Respond to the article by considering the argument--1. What is the argument? 2. Is the argument persuasive? 3. What makes the argument persuasive or not?
Can you find art that simply shocks and post an example? Do you think there is merit in this kind of art? What kind of merit?
Does art have obligation(s)? (To be beautiful? To be progressive? To culture? Etc.?)
Deeply consider these questions. Then, when you are ready, try to start applying this line of thinking to your book. What is the artistic intention of your book, as you know it so far? What is the value of literature and reading?
I believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only the creator can truly know how beautiful something really is. Only the creator knows how much time and effort was put into creating. I believe that no one but the creators opinion really matters. I think that true artist don't do what they do for the fame or to know what other people think of it, but to send a message to anyone who will listen. And if people can't find the artist's art beautiful then that shouldn't effect whether or not the artist know's their art is beautiful....but that's just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has their own opinion on things, you can be mad, get angry, all of that but, you can't really do anything about it, i mean you can, but by doing things, you'd make it worse, some people are just ignorant and don't care when it comes to art work. All art is different in its own way, obviously. Some art can give an example of how we are, how the country is, or how we treat each other. This kind of work expresses so many things, personality, looks, living style, culture, etc. So MAYBE just by what the picture might be, people can easily get offended, but thats what life is all about. People have to realize that most of us put their emotions into drawings, not to offend anyone.. Am i making sense? Probably not...
ReplyDeleteI believe that many people do infact enjoy art for the pure beauty of it. I do also agree that some people pretend to enjoy art for the wrong reasons. I personally do not care how progressive something is if its not visualy pleasing.
ReplyDeleteyes i also believe that beauty is in the eye o the beholder.. to different ppl object look different like i my like a object and monica can like think its just ugly. Art thats is different or odd has been some of the best selling art
ReplyDeletepersonall i think art should have a purpose, to cause controversy. art in my opinion should reflect the times of the artist, that art caould either reflect eh good or bad of that time period. i think that an artist is trying to change the times or problems in the world with their work. i understand that there is some art out there that is just simply for the heck of it, like taking a picture of a tree in a park. I can see the beauty in that, but i think the artists that are famous or well known were and are creating art that should move people, or should change something, or even have such a realazation on people that make them want to change. i do see the argument in this article, that does art have to have a purpose? well i think a good majority of the time it should.
ReplyDeleteim totally gonna agree with piffy on this on beauty is in the eye of the beholder i mean art is art period right? we can find art anywhere wehter we consider it beautiful or not is like totally diffrent. i could see a flower on the street and think its so beautiful and at the same time my mom can walk bye and tell me its an ugly weed. so it all about your personel perception
ReplyDeleteart to me is when some one frees them self of all exterior influences and emotions and creates something that to there eye and only their eye is art. To me, if you are making art for other people to enjoy, it is not reaching its full potential because if you dont think its how is someone else going to believe or see the beauty in it if you dont feel strongly, and as an artiest i believe it is there duty to attract them towards there beauty eye, and bring the viewer into the artistes perception of art. and it is not considered art to me if everyone enjoys or thinks its beautiful, because its harder to ketch they eye of the wonderer
ReplyDeleteyes i think that art has the beauty. because people have different opinions of ones art.. but art can be describe in numourous ways...something that might be ugly to you can be precious to sum one else..people judge in different ways.. but its how you express yourself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhy cant art shock?I really think it can, based on how it stands out.Most of picassos work was shocking to the fact that you never no what weird creation he will think of and make next.I believe art does have obligations,its what ever you feel,hear,see. You can make it beautiful or less apealing.I believe all art has a meaning, you just have to find it.
ReplyDeletei think in order for art to be great or good it must shock ppl and make them think in a different light
ReplyDeletean argument is a verbal conflict between to parties. most arguments are persusasive because your tryin to get another party to agree with your opinons. depending on the topic makes either persusasive or not.
ReplyDeleteArt has every right to shock. Not everything in the this world is or has to be beautiful. If anything, this type of art expresses ideas that we're not accustomed to and could easily be considered more creative. Work that shocks helps us realize that the real world is far from being perfect. If it were perfect, it would be pretty boring.
ReplyDeletethe argument is about why the artist's painting is not allow to be called an art and why is it not acceptable. The argument is not persuasive because i think it is not strong enough to defend their rights.
ReplyDeleteCan you find art that simply shocks and post an example? Do you think there is merit in this kind of art? What kind of merit?
Does art have obligation(s)? (To be beautiful? To be progressive? To culture? Etc.?)
Deeply consider these questions. Then, when you are ready, try to start applying this line of thinking to your book. What is the artistic intention of your book, as you know it so far? What is the value of literature and reading?
I believe that art is an expression of oneself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For an example piercings may seem to shock people but that is normal in other parts of the world. To their culture it may be meaningful. Art is your own perception of it. That is the beauty of art.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument is that artists think they have to be "shocking" with their work to really get an audience or make an impact, but they have forgotten the basics. True, beauty is in they eye of the beholder, but being an artist is tuff VERY low paying work so i think their stretching the limits to get an audience rather than make something visually pleasing. Would you rather go see a painting of beautiful flowers or a a big pile of poo with a bow on it that Times said was the most "shocking" peice or modern work out there?
ReplyDeleteEven in Theatre as an example (since that is my Forte :) Everything is going mainstream to draw an audience. Nobody wants to go see La Misrabeles or a classic Neil Simon. They want to go see Spring Awakening where people hae sex on stage or better yet Avenue Q where puppets do it! (dont get me wrong, 2 of my FAV! musicals ever! just examples)
So, in conclusion, art is now just for the "shock value"
Guys,
ReplyDeleteThese answers are a little less full than I'd like to see. I know we've been rushed and still getting into habits, but you need to really answer the question and engage with each other's answers.
Also, nobody gave an example.
Have your heard of the artist Orlan? You might want to check her out and see the kind of work that is pushing the boundaries of shock art and academic art.
Here's a link: http://www.orlan.net/ (click on her face)
Grr. okay so I'm not going to go into this that much just because I had to re-write this from earlier this morning. but okay here it goes...
ReplyDeleteThe argument is about how this dude Dash Shock made "offensive art" and people aren't diggin' that shit. The article is pretty good at persuading me. I do think that it was a little bit bias however, it was good because because it had some what of a rebuttal.
WARNING!:These images are graphic.
http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Genital_Bisection
in the link above you will see what some people call an art. A body modification known as genital bisection. Basically, you get your penis or hood surgically split in two. Apparently, people view this operation as an art. I guess that the merit is that you get sexual pleasure... I don't know.
As for art having obligation. Art is emotion. it doesn't have to mean a thing to anyone else but the creator.
...But yeah. I would write more but, I have write shit about my book. Gotta love bridge
-Peace
Hmmm, art is emotion. This seems like a slippery slope kind of comment. If art is emotion, does it need revision? If art is emotion, why do you have to go to school to learn the craft?
ReplyDeleteI think there are a lot of people that think art is emotion, but is that to say that is all it is? Does art start with emotion? Can there be emotion-less art?