Entertainment and Painting - Essay Example

Entertainment and Painting According to Lorand, (2000, p.250) in contemporary analytic aesthetic, the concept of art has raised serious doubts not only regarding with its specific definitions but also in terms of whether or not the concept is definable at all. Moreover, according to the author, each proposed definition of art has been demolished, renounced and its effectiveness denied. The main function of art, according to Davies (1991, p.220), is to provide enjoyment. Lorand (2000, p.250) argues that “art is an intentional creation of beauty, an attempt to interpret various materials of human experience by disclosing their hidden potentials through their realization. It is in a sense, a kind of functionalism, however, it does not regard pleasure as the essential objective of art. Pleasure according to her is rather the by-product which accompanies any satisfying experience and it is not therefore a particular feature of aesthetic experience. This position not only assumes that art has a definable nature but also it shows that the definition should serve as the key for understanding art’s role, its relation to other aspect of human experience as well as its problems of evaluation. The author also argues that pleasure cannot be the essential objective of art because if it does, it would have been quite easily achieved. Based on the article the secret of pleasing people is not as difficult as to unfold as the secret of composing a good work of art.” “There are two principal themes which constitutes the aesthetic domain such as beauty as well as art. Based on the philosophy of Plato, these two are not only separated and independent with each other, but in some sense it is also opposing concepts. A clear association between art and beauty can be found in Plotinus “Enneades,” however, the strong bond between them is broadly expressed by Kant, in the aesthetics of the eighteenth century. Art as defined by Kant, is the concept of beauty and seeks to differentiate not between beauty and but between natural beauty and artistic beauty” (Lorand. 2000). Entertainment and painting can be seen as two separate forks in the road. It can be seen as that a viewer may look at a painting and interpret it an intellectual manner. In a given context that entertainment simply covers amusement and as a diversion for a person’s or a viewer’s attention, a painting can fit into such description. Hume, on the other hand, considers the excitation of pleasure in refined individuals as a criterion of success in a work of art. Taking note of the phrase refined individuals, Hume must be pertaining to those educated masters of olden times, those who are served and waited upon. In a more contemporary setting, say on Andy Warhol’s era, a painting both entertains and expresses (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). A painting may be meant to entertain the viewers. The question of whether art should satisfy mass or elite is irrelevant because interpretation from a viewer differs from individual to individual, not from class to class. A classic example would include Warhol’s blot-ink paintings. These are not serious paintings but it functions more as an entertainment medium, it conveys messages and at the same time expressed as a painting (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). This means that the medium is relatively unimportant as long as the message and the other senses are filled-up by the message (“The Arts,” 2008). A painting is a form of expression; an expression is conveying thoughts, and feelings not being put across through words. Thus, having a piece of painting that will not be able to catch a viewer’s attention becomes useless unless the message is conveyed, whatever the message is. And in more modern surroundings, a less serious painting catches more attention, which ranges from painting critics down to common peasants passing by galleries. Each painting has a captured viewer, for example a painting of the forest would be more attractive to a nature-lover or an environmentalist, or a painting of a ballet dancer to someone who loves dancing. One of the paintings in Andy Warhol’s collection, “Death and Disaster”, the “Green Car Crash” has now reached a twenty-five to thirty-five (25-35) million dollars mark in an auction (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). This is a proof of interest coming from many fanatics or admirers. This may not be rather entertaining in an amusing way but it surely diverts attention and has a lot of appeal on to it. Some may admit that there can be many medium to express such “accident” but looking at it from another perception seems to convey a fresh perception. Varying from individual to another, they would possess different inclination to a painting. Some may look at a painting and say something different even if they belong in the same class. In Riegl’s Das holländische Gruppenporträt (The group portraiture of Holland), 1902, he began to develop a theory of "attentiveness" to describe the relationship between the viewer of a work of art and the work itself (“Alois Riegl”, 2008). It is how long a person is kept entertained by the painting. It is how much attention is paid to the details of the painting, how remarkable or remarkably sad one feels by looking at the painting. It is attentiveness that leads to further evaluation of it, or in a modern setting more write ups and publicity for the painting. This theory does not apply only to paintings but also to contemporary art. According to French artist, Marcel Duchamp (1957), the creative act is not done by the artist alone; the viewer brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting the painting’s inner qualifications and then adds his contribution to the whole creative act. It does not necessarily means that each interpretation is the same. Duchamp is also one contemporary artist that was not afraid to make the things he enjoys into art, like when he included a bicycle wheel mounted in a stool as art. He wants to convey the message of enjoyment of his own art, not only of the artist himself but of the viewers as well (Duchamp, 1957). In one of Gavin Butt’s books, “Between You and Me”, he was able to explore how the artists’ lives and even arts were influenced, thus bringing out the “lighter” , “unserious” side of art (Butt, 2008). The book serves also as an eye opener on how Warhol was taken seriously as an artist despite the seemingly unserious pieces. Andy Warhol danced from style to style and was never afraid to use a different medium. He explored many ways of expressing these styles (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). In all boldness, it can be said that he was never afraid to entertain people with his paintings. Being into the “pop art” or popular art, he believes that the paintings are the process, these are more machine like, it is actually the people behind the painting that gives the attitude, or more like the human touch into it. It is the viewer who would make the painting fulfills the desired effect. It is like a wing that does not make the bird fly. Many critics were surprised when Marilyn Monroe and the Death and Disaster Collection of Warhol were introduced (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). Even the process of silk screen printing was assessed. As a consequence of modernization, everyone is entitled to his own opinion or style for this matter. Larry Rivers, for some, still fathers the title founder of “pop art” after refusing to be carried by the then trend in New York City of Abstract Expressionism. He was one of the first few to row away from abstract lines and contours into sharp precise lines that creates figures. Though a far cry, Rivers has set a fresh approach to old subjects. He boldly depicted slavery and war. He paints as if the world is ready to embrace the truth of the old world. He has versions of paintings from old masters, which often times include the artists’ themselves, and their distinguishing characteristics (Rivers, 2008). Though his paintings border close to that of abstract expressionism, he was still able to produce a more interesting and entertaining feature. Some of his paintings of friends are also embedded with letters and symbols. Most of his subjects are his friends, meaningful events, abstract paintings has little appeal to him. Maybe if I personally know him, I would believe that he only paints what he enjoys and that he loves to entertain his friends. Only thing is that he does not only entertain his friends but the rest of the world as well. Thus, it is another proof of entertainment as a purpose of a painting for one major artist. However, this may be propped up by Edward Bullough's conception of aesthetic distance. This is where “an artist's work will be most powerful when it is most personal, but she/he can only formulate an effective artistic expression by assuming a certain detachment from it.” River’s, as well as Warhol’s choices of subjects can be seen as that closest to them, then there must also some sort of detachment in order to bring out the best depiction of these subjects (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). As Danto’s book supplied, “to see something as art is to be ready to interpret it in terms of what and how it means.” Applying it to Warhol’s paintings, it can be deducted that a painting as an art can be interpreted with different meanings. That implies that a certain painting will have different effects to everyone. As he boldly explored different medium, he does not only considers the possibility of his art as merchandise but rather an expression of what is depicted (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). Take for example the famous Campbell cans, he considers the cans as part of his life, mostly of his lunch, thus, a common object that will be looked at as art. For a child of say, two, a can is a can, but for critics a painting of a can is scrutinized for the aesthetic value rather that take it for what it is, whether it should be considered art or not. It has long been an issue for art critics of the criteria to consider a piece as art. This paper will focus more on only a part of these criteria. It faces the rather uncompromising question whether paintings should entertain or not. Peter de Hooch on the other hand, is an artist who is more concerned with the aesthetics of his paintings rather than the subjects. Though, this may seem quite an opposite to the fulfillment an artist may feel when he is painting something he likes, it is fulfill de Hooch because of the play of light, depth and perspective of the painting. He may be more attentive to the play of colors and lights in his paintings. In his later works, he has then perfected his perspective. His viewers will feel the rightness of the lines, and perspective. He was dubbed as someone who creates his paintings through perceptual images left in his mind. His improvement on perspective may also be interpreted as a move towards making his viewers feel more attracted to his paintings. Charles Baudelaire also wrote that the pre-eminent criterion for measuring a painting’s greatness is memory. If viewers remember the paintings then, a greater chance for success is in store. It makes appreciation easier. In connection to Andy Warhol, it can be said that his unconventional choices of subjects and medium is quite unforgettable (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). As a result, Campbell cans, Marilyn Monroe, and other subjects are immortalized through the use of silk screen printing. When one piece of painting remains in the minds of the viewer, then the message of that painting has gotten through. Many times these paintings will be scrutinized more, but it is far better than a painting that has not caught anyone’s attention. If a painting is not meant to entertain, then what is the purpose of it? Should paintings fall towards an only intellectual purpose? Should it only be a “thing” for mental stimulation? Or should it also address the modern senses? Or how many would identify with Steen? As Steen expresses in his paintings, he teaches morality in almost all his paintings. He was able to depict principles and other godly morals. He is “obsessed” in incorporating these values in his paintings. I would be audacious enough to say that Steen agrees that a painting does not only mean to be hanged in the walls, it should have a mind of its own. A painting should be able to force its way to viewers’ minds; it should be persuasive enough to stay in the viewers’’ minds. Just like the present times when most companies pay big sums for their products to be remembered. From era to era, class to class, the appreciation of paintings has been dissected. Many times it only caters to the elite. But with the current trend and modernization, paintings should also grow with it. For a world that is slowly getting smaller and smaller due to technology, paintings should also evolve with it. A painting should not only be kept in a museum and be admired by critics and art lovers, it should please the senses of more people, more viewers. In this case, the paintings should not be trapped in squares with limited subjects for limited people. People now have different choices, individualism has emerged. More people should be given the chance to explore those that were not readily available back then. Back then referring to the time when peasants are only used to dusting of the paintings in the walls without the interest of looking and appreciating it. There is nothing in this paper that is against the “classic” styles of paintings, these should in fact be the building block. Bringing new styles into the mainstream could now be a requirement to make paintings more interesting to all. What is interesting should also be entertaining. A painting should be made to entertain, the end all and be all of a painting is to entertain, even if it for one person alone. There are various forms of entertainment for an individual. One may be entertained through the humor may depict from a painting; some may be entertained more when they are introduced to a piece that makes them think; some are more concerned at a conservative or liberal message of a painting, or a painting that would actually divert their attentions form their dilemmas for a while; or the other way around, to look inward and assess the innermost self. There may also be some who would look at a painting and realize that it is unique, or naturalistic. Different reactions can be derived from a single stimulus. Whether these reactions are of amusement, distraction or of distraught, these are all part of viewers diversity of cultures. However, to bring about psychological states in the audience and to assimilate works of art to mere means is not art. This is according to Collingwood (2006). It merely contradicts the acceptance of Andy Warhol’s silk screen and other medium as art (“Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002). He defines an art that amuses as a craft rather than art. In such a notion, the artists are not to look at the perceived end. The artists are only rather concerned with having a rich imagination. Nevertheless, he expresses the connectivity of the viewers to that of the artwork. So does Alois Riegl, he believes in that there should be a connection between the artist and the viewers. For example in a painting, in order to understand the painting there is a need for the viewers’ and the artist’s mind to arrive at the same imagination (Alois Riegl, 2008). Although Collingwood is a noted artist I cannot agree with his terms of distinguishing art from craft. He merely emphasized that once an artists’ expression is towards entertainment then, it should be likened to craft, a craftsman and not an artist. He puts across a message that says that when an artist has already expressed what he is thinking then, his art (inside the artists’ mind), merely transforms into craft. Nevertheless, he expresses the connectivity of the viewers to that of the artwork. This is supported by Kant’s idea on human experience that contributes to perception and appreciation of aesthetics In order to understand the painting, there is a need for the viewers’ and the artist’s mind to arrive at the same imagination. When a viewer has more relevant experience to the artist, then, there is a larger possibility of appreciation of the artists’ art or painting. The viewer can identify more in terms of the subject or the emotions involved in the painting. They will be more attuned to one another. According to Edward Bullough, a viewer's experience of a work of art will be augmented if s/he has experienced something similar. The similarity will be a pick up point of the artists’ and the viewers’ accord. This is where the two will have a greater understanding of the painting. Although he also leaves a warning, but if certain aesthetic distance is not maintained, the art is superseded by the viewer's own emotional state. If a viewer will be caught up in his or her personal state then the message of the painting may be lost. The painting will only be treated as a stimulus of an emotional reaction. So this should also be controlled by the artists’ themselves. The viewers’ appreciation will be clouded by the heightened emotional state thus, decreasing the chance for a highly unbiased comment. A little distance is encouraged. Thus, in a contemporary setting where individuality is at its peak, the understanding does not necessarily means arriving at exactly the same conclusion. This is rather seen as unison of their perception. It creates same impression among the audience and amusement but retains the tag “art”. A painting that does not attract or amuse is like a piece of toilet paper lying on the ground of a toilet paper company. This would simply be a piece that holds no significance to anyone. Looking at a painting from the perspective of the artist himself, one should be able to have a clear notion of what he wants to achieve. There should be a clear connection between his means of doing and his purpose for doing. In order to bring out the reason for ones painting, then one should be clear of what message he wants to convey. He should also be able to have the intention of what he wants the viewers to see. This is whether for amusement or diversion, or even a slight change in the scenery. Like in Larry Rivers’ paintings, he challenges viewers to react to his pieces. He wants to see how it appeals to them. Thus, a painting should be meant to entertain in the loosest sense of it. A painting should attract and at the same time express what he means, it should be remembered. For a painting to be able to be more than a framed picture, it should be brought to more diverse spectators. The range should be expanded. Paintings should be able to reach not only those who can visit museums, or those that can paint themselves. Paintings should be available to everyone. These should be accessible to everyone so that the slave-master age will now be prevailed over with the help of contemporary art. Unlike before that only the elites are considered appreciators of arts because they consider the peasants lacking in education to be pleased about paintings, or even art itself. This notion has long been fought for, many battles and blood shed, so I think it is about time that elite artist learn how to extend their art to the common people. Those people who may not have a degree in arts but knows what entertainment is. I have nothing against the old masters of arts (some even came from peasant families), it’s just that for periods of times, the considerable art appreciators are those who have degrees and money, those that knows what society is and how it works. Although in the final analysis, the spectators’ individual experiences, values and perception that will help make a painting an art. In our time, the spectators dictate what is entertaining, what art is and what is not. References Alois Riegl, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Riegl, downloaded April 7, 2008. Analyzing Paintings, http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ahist/arthist111/work_of_art/AnalysingPaintingp20.htm, downloaded April 7, 2008. “Andy Warhol, 1930(?)-1987”, 2002, last modified 7 November, http://www.famouspainter.com. Belton, Robert J., WORDS OF ART: THE A_LIST; A Compilation., Faculty of Creative & Critical Studies, UBC Okanagan http://people.ok.ubc.ca/creative/glossary/a_list.html#antinomyofdistance, downloaded April 7, 2008. Butt, Gavin, Between You and Me: Queer Disclosures in the New York Art World, 1948- 1963, http://www.dukeupress.edu/books.php3?isbn=3498-4 , downloaded April 7, 2008. Collingwood Robin George, “The Principles of Art,” Theories of Art and Beauty, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Collingwood, Robin George, 11 Jan, 2006, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collingwood/, downloaded April 7, 2008. Corcoran Gallery of Art , In depth Arts News: "Larry Rivers: Art and the Artist", 2002- 05-18 until 2002-07-22, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2002/05/17/29928.html , downloaded April 7, 2008. Davies, S., 1991, Definitions of Art. Freeland, Cynthia, Danto and Art Criticism http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=507, downloaded April 7, 2008. Duchamp, Marcel, from Session on the Creative Act, Convention of the American Federation of Arts, Houston, Texas, April 1957. Lorand, R., 2000, “Definition of Art,” Aesthetic Order: A Philosophy of Order, Beauty and Art, London: Routledge p. 250 Shannon, Joe, Figuring Larry Rivers: on the occasion of a retrospective exhibition of Larry Rivers's works in Washington, D.C., the author recalls the electrifying impact of Rivers's early, groundbreaking paintings - Critical Essay, Art in America, Oct, 2002, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_10_90/ai_92352648, downloaded April 7, 2008. Rivers, Larry, An Outline of History, http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:2SiImZta5bAJ:www.avampatoart.com/profiles/larry-rivers.pdf+larry+rivers+paintings,+viewer&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=40&gl=ph, , downloaded April 7, 2008. “The Arts,” 2008, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. U.S.: Wikepedia Inc. Read More