Now you might say that my blogs are boring but the thought of writing something well written is not me. I can say the amazing stories in my head but they just come out jibber-ish in the end. I suppose to be reading my art history stuff but decided to take a break and write about it. This is probably a combination if many days of writing. I have limited time some days and other i am busy but not tied down.
The first thing and may be only the only thing is that i am consumed by art history. I know that is my major and that is the purpose of my major. I am interested but sometimes suffocating in the information. A couple of days ago i luck out because i didn't do all of my reading but the reading i did do, oh jeez. it was hard with things flying out of know where, facts upon facts that twisted around in my head, and names (i felt like the writer put them there just to put them there). Anyways i have extra reading to catch up on and that is what i was doing today. i am also trying to get a little ahead so i am not put into the pressure cooker like i am always feel i am put into.
this article was titled "the object of art history," certain writers were selected to write 2,500 words on the object of art history. So i am reading this article, i came upon on this paragraph and it spoke volumes to me. Maybe because i read everything else and had previous information of the articles or i might believe this as i go through a museum(hint: i don't really like museums, i get bored).
"...an object that encounters new sites, new audiences, and therefore new ways of seeing and talking about "art" is changed by those encounters. The altarpiece leaves its liturgical context and enters the museum; the Mona Lisa, after three hundred years as a portrait, becomes in the context of nineteenth-century Romanticism the embodiment of the femme fatale; swatches of objects are transferred from nineteenth-century art museums, and Navajo blankets--tribal artifacts woven by women--are exhibited in American galleries as the works of anonymous "masters" of innocent abstraction; so that the question to ask, as Nelson Goodman famously put it, is not so much "What is Art?" but "When is Art?" "
Another author states, "It doesn't really matter, in other words, whether or not my dolls are works of art, nor does it matter whether or not my kava kava statue is a doll. What matters is that, together, they can teach us something about the many ways, some different and some remarkably similar, in which people the world over--including Euro-Americans--have conceived of and used objects. More important, they can shed light on how people construct meaning in their lives--on how they negotiate the tensions between the material and the nonmaterial, between the worlds of form and formlessness. This it seems to me, is the big questions tend to lie, and this therefore should be the real object of art history.
Update: I can't remember the situation I was in when I wrote this, but I think the last paragraph makes more sense now. We should all question and create our own art in our own lives, if it isn't art or if it is doesn't matter only to us and how we see the world.
Showing posts with label Never Published. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Never Published. Show all posts
January 9, 2007
April 10, 2006
February 21, 2006
career...hmmm
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


