As an artist it amazes me how everyone takes or understands art in their own ways, which can all be different. I know not all people would understand what I see in art or understand it like I do, but it means something deeper than what everyone can see with their eyes. I was excited when I read one of my classmates, Lindsey Raleigh, blogs.
Lindsey, wrote a blog titled "Who's to say?" that circled around the idea of what art is and who's to say which pieces of art are worth enough to hang in a museum with some evidence from John Berger's book Ways of Seeing. After reading her piece I couldn't help but think deeper into art, which I feel may help me with my artwork.
Lindsey, wrote a blog titled "Who's to say?" that circled around the idea of what art is and who's to say which pieces of art are worth enough to hang in a museum with some evidence from John Berger's book Ways of Seeing. After reading her piece I couldn't help but think deeper into art, which I feel may help me with my artwork.
Lindsey starts off defining what art is according to the dictionary, which they defined art as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" (dictionary). I couldn't help but think that this definition should be more descriptive and show that it is much more to it. Out of all those creative art pieces, which ones are worthy enough to put out of display for others to view, publicly?
Her mission was to gain a better understanding of who determines what specific artworks are important and deem it worthy of a museum.
I found it very interesting that both Lindsey and I visited the Philadelphia Art Museum and had two different experienced when we went through. As I strolled through the museum I found the artwork inspiring and useful to my understanding of what messages the artists were trying to get across to the viewers or visitors. On the other hand, Lindsey was more annoyed at the repetition of the artwork found in the museum.
As she walked around she began asking herself questions like "Why this woman?" or " What makes them so special?" (Raleigh). After reading her blog I began to think about the same questions, simply because it wasn't something that I thought about or crossed my mind. She defends her point by bringing it back to the earlier years. She quotes Berger as he states "Originally paintings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed. Sometimes in an early Renaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that the images on the wall are records of the building’s interior life, that together they make up the building’s memory. The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But it could never be seen in two places at the same time. When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings” (Berger 19). Berger is basically saying that a picture has lost it's uniqueness when brought to a museum where people are allowed or able to take pictures of it themselves. He continues to say that a picture at one place, like in the earlier years, made it special and didn't destroy the uniqueness because people can only visit it in order to see it. I have to agree with him because I think that going to see something everyone has talked about and described but not physically shown you is much more interesting and meaningful.
Here's one of Lindsey's examples.
Her mission was to gain a better understanding of who determines what specific artworks are important and deem it worthy of a museum.
I found it very interesting that both Lindsey and I visited the Philadelphia Art Museum and had two different experienced when we went through. As I strolled through the museum I found the artwork inspiring and useful to my understanding of what messages the artists were trying to get across to the viewers or visitors. On the other hand, Lindsey was more annoyed at the repetition of the artwork found in the museum.
As she walked around she began asking herself questions like "Why this woman?" or " What makes them so special?" (Raleigh). After reading her blog I began to think about the same questions, simply because it wasn't something that I thought about or crossed my mind. She defends her point by bringing it back to the earlier years. She quotes Berger as he states "Originally paintings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed. Sometimes in an early Renaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that the images on the wall are records of the building’s interior life, that together they make up the building’s memory. The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But it could never be seen in two places at the same time. When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings” (Berger 19). Berger is basically saying that a picture has lost it's uniqueness when brought to a museum where people are allowed or able to take pictures of it themselves. He continues to say that a picture at one place, like in the earlier years, made it special and didn't destroy the uniqueness because people can only visit it in order to see it. I have to agree with him because I think that going to see something everyone has talked about and described but not physically shown you is much more interesting and meaningful.
Here's one of Lindsey's examples.
What is it about the Mona Lisa that we find so interesting? Maybe we just need to gain more knowledge about who she was and why she was painted. According to Berger he would say that the painting of the Mona Lisa is no longer unique seeing as though everyone has gained access to the painting and it's displayed online for the world to see. Would it mean anything to you if you heard about this great painting and had to travel across the world to see? I know it definitely would to me.
Maybe it's something as big as a secret message revealed within the painting. Or is it?
Entertain your eyes for a little and see if you are convinced that maybe this is what makes the Mona Lisa important enough to display in a museum?
Maybe it's something as big as a secret message revealed within the painting. Or is it?
Entertain your eyes for a little and see if you are convinced that maybe this is what makes the Mona Lisa important enough to display in a museum?
Although the question is still not exactly answered, Lindsey's conclusion is that we as a society are the ones who determine and decide what art is considered significant and why. I would some what have to agree with her as well because we as a society have chose the painting or pieces of art we wanted to display. On the other hand I would have to say that maybe there was something about that particular piece of art that represent the artist's life or represented the artist him or herself. This is a question that would have to be researched further and on a specific piece of art to determine it's answer.
Ahh! The world of art :). Is there really a true answer?!
Ahh! The world of art :). Is there really a true answer?!