Connect - Whistler V. Ruskin and Arab Spring10/19/2017 Common Themes and Analysis
Those interested in art are constantly trying to define what the borders of artistic expression are, especially in times of creative influx. "Whistler V. Ruskin" and "Arab Spring" both address the development of different art styles, whether it is a chaotic, explosive side of modern art or art spun with influences from the Middle East. "Whistler V. Ruskin" focuses on the two contrasting sides of modern art and the conflicts that arise from their inability to understand one another. Ruskin simply does not see Whistler's works as works of art because of his lack of moral form. This begs the question, is art only art when it is overtly infused with meaning? Genuinely, I believe anything can be art. Art is not that high of a title that one must follow a checklist and achieve certain levels of self expression to be able to refer to one's work as "art." Much like beauty, defining something as art is in the eye of the beholder. It is entirely subjective. Whistler's "Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket" is a piece I would consider to be a perfect example of art; however, someone who shared Ruskin's views would disagree. "Arab Spring" focuses on contemporary Middle Eastern art and the western world's sudden fascination with it. Our infatuation with art created in areas of high tension and conflict and thus infused with the emotions of the time represents the sentiments of Ruskin. The artists use art as a medium to convey their complex emotions during trying times and the remnants of these feelings travel into the viewer and leave one captivated. Ruskin would definitely appreciate contemporary Middle Eastern art because of his ability to understand the deeper meaning behind a work and love for the immersive, almost religious experience of seeing something created with fervor. Flaws and Strengths The "Whistler V. Ruskin" reading was incredibly thoughtful and well crafted, but I couldn't help but notice the amount of unnecessary details. These details detracted from the overall message of the document and removed a level of depth with fluff-like facts. The immense background on Ruskin was unneeded and a bit ridiculous. On the other hand, the author has a particularly strong voice and powerful analysis that makes the article impactful. The "Arab Spring" reading was more of a newspaper article with little to no voice of the writer. The inclusion of quotes from qualified professionals elevated the level of trust associated with this document. In contrast, the quotes were nearly entirely from second hand sources, it would have been very beneficial to include statements from Arab artists affected by the "Arab Spring." Personal Opinion I was particularly surprised by Ruskin's views about modern art. As someone who always thought art was a relative concept, I never thought such an experienced art critic would have such close minded views on what is and is not art. The "Arab Spring" and its effects on contemporary art is something I had no prior knowledge of, but I find it easy to believe that the Western world would have a fascination with contemporary Middle Eastern art. The conflicts surrounding the Middle East currently infuses its creative byproducts with an over abundance of emotion and messages that is electric to view.
6 Comments
11/2/2017 07:24:48 pm
When bringing up the concept of "what is art?", do you think its important to have the emotional sentiments infused into the authors piece, like the works seen in Arab Spring, or something drawn for the sake of drawing still considered art? You've clearly stated that art doesn't have defined lines and is a highly subjective concept, but I was wondering about your personal opinion on the situation.
Reply
Mia Rodriguez
11/3/2017 05:41:18 pm
You ask the question "is art only art if it is overtly fused with meaning" and I was wondering if a piece it clearly something, but the creator has no meaning behind it is it still considered art by Ruskin's belief?
Reply
Angela Chen
11/3/2017 06:50:56 pm
I think if you do say that everything can be art, then things that are made only for one purpose out of necessity could qualify, and I don't believe that to be true art per se. Historically, the development of folk "art" could only come about due to increased leisure time and resources. Is what other animals produce on the same level of art? Would you consider a rabbit hole art? Even if it's only intended to be shelter by the rabbit? Even if the rabbit did not and cannot contemplate the meaning of it beyond protection? Similarly, there are many things manufactured, like blank shirts, plastic chairs, containers, without any intention of being art. Of course, movements have broken boundaries, so that medium of mass manufacturing (i.e. Warhol's 'Factory' producing his silkscreen prints of branded items, Duchamp's Fountain) can be used to produce artwork, but I'm not sure that everything manufactured can qualify as art. Perhaps it's the contemplation and purposeful arrangement of a medium that can make art art. However, maybe I was wrong when I suggested that there can be a point that art becomes formless enough that it can't be art. I think you are right to say that different types of art have different levels of accessibility for different individuals because they have developed different cultural spheres that introduce them to varying recognizable symbols, motifs, beliefs, values.
Reply
Angela Chen
11/3/2017 07:03:48 pm
I may have made some extrapolated statements from your post as well as the Socratic seminar itself. I'm not entirely sure of your beliefs on what defines art, but considering you have said that it is "entirely subjective," like beauty, it seems as if you believe all bounds have been destroyed. I am of the opinion that perhaps we need general rules to follow, even if art itself cannot be distilled into one distinct entity, much like other broad concepts. Its definition has definitely changed over history, really reminding me of the American Dream (since I do take a class on it, after all). Of course, going back to Whistler, it is preposterous to think that his work could not be considered art now. The Ruskin case does reflect the changing norms and standards of art over time, and that has its own consequences -- positive and negative. The increasing access to modern communications has allowed all kinds of people to disseminate their beliefs, works, thoughts into the global sphere, including through the medium of art. The wider range of work can be distasteful, uncomfortable, volatile -- and that has merit in and of itself -- but one can also argue that that makes certain art more dangerous or more easily misunderstood or more easily hated. And if certain art has become like that, how does that affect art's value in the eyes of the individual viewer?
Reply
11/3/2017 07:02:53 pm
I think that your examination of the role of art critics is very interesting. Personally, I disagree that experienced art critics should not be expected to have close-minded views on what constitutes art. In my opinion, everyone has their own definition of art that may conform more or less with average society’s. Without standards to compare art too, art critics would have no basis for their judgements. Even the concept of art as all-encompassing is still a definition of art.
Reply
Coach
11/7/2017 12:55:33 pm
Regarding Ruskin's "closed mindedness", you have to consider the time which he was writing and the standards by which art was judged and evaluated.
Reply
Leave a Reply.author.jacqueline. she/her. senior. virginia, usa. art v. archives.
March 2020
categories.
All
|