Blog Two: Paradigms and Purposes response

This chapter described the views of two differing philosophical Greek minds, Plato and Aristotle. Each had a different impression of imitation—Plato argued that there is a higher “Idea” upon which all reality is imitating, and therefore art is a second-hand imitation that can never truly reveal the true Idea. Aristotle, on the other hand, saw imitation as something that can be enjoyed and even can be educational. However, the chapter went on to note that while the Greek notion of imitation in art was revered for a very long time, artists have finally begun to branch away from imitation in art.
I found this to be a really interesting concept. I am more of a fan of imitation paintings over modern art, but I never really focused on why modern art has moved to a more creative, abstract trend. Freeland cited this decline of imitation to come from photography, but I think I would also attribute it to the growth of technology and urbanization in modern American culture. Simple nature scenes or still art are no longer able to capture the attention of a society that is used to instant gratification and flashy computer graphics and special effects. In order to compete, I think that artists have moved to styles that will create something different enough to still grab people’s attention. An example can really be seen in the “shock art” that we touched on a little in class. Serrano’s Piss Christ and many other works use shocking and disturbing tactics to gain attention, whether positive or negative.
The debate that stems from this trend away from imitation is whether or not modern pieces like La Nona Ora by Maurizio Cattelan (in which a meteor is smashing into a wax figure of Pope John Paul II) are truly art. It is impossible to make the definition of “art” black and white, but I like how Danto is described to see art at the end of this chapter. His explanation is that different pieces are termed art in different eras because people “theorize about art differently.” This makes the context behind each piece different, and perhaps explains why it can be seen as art or not from different perspectives. This could be why cathedrals in very Christian medieval times were modeled after heaven and why so many gardens were created in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and why modern art is the way it is now.

Blog one: The Natural History of Art article response

I found Conniff’s article interesting, as I have always appreciated art but never really gave any thought as to why that was. It makes sense to me that as humans evolved, we kept biological triggers that cause us to like or be attracted to something so we could have the greatest chance at survival. I could see Conniff’s point in some of his examples—mainly those in which nature scenes or animal-like features were exhibited—because these are things that would have caught our attention way back in primitive times. Some of his examples I found to be a little stretched, however, like the ballerina’s pointed toes as we discussed in class.
What I take from this article is the knowledge that yes, some of art perhaps is biologically based, and there are parts of art that are intrinsically attractive to us as humans. I personally think that, in addition to Conniff’s examples, art could also be evolutionary in that it is a form of communication in a sense between the artist and the viewer (or listener if it’s music). I can just imagine that cave people drew things on their cave walls both to entertain and also to talk about the world going on around them. Today, I think that art still holds some of those qualities as the artist makes art for entertainment or to get a message across to their audience, although these days it seems much more “developed” than that of early humans. Maybe then it is somewhere in our DNA to be able to communicate in this way.
However, although I believe that there is some basis to Conniff’s examples, I don’t believe that art is completely DNA-based. Humans are the only animals that can think abstractly, and I personally would like to think that we have the ability to express our creativity and enjoy other’s creative expressions on our own, and not just because it is biologically linked. I think that we are able to see dimensions in art that biology can’t explain. There very well could be an initial attraction to art that lies in our evolution, but I think that that initial attraction is built upon by our personal life experiences and viewpoints that ultimately bring different elements into the piece of art.