The general argument made by Judith Shulevitz in her article, “It’s Okay To Like Good Art by Bad People,” is that the art should be separated from the artist. More specifically, Shulevitz argues that all artists are human; some will do bad things no matter what. She writes, “We don’t come to the movies as blank slates; we bring ourselves and our history” (Shulevitz 12). In this passage, Shulevitz suggests that we will always apply our personal experiences to the stories we hear and find ways to ridicule certain actions of certain people. In summary, Shulevitz establishes the opinion in the article that since all creators are human, it is important to not look into them too much by projecting one’s own opinions, beliefs, and experiences and …show more content…
Despite the “cognitive dissonance” some of the more troubling cases may cause, it is important to simply appreciate the art for what it is without looking too closely at the artist. Several inventors were horrible people, but still created revolutionary inventions that are essential to society today. In my opinion, we must instead evaluate what propels us forward as a society, rather than ridiculing the individuals who need improvement. In the article, she mentions that Dereder writes: “‘We don’t know the real story’ behind the allegations. ‘and we might never know.’” (Shulevitz 12). Furthermore, in paragraph 14 she mentions that “Dederer and [her] were both taught in college to. [not] commit the biographical fallacy.” These are all very compelling ways of saying that assumptions are never a wise evaluation. I agree that there is a certain importance in accepting the uncertainty of the past. In the words of Dederer’s professors, “‘The work exists in an ideal state’” (paragraph 14). The artists behind certain works may or may not be bad people, but it shouldn’t matter. In conclusion, I think Shulevitz makes very valid points throughout the article that more people need to
Stereotypes have a way of arranging items or things in an arrangement to comprehend them in a perfectly systematic way. A frightening notion would be, saying that something will not fit and that it would be an entrance that is unsure of the world that we are occupying. Using art we can recognize different stereotypes without thinking and as a reader, we can react identically. Theater philosopher and play biographer Bertolt Brecht states, “It is well known that contact between audience and stage is normally made on the basis of empathy” (136). Making the audience create characters and the story so it is a natural state of controlled purification at the end, we need art. Art is a key necessity to see the world in different perspectives.
In Gaut’s essay, “The Ethical Criticism of Art”, he addresses the relevance of an art piece’s ethical value when making an aesthetic evaluation. His key argument revolves around the attitudes that works of art manifest such that he presents the following summary “If a work manifests ethically reprehensible attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically defective, and if a work manifests ethically commendable attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically meritorious”. In direct contrast with formalists, who divine a work’s merit through an assessment of its style and compositional aspects, Gaut states that any art piece’s value requires a pro tanto judgement. This pro tanto position allows for pieces considered stylistic masterpieces, to be
Art is trapped in the cage of society, constantly being judged and interpreted regardless of the artist’s intent. There is no escaping it, however, there are ways to manage and manipulate the cage. Two such examples are Kandinsky 's Little Pleasures, and Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain. Both pieces were very controversial and judged for being so different in their time, but they also had very specific ways of handling the criticism and even used it to their advantage. We will be looking at the motivations for each artwork, what made the art so outrageous, and the public’s reaction to the pieces.
Another example was the criticism made by Dr. Judith Reisman who disagreed that Mapplethorpe’s photographs were art because they “failed to express human emotion” because of the sexual images(379). But this statement also requires the question, by whose values? Maybe they do not show human emotion to her because she believes only traditional “beautiful” things can invoke emotion, but they may invoke emotions in other viewers, which is the artist's purpose.
People can have many different opinions depending on a topic, but what is truly difficult is getting a complete level of understanding from every opinion, or understanding the point of view of each opinion. Even accepting the points of view can be difficult for some people, who believe that their opinions are right. Luckily, people can learn about the other person’s frame of reference, and at the very least understand the topic or the person a little better. This particular topic is art, which is known for its multiple possible perceptions or its many different messages that it can send a person or group of people. In this way, people can learn more about the thought processes and feelings of others. Unfortunately, with differing opinions,
Art for Art's Sake: Its Fallacy and Viciousness. The Art World, Vol.2. May 1917. 98-102
Art is a language of its own and with out he proper understanding, people are like expression goes “left on the outside looking in”. In other words, people without the proper understanding of art, technique and form as well as other elements can’t appreciate a work of art as much as when you understand why an artist painted in the way they did and what they are trying to get across to his audience. Despite artists attempts to try and make their works as viewer friendly as possible, without the understanding and knowledge gained from an art class as this one people will never fully understand the a work of art as it is meant to be.
In existential thought it is often questioned who decides what is right and what is wrong. Our everyday beliefs based on the assumption that not everything we are told may be true. This questioning has given light to the subjective perspective. This means that there is a lack of a singular view that is entirely devoid of predetermined values. These predetermined values are instilled upon society by various sources such as family to the media. On a societal level this has given rise to the philosophy of social hype. The idea of hype lies in society as the valuation of something purely off someone or some group of people valuing it. Hype has become one of the main driving forces behind what society considers to be good art and how successful artists can become while being the main component that leads to a wide spread belief, followed by its integration into subjective views. Its presence in the art world propagates trends, fads, and limits what we find to be good art. Our subjective outlook on art is powered by society’s feedback upon itself. The art world, high and low, is exploited by this social construction. Even when objective critique is the goal subjective remnants can still seep through and influence an opinion. Subjective thought in the art world has been self perpetuated through regulated museums, idolization of the author, and general social construction because of hype.
In the 1800’s it would’ve been considered a crime for a person of color to do anything that a “white” person was doing. They were considered to do one thing and one thing only and that’s work. They weren’t supposed to be writing, making music, or creating art. All of these were used to express someone’s feeling towards a subject and people of color were not allowed to do that. The people of color were using these ways of art to communicate and express how they were treated and how they wanted to be treated. Source D says, “The Art Institute of Chicago's collection of African American art provides a rich introduction to over 100 years of noted achievements in painting, sculpture, and printmaking. Ranging chronologically from the Civil War era to the Harlem Renaissance and from the civil-rights struggles following World War II to the contemporary period, these works constitute a dynamic visual legacy.” This statement shows how important it was for the African American people to make art and express what they were going through. It has opened the eyes of people and changed history. The art itself has changed human nature in many ways and showed that they deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. This is why it was a crime in those times. Now everyone is free to express their feelings in any type of art such as writing, musical art, and making art as an artist. Art is a beautiful thing that everyone should be able to express. Art is a part of human nature and it can be expressed in many ways and everyone needs to have the right to do that. This is why human nature has changed. It has changed in a good way and made everyone’s views and opinions change on what people of color should be able to
“The business of art lies in this—to make that understood and felt which, in the form of an argument, might be incomprehensible and inaccessible.” (Tolstoy 267) It needs a purpose, this is a very utilitarian way of thinking and it is sad to see it applied to art. Not that art can’t do this, it can, but it can also be beautiful. Some people will only see it as beautiful but that doesn’t make it stop being art. Some people will think it is ugly, but that’s just their opinion and if they want to claim it is not art, that doesn’t mean it’s not art for the rest of us.
Both the Hebrews and the Phoenicians were highly advanced groups of people. They are similar to each other in that they both made their home in the region of Canaan on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, they had an analogous alphabet-based writing system, and ultimately the two were overtaken by the Romans circa 533 BCE. But, much more identifiable is the Phoenicians and the Hebrews differences. The Phoenicians were brilliant seafaring navigators who had an aptitude towards trade, shipbuilding and crafting. They were polytheistic and they were highly accomplished in ship design, navigation and urban design. In contrast to the Phoenicians, the Hebrews were land based, nomadic herders. They are perceived by historians to be the earliest
It’s interesting to note what happened to the art world after Duchamp revolutionized art into meaninglessness. Artists seem to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding to ordinary people. Everything is O.K. under art’s magic umbrella: rotting corpses with snails crawling over them, kicking little girls in the head, rape and murder recreations, women defecating. Where does it stop? What is art and what is porn? What is art and what is disgusting? Where is the line? There isn’t one anymore. The effect of Duchamp’s pranks was to point out that anything could be art. All it took was getting people to agree to call something art.
...ns something when it imitates nature and delivers facts of history or culture. Art is the exploration of what it is to be alive, to be human and struggling to understand one’s role within society and identity in general. By stretching the limits of what is acceptable, the artist questions preconceived ideas of what is ugly and beautiful, important and unimportant. These ideas in art and society are influenced by the emergence of new technologies that expand human understanding. Since technology improves and human understanding is bolstered by these theories (both philosophical and scientific), then art will always have a place. The artist’s place is to criticize and express the tendencies and attitudes of himself and of society. Even if those feelings are marginalized, their expression makes the audience aware of them, and begs them to ask questions of themselves.
Based on this creator-centric definition, one may claim that art is purely a form of individual expression, and therefore creation of art should not be hindered by ethical consideration. Tattoos as pieces of artwork offer a great example of this issue. However, one may take it from the viewer’s perspective and claim that because art heavily involves emotion and the response of a community after viewing it, the message behind what is being presented is what should actually be judged. To what extent do ethical judgements limit the way the arts are created?... ...
All in all, artists are still regular people just like everyone else in this world. However, they might live glamorously and have all the money in the world but at the end of the day they just want to have a quiet life. However, it is hard for them to have quiet life when the world treats them as modern GODs that are perfect and have no flaws at all. If, they make a mistake they criticize them. Why? They aren’t perfect at all, no one is. The world shouldn’t focus on an artist’s life at all, they lose focus on what matters the most in this world.