Blog Reflections

My basic expectations for the course were met in the sense that I learned something new about art. It was not the “technical” aspects, or the history of art, but rather the philosophy of art. In addition, as a Sociologist and philosopher, I was better able to see both the human and social interaction with images. Specifically, humans impact art in the social world, and the social world impacts humans through art. This was the most valuable insight, and will be used in my future sociological research and writing.

In light of this, defining art is from a philosophical view of aesthetics is the greatest lesson. Art isn’t just “pretty,” it makes people think. While I’ve always appreciated art that made me think within my worldview, I think I’m more able to see all art as “thinkable.”

I still do not have an absolute favorite visual artist. I still have an appreciation for art that makes me think, as I always have, however, I see the value in art that makes me think about thinking about it.

My view of online courses has not changed. They are tedious, and writing intensive (in addition to the 120 pages I’ve written for my other courses and graduate programs). Discussions are a free for all, and lack of feedback provides no guidance on what is expected from assignments. As the joke goes in Social Science, if you want to lower your GPA, take an online course.

The debate about online courses rages on in the Economics Department I work in, and the Sociology Department that I study in. There is no empirical evidence, no journal article, no statistical proof that online courses are better or easier. My personal experience is that they are harder with no interaction, and no feedback. But I am also a Sociologist who is completely dependent on social interaction as a social scientist that realizes that human beings are inherently social creatures. I understand that my views are not the views of all. They are however, representative of the views of most people in the social sciences.

Marginalized Art and Philosophy

There were three films viewed: The Lowdown on Lowbrow, Displaying modern art: the Tate approach, and An Acquiring Mind: Philippe de Montebello and The Metropolitan.

Of the three films, two had something in common. The film on Lowbrow and Displaying modern art had themes that involved people thinking about art within a social context. Lowbrow, being a response to artist rejected for no other reason than that they weren’t part of the “art circle” was striking. In Displaying Art, the theme was similar in that non-avante guard art was being displayed purposefully according to time and space in order to get viewers to think within a social context.

In this sense, these films helped me to chose which art I will include in my project, and how I will display them. As a sociologist, I am always interested in the “outliers;” those who are not mainstream in a society because of prejudice and discrimination regardless of the cause of such.

The third film was nothing more than a back-slapping session for the curator of the Met. In the interviews of de Montebello, he never once mentioned how specific pieces of art made him (or anyone else) think about the philosophy of anything. He simply declared various pieces of art “beautiful” with no elaboration as to why. The other people interviewed simply called him brilliant, with no elaboration as to why. This is not to say that the art that de Montebello procured was not beautiful, or that he was not brilliant. However, this is the problem the art world has faced for hundreds of years – where a small circle tells everyone else how they should think and feel. I would like to know why de Montebello views some art as beautiful, and others as ugly. I would like to know why he is considered brilliant other than for the commodification of art which has made a select few some money. It was a useless film in terms of philosophy.

Marginalized Art and Philosophy

There were three films viewed: The Lowdown on Lowbrow, Displaying modern art: the Tate approach, and An Acquiring Mind: Philippe de Montebello and The Metropolitan.

Of the three films, two had something in common. The film on Lowbrow and Displaying modern art had themes that involved people thinking about art within a social context. Lowbrow, being a response to artist rejected for no other reason than that they weren’t part of the “art circle” was striking. In Displaying Art, the theme was similar in that non-avante guard art was being displayed purposefully according to time and space in order to get viewers to think within a social context.

In this sense, these films helped me to chose which art I will include in my project, and how I will display them. As a sociologist, I am always interested in the “outliers;” those who are not mainstream in a society because of prejudice and discrimination regardless of the cause of such.

The third film was nothing more than a back-slapping session for the curator of the Met. In the interviews of de Montebello, he never once mentioned how specific pieces of art made him (or anyone else) think about the philosophy of anything. He simply declared various pieces of art “beautiful” with no elaboration as to why. The other people interviewed simply called him brilliant, with no elaboration as to why. This is not to say that the art that de Montebello procured was not beautiful, or that he was not brilliant. However, this is the problem the art world has faced for hundreds of years – where a small circle tells everyone else how they should think and feel. I would like to know why de Montebello views some art as beautiful, and others as ugly. I would like to know why he is considered brilliant other than for the commodification of art which has made a select few some money. It was a useless film in terms of philosophy.

The Social Process of Art

The two films that I chose were: Uncertainty: Modernity in Art, and Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art. I chose these films because as a Sociologist and artist, I am more interested in the social aspects of art. “Art” per se, as something that one derives meaning from, does not exist. “Art” is a social construct. Social forces motivate art to be constructed socially. Therefore, I could not bear watching another film on the interpretation of a specific artist.

The first film I watched, Uncertainty: Modernity in Art was phenomenal! It did the one thing that the textbook refuses to do in any chapter: present art within a social construct over time. The film talked about the social forces, some very dark forces, that created a social milieu in the art world. It talked about colonialism, Nazism, the cultural values of western society over time, cultural diffusion, the economics of art in the marketplace, and every aspect that the textbook misses.

In other words, instead of treating art as a “humanity” within the academy, the film intersected art with social science; which is where art truly belongs. The narrator makes the case nicely, without ever really saying it, that art is a social process. There are lots of other interactions that people have with their environment and social milieu that is also a series of social processes; economics, socialization, group dynamics, just to name a few social processes. However, if everything else is a social process, then so must be art.

The narrator almost takes a Marxist approach toward the end, where he suggests that modern art is a medium in which people can realize who they really are, both individually and as a member of society. Marx posed this idea of realizing who one really is as class consciousness. Marx also posed that idea that man had become alienated from himself, others, and “nature” due to Capitalism as it represented itself during his time – the industrial revolution. The narrator also suggest that man has been alienated from nature as represented in modern art.

The film was excellent in placing art as a social construct, and representative of social forces over time, squarely placing art into the social sciences, instead of some abstract interpretive enchanted thing that magically appears because of a random thought.

The second film, Abstract Impressionism and Pop, was completely devoid of anything meaningful, and boring. The narrator took a social construct of “abstract impressionism” and tried to force his own interpretation. The whole point of “abstract art” is that it’s supposed to be “abstract.” He was very technical in analyzing the techniques of various art works. The problem with this approach is that it speaks nothing about a social construct. This film speaks to everything that is philosophically wrong with the fine arts; that it never poses any ideas of meaning for the larger social context.

Burchfield Penny Art Gallery Visit

Step 1

I went to the Burchfield Penny  Art museum where they currently have an exhibition entitled “Biological Regionalism” by Alberto Rey.

Alberto Rey is a scientist who visualizes biological science, and presents it in a way that impacts people on an emotional level. If there was a function of biology called “Visual Biology,” this would be a good representation. This is very similar to my work in Visual Sociology, where I use images as data to represent social life in various forms and theoretical frameworks.

 Step 2

The lighting for the presentation varies depending on the medium. For some paintings, individual lighting is used. Some paintings are groups onto a large wall, and track lighting is used to illuminate the entire wall. There are items in cases that represent a type of “archeology” to the Scadjaquada River and its pollutants. There were also paintings with cases underneath them, where each garnered its own lighting.

The walls were plain, off white. In one instance, in a large gallery area, the upper portion of the wall was painted with a map of the creek, with corresponding paintings displayed under the map (see photo).

Movement through the gallery space was confusing. There was no consistent flow between this exhibition and others. There were side rooms with displays for this exhibition, but they were unknown, and not labeled. I only discovered them by wandering.

Step 3

The artworks were organized in a very linear pattern, with each painting either occupying its own space, or set directly next to each other from a left to right pattern. There was no originality in organization. While the exhibition may have been intended to be viewed in a linear pattern, I could find no requirement to do so. Also, the other exhibitions were organized in the same linear manner.

The artwork that was different from the pollution aspect was separated by space, being placed across the room. There were paintings of fish and other water animals, while the pollution aspect had its own area. There were other areas where video images were being displayed showing current photos of polluted waterways in Western New York.

Each artwork was labeled with a placard next to the painting on the right. Each placard was informative, including a science summary of chemicals found in the water, with corresponding water sample with pollutants in it.

Steps 4 &5

As there was no Art Criticism Worksheet in any of the modules on Blackboard that I could find, my description of the art is off the cuff.

The presentation was unique in the sense that it combined art with science. The texture of the paintings was largely oil on canvass. The colors were largely aqua and green, with elements of reds mixed in, as in the case of the fish and dead animal in the water. While diagonal lines were used in two of the paintings, it is clear that there is no movement intended – the animals are dead. Dead animals cannot move. The diagonal lines are thus representative of special significance.