Jen+Chu+RP+Post+3

n the distant past, artists almost only produced what their masters, or patrons (viz their societies), required. They had little need to explain the meaning of their work, for instance, since it was mostly determined for them The arts were once the very means by which we transmitted news and information, such as with the pictographs of ancient hieroglyphs or the songs of traveling minstrels
 * 1) what is art's place in society?
 * 2) Society and the Fine Arts
 * 3) R. Brant Hill
 * 4) http://www.southwestern.edu/magazine/back-issues/16_2/society-and-the-fine-arts.html
 * 5) 5/29
 * 6) SOAPSTone
 * S: Hill
 * O: reflecting on he main interests in society, and how they have changed
 * A: funders for artists/ art programs,
 * P: explain why it is vital to have art and describe its purposes
 * S: art is not as revered in society as it once was, even though it adds more in our everyday lives
 * 1) Tone: informative, analytical, reflective
 * 2) Post WWII, coupled with a generic mass market economy and the main focus in education on math or science pushed, the arts have been pushed into the background. Often being seen as something out of reach to the common man, exclusively reserved for that one percent of Americans. In the end, Hill suggests that in order to lead a richer lifestyle and higher level of cognition, people must immerse themselves in the world of art.
 * 3) In order to have a richer society, there must be more emphasize on fine arts
 * 4) I found this article to be really annoying to read. Although it lacked panache and structure, I found that I agreed with Hill's main premise. Although, he only presented an issue and failed to present a clear and practical solution.

Rich notes, “At the civic level … the arts can generate direct, practical rewards—tourism, spinoff income for surrounding businesses, a selling point for corporations that might be tempted to move into the community.”

arts education enhances vocabulary and math skills and helps develop spatial reasoning.

As Aristotle explained over 2,000 years ago, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.”


 * 1) how does one determine "good" art from "bad" art
 * 2) Formalist theory and the idea of good vs. bad art
 * 3) PHIL 109
 * 4) http://sites.psu.edu/beautyofaesthetics/2013/07/06/formalist-theory-and-the-idea-of-good-vs-bad-art/
 * 5) 5/29
 * 6) SoapStone
 * S: an internet blogger and Clive Bell
 * O: in response to a belief that all art can be considered as good, and because it is difficult to determine the good from the bad
 * A: anyone interested winnowing out the good stuff, curators
 * P: to explore theory that defines good art and to share personal feelings about it
 * S: formalist theory on defining the good and the bad art, followed by personal statements refuting it
 * 1) Tone: subjective, colloquial
 * 2) All art is inherently good. According to Clive Bell's formalist theory, which defines good art as anything that evokes an "ascetic emotion", or feelings of awe and speculation. Furthermore, a different theory suggest good art must be created for the sole purpose of ascetics, for example the infamous "Hope" painting of Barack Obama is considered bad art because it is used as propaganda. The author disagrees with the latter notion and refutes it by declaring that he enjoys listening to The Casualties. The author then declares the formalist theory as too subjective and states that good art is ultimately determined if a large number of people enjoy it.
 * 3) The author believes that anything relished by the majority of people is good art, while other theories suggest it must evoke thought and must be created only for beauty to deemed as a good artwork.
 * 4) This article was simply incessant rambling, much like this post. I did not agree with his (or maybe her [i have no idea who the author is]) opinion; the author claimed Bell's precious theories as inaccurate because it was too subjective, but then contradicted himself by saying that good art is established when a lot of people think it's good. It is difficult for me to fathom why other people's opinions matter so much when viewing art, something that should be reserved between the viewer and the artwork.
 * 5) some formalist theories have claimed that art is good if it is beautiful, or made for the purpose of beauty. Bad art, therefore, is art that is created more for its purposed message, or meaning, than the form allows

One, is the art created to illicit a response from the viewer via its form. Two, is the art created for art’s/beauty’s sake or is it created for a larger purpose. And finally, when the art is viewed, does it create an emotional response.

With art being so complex, the classification of art is equally as complex.

The art may have a strong purpose behind its creation, but that should not detract from the creation itself