Sunday, January 11, 2009

Terms and Ideas

In chapter 5 I found several things very interesting about the new terms that were presented as well as terms used in the past. I was especially stumped when I cam across a couple of new terms the first in particular wad dada, I found that it explained the cultural movement a little better on Wikipedia look it up if you as well would like some more background.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DadaThe idea and concept of aura seemed particularly interesting to me and while I tried to find a closer definition as well as more examples like the one given in chap. 5 I have yet to come across any others. The idea that a form of art could respond or have dialogue with the artist himself as to where this piece of art is going and what its influence is. Honestly if a piece of any form of art were to talk back to me as the artist I would expect that drugs were involved. On the other hand I can grasp the concept of wanting to have a dialogue between the “perceiver and the object.” I always find as well as Benjamin in chap. 5 that there will always be a hierarchy between creator and created, in art or in any case. What I like about the concept is that it can be applied to the media and technology something we have humans have created and now we look to for answers in daily life. By this I mean we look to entertain ourselves, we look to for information, communication, and sometimes for direction in life as well as in guidance. In chapter 4 the reference made to media that "if they watch it then we must be giving them what they want and need." I find this to be true but only to an extent we to tell the media what we want more of, and the media continues to inject the public with what they want the public to consume, and so the cycle continues.

1 comment:

  1. Dear Kelly,

    You said in this posting that, "The idea that a form of art could respond or have dialogue with the artist himself as to where this piece of art is going and what its influence is. Honestly if a piece of any form of art were to talk back to me as the artist I would expect that drugs were involved."
    As an artist myself I must defend art against such statement. I don't believe that to see the aura and have some METAPHORICAL dialogue with a piece of art, drugs must be involved. When somebody is very sensitive and spiritual, that person is absolutely capable of seeing auras and having a metaphysical experience (almost like a climax) when understanding or simply experiencing a piece of art.
    It is a little bit like the feeling many people felt when listening at Obama speaking after he won the elections, or feeling a tear come down your eyes when some beautiful message is communicated (not necessarily in word, but actions) when you watch a movie... let's say: Big Fish, for example (at least that one made it for me).
    I truly believe that having such a experience through art is absolutely possible. I have felt it more than once, and not drugs have been involved.
    It is like a true love experience; not necessarily sexual.
    I hope you get to consider this point of view...
    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete