What's the point?

I admit: I’m rather skeptical about the art world. Some art works appeal to me, others don’t. I don’t like to spend time analyzing this—I don’t care why I like a work of art and somebody else doesn’t. I just do, and they just don’t.

Because of this, I find any kind of art theory to be a strange and generally inapplicable concept. How can you really put a theory to something so subjective? Making a theory to why people like art and what makes art good just seems like such a strange thing to do—theories are scientifically based, and one major principle of science is that it must be objective. By no means is the interpretation of art objective. It doesn’t work very well, in my opinion.

Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes are interesting to me because of this. Danto writes a whole book on them, trying to figure out how they could possibly be art. He came up with a theory that accounted for them, and generally seems to have spent a lot of time thinking about them.

How silly. Maybe it’s just because I’ve never really immersed myself in the art world, but I just can’t get over the fact that people try so hard to logically explain art. What’s the point? Art is a matter of opinion. Why spend so much time trying to define it? I don’t see why it matters anyway—art fluctuates with time anyway, so a theory which might seem accurate of today’s art won’t be able to account for the art produced ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred years from now. Who knows what people in the year 2109 will hanging up in their homes.

However, having said all of this, I mean none of it disrespectfully. Personally, I don’t see how art theory is a valid pursuit. That doesn’t mean it isn’t one. I’m sure there are plenty of people who think that psychology is a load of crap and a waste of time, but that doesn’t mean it is. I love psychology and don’t love art theory. That’s just my opinion, and if other people have different opinions, that’s more than okay by me. Just to clarify.

So, in summary, I don’t understand art theory. But I guess that’s a good thing, because now I’m taking this class and all. Maybe everything will become clear to me by the end of the semester.

Conniff: The Natural History of Art.

Are genetics a puppet master to art? I don’t know. I did really like the article though. I think there were a lot of good points, and a lot of things I hadn’t thought of before. I don’t know if I really buy the argument that our aesthetic preferences are ingrained into us through art… I, for one, tend to like forest scenery as much as Savanna-esque scenery. But I think the author of the article would argue that forests were historically a danger to primates and early humans, so I must like them because I want to be prepared for danger. Following this argument, couldn’t I say that the real reasons we are predisposed to Savanna landscapes is not because they remind us of our early homes, but because we are afraid of them? Looking at the pictures of Africa scenery throughout the article, I feel more dread than safety. The Savanna makes me think of lions and hyenas, and the fact that the whole thing is an open plane. I would prefer more dense landscapes if I were an early human, because they’d provide more cover. The open plain of the Savanna really makes me more nervous than comforted.

Someone in class brought up the point that if our DNA really does predispose us toward certain types of art, then why do we go through artistic phases? Styles like abstract art don’t really jive with this theory.

The portion of the article about eye patterns, however, is really interesting. I knew about eye patterns on butterfly wings, I hadn’t really connected scales or leopard fur to eyes, but I had never even considered wood patterns. One wall of the living room in my apartment is covered with these eye patterns, and it is pretty creepy now that I’ve connected the dots on the subject. I don’t think I’ll ever look at trees the same way again.

-->Ashley<--