Joy Jeremiah: Search For Beauty Journal
September 5th, 2019 "Beauty and Art"
September 8th, 2019 "The Definition of Art (Plato and Harrison)"
Unlike Plato, Jane Ellen Harrison believes that art is more than a mere imitation of natural objects. Harrison explains that art and ritual have a common root. Furthermore, the same impulse drives humanity drives man both to church and the theatre. This impulse is to represent strong human emotions. Even though ritual may seem like a copy or representation (as Plato claims), Harrison claims that it is more accurately described as making, doing, or enriching the action or object in order “to give out a strongly felt emotion or desire.” That is not to say that ritual does not involve imitation at all, but only that imitation is not its origin. “In ritual, the thing desired… is acted, in art it is represented.” This representation is distinct from the “copy-of-a-copy” theory in that it is not a copy of a body, but a representation of an emotion.
In the post-modern world, Harrison’s description of art is more accurate than Plato’s in that modern art does not typically depict bodies like more traditional art does. “Venus of Willendorf” was once the earliest piece of art to have been discovered. Although her background is debated, it is widely believed that she is a cult figure representing fertility. She is thought to have been displayed on the hearth to bring about fruitfulness in the home. The Venus of Willendorf is a great example of Harrison’s argument that art and ritual have a common root. The role of art has shifted over the years, from an act of ritual to perhaps mere copying of bodies (like Plato proposed). In today’s postmodern society art no longer aims to copy bodies, but rather (more similar to the ritual role of art) it communicates emotion. Modern art is an easily illustrated example of this… a simple smudge of paint on a white canvas is not representing or copying any body, rather it is communicating an emotion: the desire to investigate the materials used to create art. This makes me wonder if the nature of art (the role of art) changes over time (could both Plato and Harrison be right?)
September 18th, 2019 "Dance"
Aristotle describes dance as rhythmic with the purpose of "represent[ing] men's characters as well as what they do and suffer." In ancient Greek culture, dance was used as an artistic medium in theatre and ritual. Aristotle considers dance (obviously a form of art) to be an expression of emotion, just like Harrison does. As we discussed class today, dance not superior for being ritual rather than presentation. When dance is ritual it is a religious practice and when it is presentation it is a spiritual experience, they are distinct but not hierarchical. Through dance man is able to "lose the heaviness of being bound to earth" and this, whether involved in ritual or dance in and of itself, and this makes dance such a powerful form of art (Van der Leeuw 25). I think that art may be a unique way to encounter (rather than experience) someone or something in a way that can transcend language and cultural barriers. Especially today with technology it's even easier to share art, whether it be a painting, sculpture, video, or dance.
September 23th, 2019 "Ritual Documentary Response"
Today in class while we watched one of the ritual videos that showed a group of men performing a ritual and a presentation. Their synchronized movements in concentric circles immediately reminded me of rushing water and I thought of Plato's idea of art and how he believed that art was a copy of a body (nature... which itself a copy of the universal). In that way, this video was an example of Plato's definition of art. However, at the same time, the ritual was also an example of Harrison's definition of art in that it re-presented emotion in a way that communicated the aftermath of the exorcism that was being portrayed in the ritual. This ambiguity even within the same ritual reminded me of the ambiguity in the definition of art itself. Maybe having a hard and fast definition of art isn't the most helpful or even constructive way of going about things. Although definitions are extremely helpful, maybe a more vague definition of art would be more helpful and even more accurate especially today as art seems to envelop more and more (for example Duchamp's "Fountain").
October 5th, 2019 "Leo N. Tolstoy Reading Questions"
1.) To define art as what is beautiful is a subjective definition. Art as the manifestation of beauty may seem objective, but the term beauty is then called into question. If beauty is that which pleases (without lust), that definition is still incomplete because this experience of pleasure is subjective across different peoples, cultures, and times. This idea of art having to be beautiful is illustrated in Plato's philosophy of art.
2.) Linking art to the viewer's pleasure is based on taste and taste cannot be accurately defined because it cannot be explained why one something brings pleasure to one person and not another can't be explained.
3.) Tolstoy believes that art is an external manifestation (communicated to fellow man and felt by him through gesture, lines, sound, words, etc.) of emotions experienced by man. I think that this definition of art is very accurate and that the external communication of feelings tends to be through art.
4.) Tolstoy's definition reminds me of the "If a tree falls and no one hears or sees it, did it even fall?" If art is created and no one sees or experiences it, is it art? I think the answer is yes and that the art-ness of the work is bound in its potential to do so, whether or not it is given the chance.
October 21st, 2019 "The Cost of Art... Is it worth it?"
The actors from our school play came to discuss art in theater today. In our dialogue we talked about movies a lot too and how it differs from the theater. One of the movies we talked about (especially in regards to the role of the director) was The Shining. Stanley Kubrick directed The Shining and he was known to work his actors to exhaustion to get the "right" shot. Kubrick is well-known as a methodological director and for The Shining he changed the script so often that Nicholson stopped reading the rewrites and memorized his lines minutes before filming. Additionally, Shelley Duvall was isolated during filming and forced to perform the famous 'baseball bat' scene 127 times (making it a world record). Her tears in that scene were real, and she presented Kubrick with a clump of her own hair to show the toll that the scene took on her. While the film didn't have a great reaction upon its release, over time it has established itself as a classic horror film.
Our discussion of The Shining and other people's experiences with "bad" directors begs the question: where do we draw the line between creating beautiful art (whether it be film or theater) and abusing the actors. Duvall's scenes in The Shining are chilling, and her real reactions instill fear in the viewer. Was this effect worth the emotional turmoil she went through? The film would have undeniably been very different if Kubrick was a "normal" director and would have probably been a lot less effective. That being said it's hard to not condemn Kubrick's actions (and the movie itself) as overstepping some invisible ethical line.
(Information about the filming of the Shining from https://vocal.media/horror/real-horror-of-the-shining-the-story-of-shelley-duvall )
October 30th, 2019
Below is a haiku I wrote about caring for my plants. This class has made me reflect a lot on how I interact with nature and specifically how as an individual I try to infuse nature into my life in any way I can. One example of this is my bedroom which has tons of plants in it and has a lot of organic lines and patterns. In our class, we have talked a lot about nature which makes sense based on the topic of the course, but I think there is still a lot to be said about how we interact with it (how we integrate or fail to integrate it into our lives, how we prioritize it, etc.)
After my presentation on Monday, I was encouraged to investigate how interpretations and literature specifically are linguistically mediated. I remembered learning about something similar in a class I took about postmodernity. After looking through my notes to no avail, I pulled out the textbook for the class and finally found what I was looking for. In the section about poststructuralism, I found this information: The reader can discern their own interpretation for artwork, but in literature, all readers are bound by language. This use of language is not a tool that authors may use, but rather “something to grapple with, which can surprise or resist us” (Cazeaux 369). One’s understanding of literature is linguistically mediated in that even though the author does not have authority over their work, one’s interpretation of that work is bound to the language that the author chose to use. Poststructuralist text is performative in that it needs to be interpreted not only based on what it said but how it is said (Cazeaux 369).
November 8th 2019 "Jack's Presentation and Walter Benjamin"
Jack's presentation about the American flag paper plate brought up a discussion about Walter Benjamin and I found it quite interesting. I knew that I had "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in a textbook of mine so I took it upon myself to give it a read. Walter Benjamin discusses how the reproducibility of art affects the value of art.
This reproducibility also makes art more of a material commodity. While reading it I realized that art is also reproduced into an already established material commodity, namely fashion. Art and fashion have always been tied to one another, but in recent times fashion has directly copied art making it not only a material commodity but more accessible to the masses. Reproduced art, while according to Benjamin eliminates its uniqueness, it does make it more accessible and therefore less of a bourgeoise field. Collections like the Vans x Van Gogh and Stussy x The Birth of Venus are examples of this. Vans took Van Gogh’s famous work, printed in onto textile and incorporated it into their shoes. They not only reproduced a painting (eliminating its aura) but then made the reproduction into an actual material commodity which is a more literal representation of what is happening to reproducible art everywhere. This practice only feeds into excessively-capitalistic societies by creating innumerable replications that anyone can make money from, based on a single “one-of-a-kind” piece of art that while having a massive monetary value is rarely sold/purchased. While this does make fine art more accessible and appreciated by the masses who may not usually encounter or even appreciate Van Gogh or Botticelli paintings, it has a tendency to redefine the art in a way that minimizes its original value.
November 12th, 2019 "Van der Leeuw on Art/Prose"
Van der Leeuw separates beauty from art, claiming that being beautiful is not art. Rather art is a second world. This second world has all the aspects of the first, but with “a new power inherent” (Van der Leeuw 278). The source of this power has been debated over the centuries and is what Barthes attributes to the work itself, not the author, as was traditionally believed. Over the years, art has evolved, beginning with dance and then music and eventually leading to prose. Prose is unique in that it introduces individualism by “contrasting man to the world” (Van der Leeuw 129). This contrast is achieved through language. Flexibility within language, through symbolism for example, is what defines literature. “Absolute literature, autonomous rhetoric, would mean the end of all literature” (Van der Leeuw 130).
November 17th, 2019 "Barthes' Death of the Author Notes for Paper"
Traditionally, the author has sole authority over their work. The author’s intention for their work trumped any interpretation by a viewer or reader. Even today there is an interest in authorial intent as the final say in a work, implying objectivity to the meaning of a work of art. Barthes reframes the role of the author as a scripter who does not create original work but rather rearranges known signs. Therefore, the role of the author is dead, which enables the birth of the reader. The reader reactivates these signs that were arranged by the author and interprets the artwork. For Barthes “literature is precisely the invention of this voice, to which we cannot assign a specific origin: literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes” (Barthes 2). The death of the author, the loss of voice or disjunction, is necessary for writing to begin, after all “it is language which speaks, not the author: to write is to reach, through a preexisting impersonality” (Barthes 3).
November 20th, 2019
Questions
My examples of beauty had an emphasis on nature, which is a place that I find beauty a lot. While I think that nature is a source of beauty for a lot of people, I find myself particularly drawn to nature. Truly experiencing beauty involves feeling something outside of yourself, where the consciousness of self dissipates, and you are fully immersed in your surroundings. Experiencing beauty is a spiritual experience by nature.
This reminds me of Plato's definition of art that we read for class. If art is an imitation of nature then nature must have some type of value, perhaps this value is beauty. Beauty may be what compels the artist to create their art, a desire to interact or re-present this beauty for their own sake or even for the sake of others.
September 8th, 2019 "The Definition of Art (Plato and Harrison)"
Unlike Plato, Jane Ellen Harrison believes that art is more than a mere imitation of natural objects. Harrison explains that art and ritual have a common root. Furthermore, the same impulse drives humanity drives man both to church and the theatre. This impulse is to represent strong human emotions. Even though ritual may seem like a copy or representation (as Plato claims), Harrison claims that it is more accurately described as making, doing, or enriching the action or object in order “to give out a strongly felt emotion or desire.” That is not to say that ritual does not involve imitation at all, but only that imitation is not its origin. “In ritual, the thing desired… is acted, in art it is represented.” This representation is distinct from the “copy-of-a-copy” theory in that it is not a copy of a body, but a representation of an emotion.
In the post-modern world, Harrison’s description of art is more accurate than Plato’s in that modern art does not typically depict bodies like more traditional art does. “Venus of Willendorf” was once the earliest piece of art to have been discovered. Although her background is debated, it is widely believed that she is a cult figure representing fertility. She is thought to have been displayed on the hearth to bring about fruitfulness in the home. The Venus of Willendorf is a great example of Harrison’s argument that art and ritual have a common root. The role of art has shifted over the years, from an act of ritual to perhaps mere copying of bodies (like Plato proposed). In today’s postmodern society art no longer aims to copy bodies, but rather (more similar to the ritual role of art) it communicates emotion. Modern art is an easily illustrated example of this… a simple smudge of paint on a white canvas is not representing or copying any body, rather it is communicating an emotion: the desire to investigate the materials used to create art. This makes me wonder if the nature of art (the role of art) changes over time (could both Plato and Harrison be right?)
September 18th, 2019 "Dance"
Aristotle describes dance as rhythmic with the purpose of "represent[ing] men's characters as well as what they do and suffer." In ancient Greek culture, dance was used as an artistic medium in theatre and ritual. Aristotle considers dance (obviously a form of art) to be an expression of emotion, just like Harrison does. As we discussed class today, dance not superior for being ritual rather than presentation. When dance is ritual it is a religious practice and when it is presentation it is a spiritual experience, they are distinct but not hierarchical. Through dance man is able to "lose the heaviness of being bound to earth" and this, whether involved in ritual or dance in and of itself, and this makes dance such a powerful form of art (Van der Leeuw 25). I think that art may be a unique way to encounter (rather than experience) someone or something in a way that can transcend language and cultural barriers. Especially today with technology it's even easier to share art, whether it be a painting, sculpture, video, or dance.
September 23th, 2019 "Ritual Documentary Response"
Today in class while we watched one of the ritual videos that showed a group of men performing a ritual and a presentation. Their synchronized movements in concentric circles immediately reminded me of rushing water and I thought of Plato's idea of art and how he believed that art was a copy of a body (nature... which itself a copy of the universal). In that way, this video was an example of Plato's definition of art. However, at the same time, the ritual was also an example of Harrison's definition of art in that it re-presented emotion in a way that communicated the aftermath of the exorcism that was being portrayed in the ritual. This ambiguity even within the same ritual reminded me of the ambiguity in the definition of art itself. Maybe having a hard and fast definition of art isn't the most helpful or even constructive way of going about things. Although definitions are extremely helpful, maybe a more vague definition of art would be more helpful and even more accurate especially today as art seems to envelop more and more (for example Duchamp's "Fountain").
October 5th, 2019 "Leo N. Tolstoy Reading Questions"
1.) To define art as what is beautiful is a subjective definition. Art as the manifestation of beauty may seem objective, but the term beauty is then called into question. If beauty is that which pleases (without lust), that definition is still incomplete because this experience of pleasure is subjective across different peoples, cultures, and times. This idea of art having to be beautiful is illustrated in Plato's philosophy of art.
2.) Linking art to the viewer's pleasure is based on taste and taste cannot be accurately defined because it cannot be explained why one something brings pleasure to one person and not another can't be explained.
3.) Tolstoy believes that art is an external manifestation (communicated to fellow man and felt by him through gesture, lines, sound, words, etc.) of emotions experienced by man. I think that this definition of art is very accurate and that the external communication of feelings tends to be through art.
4.) Tolstoy's definition reminds me of the "If a tree falls and no one hears or sees it, did it even fall?" If art is created and no one sees or experiences it, is it art? I think the answer is yes and that the art-ness of the work is bound in its potential to do so, whether or not it is given the chance.
October 21st, 2019 "The Cost of Art... Is it worth it?"
The actors from our school play came to discuss art in theater today. In our dialogue we talked about movies a lot too and how it differs from the theater. One of the movies we talked about (especially in regards to the role of the director) was The Shining. Stanley Kubrick directed The Shining and he was known to work his actors to exhaustion to get the "right" shot. Kubrick is well-known as a methodological director and for The Shining he changed the script so often that Nicholson stopped reading the rewrites and memorized his lines minutes before filming. Additionally, Shelley Duvall was isolated during filming and forced to perform the famous 'baseball bat' scene 127 times (making it a world record). Her tears in that scene were real, and she presented Kubrick with a clump of her own hair to show the toll that the scene took on her. While the film didn't have a great reaction upon its release, over time it has established itself as a classic horror film.
Our discussion of The Shining and other people's experiences with "bad" directors begs the question: where do we draw the line between creating beautiful art (whether it be film or theater) and abusing the actors. Duvall's scenes in The Shining are chilling, and her real reactions instill fear in the viewer. Was this effect worth the emotional turmoil she went through? The film would have undeniably been very different if Kubrick was a "normal" director and would have probably been a lot less effective. That being said it's hard to not condemn Kubrick's actions (and the movie itself) as overstepping some invisible ethical line.
(Information about the filming of the Shining from https://vocal.media/horror/real-horror-of-the-shining-the-story-of-shelley-duvall )
October 30th, 2019
Below is a haiku I wrote about caring for my plants. This class has made me reflect a lot on how I interact with nature and specifically how as an individual I try to infuse nature into my life in any way I can. One example of this is my bedroom which has tons of plants in it and has a lot of organic lines and patterns. In our class, we have talked a lot about nature which makes sense based on the topic of the course, but I think there is still a lot to be said about how we interact with it (how we integrate or fail to integrate it into our lives, how we prioritize it, etc.)
Roots twisted like veins
I cradle life in my hand
For you, I’ll take care
November 5th, 2019 "Linguistically Mediation"After my presentation on Monday, I was encouraged to investigate how interpretations and literature specifically are linguistically mediated. I remembered learning about something similar in a class I took about postmodernity. After looking through my notes to no avail, I pulled out the textbook for the class and finally found what I was looking for. In the section about poststructuralism, I found this information: The reader can discern their own interpretation for artwork, but in literature, all readers are bound by language. This use of language is not a tool that authors may use, but rather “something to grapple with, which can surprise or resist us” (Cazeaux 369). One’s understanding of literature is linguistically mediated in that even though the author does not have authority over their work, one’s interpretation of that work is bound to the language that the author chose to use. Poststructuralist text is performative in that it needs to be interpreted not only based on what it said but how it is said (Cazeaux 369).
November 8th 2019 "Jack's Presentation and Walter Benjamin"
Jack's presentation about the American flag paper plate brought up a discussion about Walter Benjamin and I found it quite interesting. I knew that I had "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in a textbook of mine so I took it upon myself to give it a read. Walter Benjamin discusses how the reproducibility of art affects the value of art.
This reproducibility also makes art more of a material commodity. While reading it I realized that art is also reproduced into an already established material commodity, namely fashion. Art and fashion have always been tied to one another, but in recent times fashion has directly copied art making it not only a material commodity but more accessible to the masses. Reproduced art, while according to Benjamin eliminates its uniqueness, it does make it more accessible and therefore less of a bourgeoise field. Collections like the Vans x Van Gogh and Stussy x The Birth of Venus are examples of this. Vans took Van Gogh’s famous work, printed in onto textile and incorporated it into their shoes. They not only reproduced a painting (eliminating its aura) but then made the reproduction into an actual material commodity which is a more literal representation of what is happening to reproducible art everywhere. This practice only feeds into excessively-capitalistic societies by creating innumerable replications that anyone can make money from, based on a single “one-of-a-kind” piece of art that while having a massive monetary value is rarely sold/purchased. While this does make fine art more accessible and appreciated by the masses who may not usually encounter or even appreciate Van Gogh or Botticelli paintings, it has a tendency to redefine the art in a way that minimizes its original value.
November 12th, 2019 "Van der Leeuw on Art/Prose"
Van der Leeuw separates beauty from art, claiming that being beautiful is not art. Rather art is a second world. This second world has all the aspects of the first, but with “a new power inherent” (Van der Leeuw 278). The source of this power has been debated over the centuries and is what Barthes attributes to the work itself, not the author, as was traditionally believed. Over the years, art has evolved, beginning with dance and then music and eventually leading to prose. Prose is unique in that it introduces individualism by “contrasting man to the world” (Van der Leeuw 129). This contrast is achieved through language. Flexibility within language, through symbolism for example, is what defines literature. “Absolute literature, autonomous rhetoric, would mean the end of all literature” (Van der Leeuw 130).
November 17th, 2019 "Barthes' Death of the Author Notes for Paper"
Traditionally, the author has sole authority over their work. The author’s intention for their work trumped any interpretation by a viewer or reader. Even today there is an interest in authorial intent as the final say in a work, implying objectivity to the meaning of a work of art. Barthes reframes the role of the author as a scripter who does not create original work but rather rearranges known signs. Therefore, the role of the author is dead, which enables the birth of the reader. The reader reactivates these signs that were arranged by the author and interprets the artwork. For Barthes “literature is precisely the invention of this voice, to which we cannot assign a specific origin: literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes” (Barthes 2). The death of the author, the loss of voice or disjunction, is necessary for writing to begin, after all “it is language which speaks, not the author: to write is to reach, through a preexisting impersonality” (Barthes 3).
November 20th, 2019
Questions
Comments
Post a Comment