"The good parts of a book may be only something a writer is lucky enough to overhear or it may be the wreck of his whole damn life and one is as good as the other."
-Ernest Hemingway
It is interesting to see what inspires writers to write. Be it what is going on in the world that they are currently living in, or what is going on in their own immediate lives, or even what is going on right inside their own heads. It is an interesting notion, and it shows exactly the kind of lives that these writers are living.
What kind of man was Ernest Hemingway? One can certainly gain good insight by reading The Sun Also Rises or any of his other works to see the life that this man lived, but it is only an outward extension of the man's mind. This goes for many writers out there: Henry James, Malcolm Lowry, Robert Browning, you name them. What were these men's muses? What caused them to write the masterpieces they did? How did they know how to express these thoughts in such a way, or did they really? Were these men tormented by the notion that they could not successfully express themselves outwardly? I suppose it's just one of those things that we can only speculate about.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Is Beauty in the eye of the beholder?
The concept of beauty was a major one that we talked about this week in class, and the idea of objective and subjective views of beauty came up. Is beauty objective or subjective, or is it a little of both? Well, since I brought up the third option, that must be my answer, yes? Yes.
Nicole inquired as to whether there is something innate in certain objects that can be called beauty, or is beauty innate in all objects which we consider beautiful? In my opinion, it is true that we place beauty on certain objects, but there obviously has to be a reason for why we do this. I believe we do this because these certain things that we call beauty do in fact contain certain qualities that are "beautiful," otherwise we wouldn't think them beautiful in the first place.
Subjectivity really comes into play when it comes to personal taste in what we feel is beautiful. While the sun is yellow, one person may find that fact beautiful, while another may detest the color. However, the sun is not trying to be beautiful, so is beauty truly innate?
To an extent, for while it does not contain the essence of beauty itself, it contains qualities which some may call beautiful, and therefore is beautiful to those to claim it to be so. This is where it is up to the individual to decide for oneself what is beautiful and what is not, and it is here that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In essence, this is the case during all times, yet artist may intend for something to be beautiful in many ways, and some people will respond with that same mentality, and others will not; it cannot be avoided. The important thing to remember is that we are all individuals, and while we have common standards for what is beautiful and what is not, people still have the right to believe what we will.
Nicole inquired as to whether there is something innate in certain objects that can be called beauty, or is beauty innate in all objects which we consider beautiful? In my opinion, it is true that we place beauty on certain objects, but there obviously has to be a reason for why we do this. I believe we do this because these certain things that we call beauty do in fact contain certain qualities that are "beautiful," otherwise we wouldn't think them beautiful in the first place.
Subjectivity really comes into play when it comes to personal taste in what we feel is beautiful. While the sun is yellow, one person may find that fact beautiful, while another may detest the color. However, the sun is not trying to be beautiful, so is beauty truly innate?
To an extent, for while it does not contain the essence of beauty itself, it contains qualities which some may call beautiful, and therefore is beautiful to those to claim it to be so. This is where it is up to the individual to decide for oneself what is beautiful and what is not, and it is here that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In essence, this is the case during all times, yet artist may intend for something to be beautiful in many ways, and some people will respond with that same mentality, and others will not; it cannot be avoided. The important thing to remember is that we are all individuals, and while we have common standards for what is beautiful and what is not, people still have the right to believe what we will.
Second Question on Carroll
Are artworks that
contain influences and similarities of historic works the only good works of
art?
I think this is a hard assumption to make. Since in my last blog I stated that all pieces of art contain influences and similarities to past artworks to a certain degree, then it is hard to therefore determine what is good or bad art from this. However, if we say that artworks contain influence to certain degrees, then perhaps it is not as difficult as it seems.
Indeed, perhaps the degree to which a piece of art is influenced from the past does in fact determine its quality. Literature, for example, has certain rules and structures which it must/can apply to itself in order to be good art. Classic literature sets the standard to how good literature is presented nowadays, and all new works draw from past works, but if nowadays someone were to write successfully in a similar style as, say, Hemingway, yet adapt it in a more modern sense, then it can certainly be called a great piece of literature, and therefore art.
This idea can also be applied to visual art. I believe that the more people drive from the past, yet modernize it in their own way can successfully bring innovation to the artworld, while also pay homage to those who deserve it; to those with whom all good artists can give credit for being their muse and their influence in their acts of creations.
I think this is a hard assumption to make. Since in my last blog I stated that all pieces of art contain influences and similarities to past artworks to a certain degree, then it is hard to therefore determine what is good or bad art from this. However, if we say that artworks contain influence to certain degrees, then perhaps it is not as difficult as it seems.
Indeed, perhaps the degree to which a piece of art is influenced from the past does in fact determine its quality. Literature, for example, has certain rules and structures which it must/can apply to itself in order to be good art. Classic literature sets the standard to how good literature is presented nowadays, and all new works draw from past works, but if nowadays someone were to write successfully in a similar style as, say, Hemingway, yet adapt it in a more modern sense, then it can certainly be called a great piece of literature, and therefore art.
This idea can also be applied to visual art. I believe that the more people drive from the past, yet modernize it in their own way can successfully bring innovation to the artworld, while also pay homage to those who deserve it; to those with whom all good artists can give credit for being their muse and their influence in their acts of creations.
First Question on Carroll
Is there room in
the art world for pieces of art that attempt to stray away from the influence
of the past?
Is that not what happens when "revolutions" of art happen? When innovators attempt to stray away from convention and create something that goes against the norm, is unique, and thus provides for a whole new experience for others to partake in? Indeed, it is what happens.
Be that as it may, I don't believe that it is possible to completely rid the influences of past art from new and upcoming art, for everything that people do, or in this case create, all depends on one's experiences and influences. It does not just have to be physical or structural attributes in the case of art that has to be influenced, but it can be something such as themes. It is impossible to come up with a truly unique idea that has not been thought of before. An artist is always going to reflect part of themselves in their art, and who they are is made up partly of experiences that they have had and people and things and ideologies that have influenced them and changed them over the course of their lives. So, therefore, while it is a grand idea to try and stray from tradition and create some new concept, it is impossible to completely do so.
Is that not what happens when "revolutions" of art happen? When innovators attempt to stray away from convention and create something that goes against the norm, is unique, and thus provides for a whole new experience for others to partake in? Indeed, it is what happens.
Be that as it may, I don't believe that it is possible to completely rid the influences of past art from new and upcoming art, for everything that people do, or in this case create, all depends on one's experiences and influences. It does not just have to be physical or structural attributes in the case of art that has to be influenced, but it can be something such as themes. It is impossible to come up with a truly unique idea that has not been thought of before. An artist is always going to reflect part of themselves in their art, and who they are is made up partly of experiences that they have had and people and things and ideologies that have influenced them and changed them over the course of their lives. So, therefore, while it is a grand idea to try and stray from tradition and create some new concept, it is impossible to completely do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)