When I began reading "Believing is Seeing," I felt dubious about the author's intent. I thought Mary Anne Staniszewski was taking a controversial stance only for the sake of grabbing attention about what A/art "is" and what A/art "is not." However, as Staniszewski moved from shock-value statements to cultural context, I began to change my mind about the text. The chapter "What is Art?" provided history and reason for why we consider certain images and objects "Art" and why we disregard other. I particularly enjoyed the rational that because pre-modern peoples did not possess the language or intent to create "Art," they could not have. I agree that in our image-reliant consumer culture we are quick to associate architectural, religious, and monumental entities with "Art." These items like Italian frescos, ancient pyramids, and the Venus of Willendorf, though perhaps artistic, are not Art in the way that modern paintings, photographs, and sculptures intend to be Art.
For my examples from the internet, I've chosen two images that I believe "are Art" and two images that I believe "are not Art."
"Art"
Kathrin Lewis - Oil on Canvas - "Swans in a Tornado" (title unknown)
Street (He)Art by Clet Abraham (title unknown)
"Not Art"
"The Death of the Buddha" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Medieval Armor at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Staniszewski does begin with rather bold and generalized statements to catch the readers attention. I am glad you kept an open mind and continued to read and think about her ideas. They are powerful and stir up my own thoughts about what is art today - in a world where everyone has easy and instant access to image creation and distribution.
ReplyDelete