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.