Friday, November 14, 2014
Art and meaning (required)
1. Do you think you can be “right” about the meaning of a song (and more generally art)? If your interpretation of art is not what the artist “meant” is the art any less valuable or effective in creating knowledge for the listener? Why or why not?
2. Is the artist unskilled if they do not get their meaning across? Is there any art that has no meaning? Must art have meaning? Why or why not? Be specific and give examples in your explanation.
3. Is music different from the other types of art (painting, sculpture, literature, dance, film, etc.) in how it creates knowledge for the listener? How so? Again, be specific in your answer, using examples from your life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. I do think that you can be right in finding the artists preferred meaning in a piece of art, but i do not believe that art can be bound to one interpretation. While your interpretation of an artistic piece might not be the same as the artist it does not necessarily make yours less valuable (As long as you do not claim your interpretation as the true meaning to said artistic piece). In the end i believe that looking at an artistic piece from multiple interpretations could enhance the art rather than diminish it.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that if an artist has a meaning that they are trying to get across in a piece of art and fail to do so than they have failed artistically. It is possible for art to have no meaning, and i do not believe that art has to have meaning to be considered art. Abstract art for most people lends itself to no meaning, but that does not mean that someone else can not enjoy it.
3. I believe that all forms of artistic expression create knowledge for the listener or observer just through different mediums. While one person might enjoy music and not care for sculptures the opposite is also possible. Therefore, I believe that all artistic expressions lends itself to different people and what they would consider worth their time.
1. If your interpretation of the meaning of the art piece is exactly the same as the artist then the artist has done the right thing. I believe that everyone is supposed to have a slightly different understanding of a song due to everyone’s personal backgrounds. Having multiple viewpoints strengthens the relatability of a song overall.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think that the artist is unskilled if their intended meaning is not fully received by the audience. It is nearly impossible for every single person to find the same meaning from an art piece due to differences in personality and experiences. All art have some meaning, even in modern art like Andy Warhol’s Campbell soup painting. Modern art still have meaning, some to show icons in popular culture. Although the meaning in art ranges, all art has meaning since art is used to convey an idea, feeling, or opinion.
3. Music is the unique form of art that uses the sense of sound (audition) to receive the art. All the other forms of art uses visual aspects, except film that has visual and sound aspects. Overall, art uses sense perception, and also emotion to create knowledge for the audience. It is hard to use another sense to obtain knowledge from a Mozart piece without listening.
1. I definitely think you can be right about the meaning of a song. If the artist states a meaning, then that is the correct one because it is their work. There are certainly plausible meanings, but what is “correct” is what is according to the artist. If the artist is not alive or leaves the meaning open to interpretation, then all conjectured meanings become possible meanings, in which case one interpretation can be closer to the truth than another, but never 100%. Interpreting art in one way that is different to the actual meaning doesn’t devalue the art’s ability to create knowledge. In fact, allowing the opportunity for audiences to postulate many possible meanings makes the art more effective in sparking discussion.
ReplyDelete2. An artist should be able to get their meaning across- if they have one. I believe art should have some meaning or purpose to it because then we would have many “artists” putting together random visual displays or melodies and calling it “art” (ex. The Kardashians on television. Reality TV has no purpose; it just showcases “life” which is not substantial enough to have meaning).
3. I think all art is connected by the fact that the brain loves symmetry. It is going to “like” what is accurate. For example, in paintings, symmetry and complimentary colors are going to be pleasing. In music, melodies that are harmonious and in set meter will be attractive. “Good” art is what pleases the brain and results in an emotional response that sparks knowledge or interpretation. In ballets, such as Tchaikovsky’s famous score for Swan Lake, the music matches with the dance, as the melodies parallel the lines created by the dancer. This leaves room for a plot and subsequent emotion/discussion.
There is no right or wrong when it comes to the interpretation of art, because art is a compromise between the artist’s intentions and the audience’s experiences. The differences between the two do not detract from the knowledge created. It only creates a different, personalized knowledge for the individual. Two people can look at the same painting, but based upon each’s values, previous experiences, and knowledge can come to differing conclusions. Both interpretations are still valid.
ReplyDeleteNo, the artist is not unskilled if they can’t convey their personal message because the audience’s experiences create different messages. Not only do they experience the artwork itself, but they also draw from their prior experiences and memories, which can shape their understanding of the art work. There is no art that is meaningless, because either the artist or the audience will project their own meaning onto the work. Even in abstract art, the artist tries to convey emotion, which gives it some meaning.
Music is auditory, unlike most other arts which are predominantly visual. This is significant because we tend to rely on our sight when we’re searching for meaning. Since music does not involve our sight, we have to create our own images in our head to interpret the piece.
1. Absolutely not! As an artist myself, I often have a specific meaning to my pieces. However, I love hearing new interpretations of my pieces no matter how crazy they may be. This is because art is probably the most subject area of knowledge, therefore, no one answer is right. Also, I feel that when people interpret a piece their own way, they are understanding the piece in their own unique and personal way, which I believe is very valuable.
ReplyDelete2. Not at all. Just because you aren't smart/chill enough to understand the meaning behind my piece isn't my fault of being "unskilled" (and any artist for that matter). Furthermore, I firmly believe that all art has a meaning; if you draw a person just because they are pretty or you just draw for fun, there is meaning behind that (you are appreciating a person or art in general, that is the meaning). Even if you draw scribbles, I still believe it has meaning and can show a lot about it's artist (in this case, it means the artist is just angry or bored).
3. In some aspects I think it's different, but the majority is the same. For example, even though music cannot be physically seen, I think that is able to be mentally seen by us because of the images and memories we associate the sounds. Furthermore, all art is alike in the fact that it can have a great impact on our emotions, based on your personal knowledge.
1. I think that there is a general right meaning of a song or art because we can interpret the meaning based on common sense. But I do not think there is a specific right meaning of a song because every individual's personal experience is different, including both the artist and the audience. Therefore, there is no absolute right meaning in area of art. If the interpretation of art is differed from the artist's interpretation, it does not make it less valuable because it is those various interpretations that make art unique since everyone's background and understanding of art are different.
ReplyDelete2. The artist is not unskilled if they do not get their meaning across because great art often leads to various interpretations and sparks different understanding of the piece. I think all arts have and must have meanings because they are representations of the artist's thoughts and feelings. Even though there may be different interpretations, but all art have meanings since they are ways for artist's to express their feelings.
3. Music is slightly different from other types of art since it is auditory and not visual compared to paintings, literature and films. Sometimes we have to do more with music by creating the image in our heads and then interpret that image. But similarly, both music and visual art require interpretations and have meanings.
1. I do not believe that there is only a specific way in which a song or art in general can be interpreted. There is definitely value in the meaning the artist seeks to convey; however, due to the art's ambiguous nature, it is certainly possible to have multiple interpretations that can be validly supported.
ReplyDelete2. It does take a level of skill for an artist to convey a message through his or her art, but I do not think that an artist's skill should be diminished if people interpret his or her art in a different way than the artist sought to show. Sense perception is not concrete and there are factors that may lead people to view art in different perspective. It may depend on a person's mood or present situation that may lead them to having a different interpretation that the artist. There can be art, that may lack a specific meaning, but serves just for entertainment purposes. Many people view art such as music and film as a means for entertainment and enjoyment. They are not necessarily focused on obtaining a value or meaning from the art, but just seek to be entertained by it. This is seen in many of the music and movies that are made today. Many people listen and make songs today that are not focused on a meaning, but rather they just like listening to them. Likewise, many blockbuster films made today do not contain much substance, but the special effects and action lead to many people enjoying them. Therefore, meaning behind art adds to its value, but art can also just be used solely for entertainment purposes.
3. Music is auditory and thus interpreted differently than the other forms of visual art. Scientist have said that our preference in music depends our sense of order in the sounds created. The combination of sounds that makes the right order to us is what we like to listen to. Its auditory nature leads music to resonate with people differently than the arts that are interpreted visually. An example of this is many people enjoy listening to rap due to the meaning behind it. It is similar to poetry read out loud, but just reading poetry silently has a different effect. Reading the poetry aloud adds to the effect in that the movement, the flow, and the sound imagery created adds to the meaning and understanding of the artwork.
1: You can not be “right” about the meaning of art, but you can definitely have a “strong” argument about something. What the artist “meant” should have little meaning for the listener as any good interpretation is usually self satisfying- meaning that if an argument about art is well thought out, it will not matter what the artist meant as that interpretation is self standing. Simply put, if I have an interpretation about what a song means, an artist rebuking my statement may not necessarily change my mind.
ReplyDelete2: The artist is not necessarily unskilled if their meaning does not come across to the viewer, but the strength of that type of artist-listener connection is certainly one criteria on which to evaluate the quality of art, with things such as skill, time, and effort also taken into accord. In a weird way, art that is supposedly meaningless has a sort of meaning to some people, but then one falls into the fallacy that if someone likes art for its lack of meaning then they actually find meaning in its lack thereof. In my opinion, art should have meaning because it then becomes valuable to us and thus worthy of being called art.
3: Music is similar to other forms of art because it relies on perception and emotion to produce knowledge through connection. However, I would say that music is more difficult to interpret due to its high demand for lingual capabilities. This may not seem apparent when English is your main language, but it’s hard for non-English speakers to understand some of the faster paced songs on the radio today. As a novice Spanish speaker, I cannot understand most of the songs I hear on the Spanish radio. However, it is easier for me to read poems in Spanish because it fits my slower reading speed.
1. Yes, you can be right about the meaning of a song if only one way of interpreting the song exists, but with art, you can never be right until you hear what the artist intended to convey. Art is subjective, so each person will have a different way of interpreting the same art piece.
ReplyDelete2. No, it just would not have as wide an impact as art that has meaning associated with it. I think that all art has some sort of meaning that underlays the physical beauty. There is a painting that is just a line, which might convey the boundaries that exist in society, but it could also just be a line in space.
3. No, the knowledge created for the listener depends on whether the listener is learns visually, learns auditory, or learns kinetically. I am a visual learner, so i watch a lot of movies, videos, and documentaries that explain the same stuff that is written in the books.
1.) I don't think you can be right when it comes to art. Yes some interpretations may be more stronger than another, but art, to me, is opened to a variety of interpretations. The openness of art is what seems to define art from any other area of knowledge. Additionally, if the interpretation is different from the artist's interpretation, I personally, do not think that it takes away any value from the song. Like I said, art is define by it's open ended characteristic, allowing different interpretations to add value to the piece.
ReplyDelete2.) I do not think an artist is unskilled if they fail to get their meaning across. In english class, poets often hide a powerful theme underneath their poems, yet I fail to find them. Does that mean the nobel prize winning poets are unskilled? Nah, I'm just not good at interpreting the poems. I feel that there is no art without a meaning. Every artist has their own meaning for doing what they do. Maybe the observer might believe that the art has no meaning, but the artist may one. Adding off of that, I think art must have meaning in order to be created. Whether or not observers agree with the meaning or not, the art will always have a purpose for its creation.
3.I don't necessarily think music is any different from the other arts in creating knowledge. To me, however, music is more pleasurable as it is a passive form of art. For theatre and for paintings and such, one must observe intently to see the meaning. Music, on the other hand, requires no attention as it plays on in the background. We do not have to listen to it intently to get the right vibe to it, but we do need to listen to it to figure out the meaning of the song if the song contains lyrics
1. I think that it’s possible for someone to be right about the intended purpose of the song (from the perspective of the producer). Meaning is an abstract term, but I take it to be an interpretation. Therefore, your interpretation might/might not match up with the artist’s intention. However, this does not make the interpretation less meaningful. People tend to understand art within their own individual context, and this creates knowledge individual to the listener. We can’t relate to all the same things. The less you can relate to the art, the less meaning you can extract. That’s what makes abstract art (in any form) open-ended (to an extent). Not every artist provides their own meaning because it might be insignificant to the purpose of the art.
ReplyDelete2. I think that artists use art a medium for expression. Relatability is typically a byproduct though. Different pieces of art (like abstract art or music) might not be as relatable to most people. However, an artist who creates something relatable isn’t necessarily skilled. It has to connect with others in an insightful way. Art should have meaning. If someone feels strongly enough about something, they should be able to capture it through art. Art is to express, but a good artist should be able to convey meaning.
3. Music might be different from other pieces of art in that people might enjoy it without thinking about the meaning. This is because music involves both an instrumental and lyrical aspect. One part might be more meaningful to a person than the other. Additionally, music is an art that fits certain situations. People might listen to music according to their mood.
1. It is possible to be right about the meaning of a song. The “meaning” is not subject to personal interpretation, but rather reflects only the artist’s intentions. Whether a personal interpretation agrees with the artist’s intentions or not is irrelevant in the development of knowledge through the song. The fact that someone has an interpretation at all indicates that some knowledge was gained.
ReplyDelete2. Art does not need to be recognizable to be meaningful. A perfect example of this is Dadaism. The artist intends to create meaning through essentially making the subject matter meaningless. The conscious and subconscious responses of the viewer become the critical means of developing meaning, as opposed to the richly detailed art of the Romantic or Realist schools.
3. Music is definitely different than other art forms in the way it creates knowledge. The inherent power of music is more readily accessed than that of other art forms---while a few may be inspired by a fine art museum, everybody can be motivated by music. For example, I use music to prepare for a soccer game or to help me focus while doing homework. Music has this huge influence because of its basis on biologically preferable melodies. Certain frequencies sound better to the human ear. Therefore, in this case, mathematics and science play a large part in the development of appealing art.
1. I believe that there is a general "right" meaning of a piece of art. The interpretation of the person must at least be pertinent to the subject of the piece being observed. This means that while there may be no absolute when talking about the meaning of a piece of art, there is a minimum when it comes to the basic meaning of the art.
ReplyDelete2. The artist isn't necessarily unskilled if they do not get their intended meaning across to the observer, instead it means that their art is just open to many interpretations, even though it may not be what they intended. In my opinion all art will have meaning, even art without meaning. In that case the meaning of the art is to have no meaning (if that makes sense). Also with the various perspectives that all people have, there will always be some person who finds some meaning in a piece of art.
3. Music is different from the other arts because it is an auditory experience which is a big difference from the visual knowledge that the other arts provides. By experiencing music entirely through sound, people can gain different interpretations that they might not have realized before.
1. Have a teenager who listens to rap all day, everyday claiming that Mozart's pieces are about World War 2 should be considered a wrong interpretation. Art may be subjective, but it is not relative. Actually, all interpretations are 'wrong' except for the author's. Because of the Fenno paradox, only the author can truly understand the experiences which motivated him to create a work of true art. Kant and Nietzsche agree that reality is incomprehensible; we can only analyse the spectacles we try to comprehend it through. Art allows us to expose ourselves to part of the truth of reality through introspection and reflect upon the human experience. The interpretation of the art simply does not matter, because art is an imperfect interpretation of reality.
ReplyDelete2. Art does not need to even have a meaning. In fact, the reason that Nietzsche believed that Art was so valuable was because it bares the essence of the chaotic, meaningless world to us and makes us enlightened to this truth. That is why abstract art, like Guernica, is still considered art. However, art is preferably something which we can attach meaning to; this way art can convey certain moods. These moods are central to having a purpose. A semblance of purpose, typically achieved through motivic development, is important in making art seem relatable. That is why beginning improvisers often have trouble with integrating a cohesive element; it seems like senseless rambling, and it probably is. Progression of some sort is necessary in lengthier pieces to prevent boringness, because change reflects reality; however, the sections should still be intertwined in some way.
3. Multiple elements occur in film, so film often relies on barraging the audience with many phenomena. music. The visual arts, and literature force us to focus on one sense. I think that they produce knowledge in the same way, however. There is no absolute knowledge created as a product in the end, but through phenomenalism, we can experience new sensations which provide insight to our own perspectives.
1. I do not think their are any "right" answers in the meaning of art. While the artist may have intended reasoning of what was behind the art, any piece is meant to evoke personal feeling within each person. They have no connection to the artist so it does really matter what they think. What matters is the "answer" that each person has towards the artwork and the emotions they evoke from it.
ReplyDelete2. Some art may have no meaning, but that is simply because that certain person did not get anything from the work. It did not trigger for him/her any emotions or memories that make the piece meaningful. However, what one person might find as meaningless artwork could be extremely impactful for someone else. So in answer to the question, all art technically has meaning because there will always be someone who has a connection with the piece, the one person for sure being the artist. As long as the artist feels the piece has meaning, then I believe the art itself is meaningful.
3. It is different because it relies on solely one sense, that being hearing. Almost all other forms of art use a blend of more than one sense to make them intertwine and fit together. In music, there is also usually more variation in how to interpret the meaning of the piece, and can vary greatly from person to person. Music creates knowledge through a strict u listening and what sounds good or bad to the person. I feel I obtain knowledge through music in a much more relaxed and simple way, while I am laying on the beach or needing to relax. In contrast, the other forms of art require more concentration and focus to what is going on and what is the meaning of the piece. While you can gain knowledge from music without knowing anything about the artists intention, for the other works of art it is more vital.
1. I think rightness in art can come in correctly establishing a conclusion about the creator's purpose or intent. However, in terms of whether or not there is right or wrong in how art is interpreted I believe that there isn't. When an artist releases their work they are immediately opening themselves up to the subjectivity in it and as a result have to understand the different interpretations (even though it doesn't match theirs) that goes along with such.
ReplyDelete2 An artist is not unskilled if they don't get their meaning across because it still has meaning to them. Also what some consider meaningful others consider redundant so there ares many factors that come into play in eliciting meaning from artwork. I feel that the only way for art to not have meaning would be if the artist themselves didn't find it meaningful.
3 Music is different in that it can be enjoyed without thinking about it can be appealing to the senses because it just is. On the other hand with some of the other arts such as painting you have discern what aesthetic quality or facet of the peace makes it appealing. With music there is much less effort required for their to be significance.
1. I don't believe that there is any "right" meaning in art because each and every individual has their own interpretation of a piece of art based on past experiences. Although the artist may have intended for it to mean a certain thing, just because a person may interpret it another way does not make it less valuable. However, it may be more effective if a person sees it the same way as the artist does because they may be able to detect subtle messages that someone with a different interpretation may not see.
ReplyDelete2. An artist isn't unskilled if they cannot get their meaning across. Everybody has their own interpretation of art, but if nobody sees the message that they are trying to convey then their effectiveness is extremely low. Art is defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." According to this definition, art must have meaning, and if it didn't have meaning then it wouldn't be considered art.
3. Music is different from the other arts because it primarily relies on a person's sense of hearing rather than their visual perception. However, classical and instrumental music is still the same in the sense much of it is open to the interpretation of the individual. Lyrical music, meanwhile, is completely different because it basically tells you what you're supposed to feel, leaving very little room for interpretation.
1. I do think you can be right about the meaning of a work art that the artist had intended for. The artist, when making the work, would have an idea/concept in mind that they want to convey (a specific message or specifically made to be ambiguous). However, I do not think a person can be wrong about the meaning, it would just not be an accurate description of the artist's intention. The meaning, when an art is published for others to experience, leaves itself open to be explained by the recipient. If the personal meaning is not the same, it does not make that meaning "less valuable", it adds to the value. It means that the art work is not restrained by only one perspective and thus free for discussion and further analysis.
ReplyDelete2. Art should have a meaning to it, no matter the specificity of it. The meaning of the art gives it purpose and value for evaluation and assessment of it. If there were no meaning to it then there is no reason give it attention and waste energy because you already know the purpose of it. For example in Donne poetry, John Donne is always trying to convey either the power of love or the importance of Christianity for the individual. They were the motivation for him to write his poetry, without them his poetry would be powerless and lack an emotional connection to it. If the artist does not get their meaning across, it does not mean it is a failure because there was still a purpose for the work. It does not change the structure of the piece, it only leaves the meaning open for interpretation since the art was made for purpose but it is not obvious.
3. Music does have a slight difference with other forms of art (it relies on the sense of hearing), however, it is in the most part similar. Like other forms, it uses an appeal to the senses to build the structure of the work so the emotional connection between the observer and the art can be formed. In classical music, the differences in the notes build the story for the listener to build in their imagination.
1. There isn’t a right or wrong interpretation in art, especially for a song; there are just different interpretations. Just because one doesn’t have understand the song’s meaning in terms of the artist’s context, that doesn’t make it any less true to himself. With subjective knowledge such as in art, individual interpretations increase the effectiveness of the universal effect that art has in capturing the mind’s imagination.
ReplyDelete2. It is not necessarily the artist’s fault if his art does not communicate to the viewer. What cannot be seen by one may be perceived by another. Since our knowledge is subjective a mentioned in the earlier question, not everyone will be able to extract a meaning from a work of art. In that, art can have no meaning and have meaning at the same time because of the relative perspective that skews perception. There are some rap songs like “Tuesday” that I simply listen to for pumping up for workouts because the beat is catchy, but others may find it to be a critical song that addresses how an individual is addicted to going to the club and revel in decadence.
3. Music is similar to the other forms of art in that it is stimulates our senses in a way. In music people look for the harmony or “catchiness” of a piece and what resonates with their preference. By stimulating sense perception, music can initiate imagination or induce emotional knowledge that influences our behavior. The Mozart Effect is a good example of how listening to classical music while studying can theoretically make a student perform better on assignments.