Inventors

via bradenMy question is, what about inventors? The person who came up with the couch, wheel, table, iPod? Does an "inventor" as such even exist?

Plato suggests that inventors and artisans pull the idea of an object, such as the couch, out of a world of ideals that exists on some other plane, or in the gods' world. In his philosophy, there would be no real invention. I think it would be more along the lines of divine inspiration, or even, to give humanity a little more credit, divine discovery. Instead of inventing, they tap into something greater. This doesn't necessarily devalue their talent. They're explorers instead of inventors, but the two are very close together in the first place. Both discover new things and bring people into new territory.

On her blog, Katie asked,

Can a person create art with no formal background?

It's very possibly to create art without formal education in it (ie, drawing or painting classes, art theory, color theory), although it may be harder to learn. Drawing is an art, and is not all that difficult to improve at without classes. I've never taken a drawing class, but I enjoy drawing, so I do it very frequently, and I've gotten fairly good as a result. Arts like writing and drawing are often interesting to people because "anyone can do them", in that you probably have all the skills you need to at least make an attempt. However, for other arts, a formal background could be necessary. You wouldn't want to try glassblowing for the first time on your own -- If you breathe wrong while blowing glass, you can permanently damage your lungs. It's also very easy to burn your arms or fingers, and the glass itself must be heated and cooled specific ways to stop it from cracking.

You don't need a degree or a formal background to make art or have an artistic concept, but some forms of art require a teacher.

Is it better to have a teacher, or let your skills develop organically?

Weitz's theory of art as indefinable is not a particularly useful or helpful suggestion for the purposes of debate. However, there is something attractive about it. I think we all have the feeling that we know art already. I certainly feel that I can tell if I'm looking at art when it's in front of me. If you asked, though, I couldn't give a description of how I know. It's just something I feel.

Weitz's theory is interesting if nothing else, because rather than try to define art, it suggests we just forget about that. Defining art does not help to create art; better to just get on with it. His chapter in the book seems almost like an intrusion, though. There's not much point in saying that art is indefinable in a book which tries to catalouge different ways to look at art. Well, there is, because his opinion deserves to be heard and he has some fair points, but it seems to have been included only for posterity's sake. Obviously very few people reading the book are going to take his opinions seriously. The book seems designed to encourage debate, whereas his chapter really seems to suggest that the debate will never lead anywhere, and we should move on. It's contradictory to the concept that the book was based on.

Is it important for artists to know what is art and what is not, or how to define art? Will it help make them into better artists, or can they succeed just as well without thinking about it? How relevant is the philosophy of art to the appreciation of art?

I'm responding to Katie's post, where she asked,

...judging art is an impossible thing, so what do we think we will gain from it?"

I see criticism as an important part of an artist's process. While it can be painful to have someone criticize your work, it's also helpful. Most artists, when they work, are trying to convey something, whether it's a story, emotion, or idea. However, these things take a lot of thought and effort. It's easy for the artist to get too caught up in their own head and begin to think that their message is obvious, when to an outsider there is no rhyme or reason to the piece. Critics take an important role by helping to improve the artist's work long-term.

It's not possible to improve yourself as an artist without taking some criticism. Even if you feel cruel for criticizing someone's work, if the advice you offer is legitimate and helpful, you're most likely doing them a favor.

Could art get along without criticism? (I don't think so, but I'd like to know if anyone else does.)

What Is "Body Art"?

I'm responding to Katie's blog post about liposuction as a form of body art. I am personally a big fan of body modding, although scarification and branding don't appeal to me at all. I think tattoos are a legitimate art form. I especially like the ones at Contrariwise, a website (And Alice in Wonderland reference!) for literary tattoos. Tattoos are beautiful because they have so much meaning to the people who get them, and because they are both a permanent and very temporary art form. Any parent will tell you that a tattoo is forever, but humans don't make for enduring canvas.

That said, I can't really see plastic surgery as an art form. It isn't making someone beautiful -- it's changing them to make them fit into the shape society says they should be. Tattoos are a celebration of individuality, where plastic surgery tries to get everyone to fit into a single mold.

Body art is sometimes rejected for being too much of a change or for being a "mutilation" of the body you were born with. Other people just don't think it's worth the pain. I think body art is beautiful because you have to really want it in order to get it, and because it can be so simple yet so dramatic. Even simple metal studs make for interesting and beautiful piercings.

Does it matter if something is good or bad for you, as long as it's art? What would you sacrifice or go through for art?

Freud has always seemed like more of a case study than a psychologist to me, so while I enjoy reading his work, I can't fully ascribe to what he says. I think the main reason for this is that many of Freud's theories seem extremely tenuous. In the textbook, for example, Freud says that Leonardo da Vinci based the Mona Lisa's smile on his mother's smile, because da Vinci once recounted a dream (Freud claims it to be a fabricated memory) about being chased by a vulture. This dream supposedly symbolized da Vinci's reliance on his mother rather than his father. I have difficulty seeing how these two things are supposed to relate to each other, or how Freud could know that da Vinci invented a dream to summarize his relationship with his parents. It's true that a lot of people live in the shadow of their parents. Your upbringing affects you in minor and major ways throughout your entire life. However, I don't think this is how it comes out. It seems to me like Freud is looking for meaning in all the wrong places, and is very quick to assume the worst in people.

Is it possible for something in your past to unintentionally pop up in your art?

Does our past play that large a role in our basic life?

On her blog, Sarah asked:

How does Minimalism continue to thrive without a point, or with a point that's been made many times already?

I would like to respond by saying that minimalism is not necessarily expending the minimum amount of effort on something. Instead, it's paring something down to its essentials and showing what really makes a piece of art work. Minimalism can exist in any art form. For example, Ernest Hemingway famously wrote a six-word short story. "For sale: Baby shoes, never worn." This is a minimalistic story. It's been stripped down to six words. However, it takes a lot of work to write a six-word story. Forcing yourself to cut out every nonessential detail and allow the reader to make their own assumptions takes a lot of time and thought.

Minimalism really forces the viewer to draw their own conclusions and think a piece of art through. It gives them space to make what they will of the piece. Aesthetically, it can be very beautiful, but beyond that, I do think it has a place in the art world.