Theory and Methods week two

In, "Beauty Discourse and the Logic of Aesthetics," by Amelia Jones. In this reading there are many instances where there are a lot of strong opinions on what is calssified as beautiful in art. Kant in the beggining of the reading says, "There can be no rule by which someone could be compelled to acknowledge that something is beautiful..." In many ways I believe that what Kant ways in this quote to be true. To who's standard is it that something must be classified as beautiful. Within our class discussion there were many instances in where we each had our own version of beauty. Though some were identical, Beauty comes down to the persons own opinion on what beauty is. I think that this is what this reading was about. That in the past there were direct instances by people in power, those that influenced the public and much more which sets a different standard in what they called beautiful. To Kant, he believed that for something to be seen as beautiful it had to, "inspire pure taste and elevated pleasure in the viewer." After reading and discussing this topic of beauty it is interesting to think how much the subject of beauty has impacted the art community through history. Thinking about what beauty is over this last week has sparked a lot of conversations. I believe that beauty falls in each and every one of us and a specification that makes something beautiful. That in itself is beautiful, to know that there is no limit to what we can see as beautiful.
I used this piece of art in the introducing myself in my first blog post. This does fall under modern art and not during the time of this reading. I wanted to show something that I do find to be beautiful. I think that as long as there is an emotional connection there is beauty. Just because someones passion does not match someone elses does not make a piece of art any less beautiful. https://villagegallery.com/art/in-the-shadow-of-hope/

Comments

  1. Ashley MSeptember 3, 2021 at 5:57 AM

    Hi, Brenden! I think that your statement "...to know that there is no limit to what we can see as beautiful" was very moving. You did something a little different and focused on Kant instead of Hickey which was an interesting twist. The quotes from these critics were confusing because they were contradictory. I couldn't figure out if they were saying that beauty was subjective, or if they wanted us to believe that they were the final authority. I think this is what made the reading difficult. I think we can all agree that beauty is subjective. Do you think that there is any instance where beauty could be objective?

    I love the art work you have chosen! Thank you for including this!

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 3, 2021 at 9:16 PM

    Hi Brenden! I agree with Chipko, focusing on Kant was an interesting choice. I chose to focus on him a bit too because I found it super interesting that it felt like Hickey more or less regurgitated Kant's work without changing much. I agree with your point that beauty is largely up to the viewer and artist to determined beauty as, like Jones pointed out, the measure of what people find beautiful is highly complex and influenced by a number of factors. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anthony JasoSeptember 5, 2021 at 10:30 PM

    Hi Brenden, when it comes to beauty I think taking in someone else opinions and taste really matters, and if it does not align with the other person than the work can be analyzed as to why it does not please them. I like how you used Kant's ideas but I'm going to use Hickeys idea that points out what I think you said in your post. Hickey believes we should not think about anything else about art other than the objective points in it. I think Hickey may be wrong because like you said, taking in someone else passion and may I say culture can have an impact on how we view the artwork. I also think without that viewpoint we can not fully analyze the beauty within the art. Thank you for posting,
    -Anthony

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 3 Symbols and Semiotics

Image
The article, “Semiology and Visual Interpretation,” by Norman Bryson is divided into different sections that corolate with different practices of art history. In the first few pages of the article Bryson explains how the study of images contain non-literary narratives. In other words, he is focused on the context, senders and recievers of art and how that work is expressed. Bryson argues that there is a need for justification for works of art. On page 93, Bryson says, "reading, like the activity of mathamatics, and like recognition of an image can be said to place only when the individual is able to go on." Based on this I think that Bryson is trying to say that anyone can view a piece of art and recognize what is in front of the viewer, but Bryson than says later on the same page, "It takes one person to experience a sensation, it takes (at least) two to recognize a sign." The way this article is written, I believe that Bryson is trying to say that to perci...
Read more

Week 8 Authorship

Image
The essay, “Death of the author,” by Roland Barnes is the outlook on the rules of the author and the reader by using the commonality of meaning from the text written. Roland argues that the author has no has no jurisdiction over their own words that the words belong to the reader to interpret them and evaluate in their own accord. Roland challenges the idea of originality that an author may have and how the readers view it. The problem with this is that Roland in my opinion Wrongly assumes that anyone can pull an exact meaning or intent from what an author has written. Also, in this I believe that Roland thinks there must be a set meaning within the writing that someone should try and find. I evaluated this essay is in two ways. That an author by the standards of this essay, is someone that loses all their meaning as the written piece is put out or becomes irrelevant to the viewer. The other is that this article challenge’s purpose and what it means to have purpose. In the ess...
Read more

Week 6, Visual Pleasure

Image
“Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” by Laura Mulvey is an analysis on focused on many theories about the representation and importance of women in cinema. Laura explains how women are in a way used a visual pleasure only, while men are sure to be the dominant role. She also began with Freuds ideas on scopophilia, or the pleasure in looking. In this reading, Laura focuses her attention on the theories from Sigmund Freud. While reading this article I found it hard to keep reading. The representation on how women were viewed and that this was probably a reality in how women were viewed is both fascinating, and disgusting. According to Freud, scopophilia is the manifest in, “the voyeuristic activities of children’, who have a desire to see private areas on the human body. There are many moments within this article where Freud refers to castration, or how women are a castration threat. “her lack of a penis, implying a threat of castration and hence unpleasure. Ultimately, the me...
Read more