I would avidly spend most of my afternoons building whatever my imagination was able to create on that certain day. Unfortunately, when I researched Mondrian's painting and his biography, he did not have the legos on his mind when he created one of his life's most famous works.

Piet Mondrian was born on March 7th, 1872 in Holland. His family was very artistic and gave him the chance to pursue his dream for the most part of becoming an artist for a living. His father was content on having Piet be able to make a living for himself besides just painting so he paid for his son to go to school to become an art teacher. Upon getting his degree for teaching, Piet wanted to pursue his real dream. Since his father could not afford for him to go to an art academy, his uncle Frits was able to obtain the money for him. There he studied full time or took night classes while also joined Artist Societies where he showed his work. During the rest of his time in Europe, Piet became known for his paintings as well as his articles that were published in a popular art magazine.

Mondrian ended up leaving Europe in 1940 due to the war, landing in New York City where he created Broadway Boogie Woogie. His abstract painting was done in his style which he deemed "Neoplasticism." Each of his paintings were done layer by layer until they were balanced by color, form and surface. In this last painting of his, Piet was said to be inspired by how fast New York City moved and its continuous motion. The yellow used in this painting were inspired by the yellow taxi cabs. He was fascinated by the way of life in the city and this painting was done to exhibit just that.

When I was done researching Piet Mondrian, I went back to viewing his last painting. It no longer appeared to me as something I could have created with my big box of legos when I was a child. The painting drew me in more, as I moved my eyes across the painting I could see how Mr. Mondrian would want his viewers to see why he created this piece of art. My eyes never stopped moving as his colors and patterns kept me occupied just as if New York City does to onlookers as they look around for the first time while visiting the big apple. I have learned through this assignment that with a little research abstract art is not as visually pleasing as I once thought it was. Before I looked at abstract art as boring because I did not understand that there is a reason for what the artist is trying to depict to a viewer. With realism the message was more direct to the viewer but abstract art must be looked at more than once and I am glad I have gotten a chance to understand this.

Chris

http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/mondrian2.html
http://paintings.name/piet-mondrian-biography.php

How Does Art Make You Feel?

As a child, I distinctly remember visiting the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and coming across a painting, which greatly confused me.  There was nothing more to the painting other that the top half of the canvas was brown, and the bottom gray.  After staring at the painting for a few minutes, I turned to my mother and said,  “that’s not art, even I could paint that.”  Even though many years have passed since I first came across this painting, Mark Rothko’s Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969 still causes me frustration.  Can a painting involving two mundane colors on either half of the canvas really be considered art? 

Mark Rothko was born in Dvinsk, Russia, but later immigrated to the United States.  After growing up in Portland, Oregon, he attended Yale University, however, he dropped out in 1923 and moved to New York City.  Rothko’s earlier paintings relied heavily upon an emotional approach, as well as a child-like take in terms of usage of color and shapes.  (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/early5.shtm) As World War II approached, Rothko’s works took on a more symbolic approach. By using unnaturalistic forms of representation, he was able to comment on the changing world.  During this time period, Rothko also developed a use for both mythology and religious influence in his paintings.

            As the 1950s approached, Rothko’s style changed yet again, leading him to the style, which would eventually produce Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969.  Rothko’s later work, called multi-forms, revolved around the use of “perceptual subtly” (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/late3.shtm). He began producing paintings using anywhere from one to four rectangular shapes in only a few different colors.  He chose to not name these paintings, in fear of influencing the viewer’s perception or emotional connection to the painting. 

            Rothko’s Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969 is one of Rothko’s later paintings, using only two colors and on the entire canvas. After learning about its painter and the reasoning behind this type of art, I feel just as I did years ago.  I am still confused about its meaning, purpose, and the fact that it is considered art.   Are we supposed to appreciate the painting for its simplicity or use of the canvas? Critics have stated that unlike other abstract artist, Rothko did not abandon “the ability of abstract art to be experienced in emotionally expressive terms” (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/late7.shtm). This painting, however, draws no concrete emotion from me, nor does it make a grand statement about the human condition.  The only emotion I feel is disappointment, because I cannot grasp its meaning.  Perhaps this was Rothko’s ultimate goal, to create art that made people frustrated or confused. While I would love for Rothko’s painting to one day make sense to me, I feel that unfortunately I will never get this satisfaction, and that frustrating feeling I felt as a child will maintain steady in respect to Rothko’s artwork. 

By Hildy Marinello

Lack of Proof is Frustrating

I could stare at some of Joan Mitchell’s abstract paintings for years and not understand its true meaning. If she never titled any of her paintings, I am certain that I would remain clueless as to what her true intent was when painting her “masterpieces.” Mitchell, who was born in Chicago, Illinois, and studied art and its history for most of her younger life, remains a mystery to me. Although she studied intensely at the Art Institute of Chicago, Columbia University, Hans Hofmann’s, and Smith’s College in order to ensure a solid education behind her passion for art, her paintings often appear meaningless and just plain confusing. It was a shock to find out on her website, www.joanmitchellfoundation.org, that she was actually influenced by Van Gogh. I never would’ve compared her paintings to his in a million years. She was known as a loyal, “American artist,” and wanted to portray the life of an American. Mitchell created vibrant paintings depicting the death of a sunflower, winter life living by a harbor, and she also had various untitled paintings that seem to have a life of their own. Although Mitchell studied at some of the best art universities in the nation, was influenced by other masters in art, and blends colors and designs that truly represent vibrancy, emotion, and life, I am still not convinced that some of her untitled and even titled paintings, are nothing more than blots and lines of paint on a canvas.

While I browsed a selection of Mitchell’s paintings, I came across a specific one, “The Marlin,” that was painted in 1960. Although it is one of her older paintings, it was one that intrigued me most because she uses a lot of bright blues and reds that almost seem as if they are in conflict with one another. If, in fact, Mitchell actually had an idea of what she was doing when painting “The Marlin,” it seems to me that this painting is not filled with happiness and content. The brush strokes alone seem to be filled with anger, resentment, and even danger of some sort. By just looking at the painting, I would never connect it with a “marlin.” However, once I read the title, the blue strokes became sort of an ocean. And the intense red strokes seem to be the marlin’s blood. Instantly I thought that maybe Mitchell was depicting a natural scene of life and death, because she was very into representing these processes in her other work. However, as I took a second glance, I noticed that the grey figures in the painting could possibly represent other fish along with the marlin. Thus, this could also represent the food-chain and the brutal process of death that comes with it. After a little research, I found out that the painting was supposed to represent a marlin trying to escape from a fisherman’s hook while it was already caught. Thus, the red strokes represent the marlin’s blood, while the blue strokes represent the water splashing as the marlin desperately tries to escape(http://americanart.si.edu/collections/).

What is so frustrating for me is the fact that if Mitchell removed the title, “The Marlin,” from her painting, I would never have guessed what the painting meant. What if I changed the title to, “Battlezone,” and claimed that the grey figures were that of soldiers, and the blood were that of their own as the run away from gun shots and bombings, which could be represented by the blue strokes? How could one deny that interpretation? What if I went further and labeled the painting, “Fireworks,” with all of the colors representing a beautiful Fourth of July display. How could one disprove this interpretation? They cannot if they had never seen Mitchell’s painting and title beforehand. This is what frustrates me most. Although the whole point of abstract art is to allow the viewer to interpret in as many ways as there are possible, it takes credit away from the artist. There is no way to prove that Mitchell really wanted to paint the scene of marlin catching, and not a battle scene, or even just random strokes on a piece of paper. It is her word against ours. In fact, Mitchell has defended her work in the past: “the freedom in my work is quite controlled. I don't close my eyes and hope for the best” (http://americanart.si.edu/collections).

-Kara Livingston

Is Abstract Art Truly Art?

By Hildy Marinello

The debate over what constitutes as art is as old as the actual concept of art. Everyone from philosophers, critics, students, and “ordinary” people have discussed and argued how to define art. Throughout history, there have been many different movements within the art world, which have added to the growing debate. While there is by no means one singular definition of art, many critics have attempted to defend their theories. My own personal definition of art has always revolved around the idea that art must evoke an emotion out of the viewer. I prefer to look at a painting or sculpture and feel something than be confused by its abstract nature or design.
Fred Ross’ article “Abstract Art is Not Abstract and Definitely Not Art” defines art as “a selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world” (Ross). Ross believes that abstract art is essentially useless due to its lack of deeper meaning and artistic skill involved. I agree with Ross’ idea that real art from artists such as Botticelli and Michelangelo require “highly trained skills and a mature mental vision” as opposed to arts such as Pollack whose art medium simply involved throwing paint on a canvas. Ross’ statement that “real art communicates or expresses compelling stories about the odyssey of human life” poetically sums up his idea that real art is about emotion, not about “abstract” uses of paint to create a meaningless piece of artwork.
Unlike Ross, other critics such as Clement Greenburg believe that abstract art has value. Greenburg’s article “Towards a Newer Laocoon” concentrates on the idea of abstract art and its development over time. He essentially defends abstract art using historical justification and by comparing it to the medium of literature. Greenburg states that abstract art “reflects social and other circumstances of the age in which its creator lived” while also using the term avant-garde to defend artists choice to be abstract. Some of the theories that Greenburg discusses revolve around the artists escape from ideas, which can hinder their creativity. He also discusses how Impressionism “abandoned common sense experience” (Greenburg).
While both Ross and Greenburg present strong arguments, I personally side with Ross’ interpretation of art. Art needs to be comprised of two essential qualities; someone with honed skill must create it and it must evoke an emotion. The idea of art as a mode of communication between artist and viewer is essential for deciphering “good” art from “bad” art. While Greenburg feels that abstract art must be taken for exactly what it is, I feel that true, real art is the type described by Ross.