Sunday, January 25, 2009

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.

1 comment:

  1. Excellent observations, Ann - not least: "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."

    ReplyDelete