Each article was distinctly different, ranging from talking about meaningful art making experiences in the classroom to questioning the authenticity of a piece of art work. The chapter from the Walker text book gives various explanations on what the central most important of an art making experience is, the "the big idea". The chapter is basically a foundation for what to build art making experiences upon, what makes it real art with meaning. The "big idea" concept is more or less an explanation for the topic the artist works with, student or professional. These ideas are broad, human condition and experience sorts of topics, like the idea of rules, or social justice, race, man vs. nature, etc. The chapter also breaks down where big ideas can come from ( personal vs secular connection) and the difference between themes within big ideas versus big ideas themselves, also including the role of subject.
The Barret article started out with focuses on race but this was really just the starting point to launch the rest of the article. The article's true aim was to discuss and show the difference between denotation and connotation, while also showing that practicing the differences between these two things can be achieved at any age level. Denotation can be described as "the thing itself", or what the viewer literally sees. Connotation may then be described at what the viewer interprets from the image and/or text, what they associate and read the over all message(s) as. The ability to discern between these two elements of text and/or image was displayed throughout a wide array of age groups; first with teachers, then college students studying to be teachers, then with a group of middle school, an elementary group, and finally a group of kindergartners. Each group was able to break down the given images or items in terms of what was denoted and connoted. Barret's point was that this skill does not require a higher understanding of the academic terms themselves, but is important and useful to classroom learning even at early ages. It encourages critical thinking and an awareness of how we see things and why.
Benjamin's article, aside from being the longest, was also the most difficult to wrestle with in terms of language. It seemed almost to contradict itself in some places. For example, in the beginning Benjamin summarizes the role technologies have played in the development of art over the centuries, stating how even though reproduction was introduces each reproduction was itself an original. But then later he seems to make a point against this notion of authenticity for reproductions, introducing the idea that they loose their distance and therefore their authenticity as a real work of art. I think the reason for having these two conflicting ideas int he same article is not to necessarily advocate either one but to spark the reader into questioning the authenticity of artworks and reproductions and having them ask the question "when and why does a piece of art lose this quality?" I most liked the ideas about the uniqueness of every piece of art, reproductions or otherwise, because each work can be the only one to exist as it does, where and how it does. Even copies, for the copy of Starry Night hanging in my room is its own and separate thing from the original Starry Night. I also liked the idea of authenticity and aura, which for me meant the distance between myself and the art work. When an art work has authenticity, I am distanced from it, standing in its aura. This is where the mystery of the aesthetic experience happens. But when an art work loses this context and becomes an every day image or commodity, it also suffers the loss of this distance and depth, becoming shallow surface and inauthentic.
In context of the class and of each other, the Barret and Benjamin were the most connected for me. The Walker gave good general insight into what is useful for my field, but the other article felt more related. Barret's explanations and examples of denote and connote work with what Benjamin's article brings us to question, this being " what am I seeing and reading or valuing and why". Both pieces beg the audience to be aware of context.
Barret's article, in terms of class connection, engages us to explore visual media and what it does. This includes how the format, digital for example, can effect what the image brings with it and what we then associate. The article made me think of what I associate with art works that are made via current technology and how this changes my attitude towards them. It also made me inspect the differences between connote and denote, and realize that they blur into each other a bit, there is not perfect separation between the two. What I found most interesting about this article was great difference between age groups that the experiment of differentiating worked with.
Benjamin's article was the most interesting for me. In terms of the class, it also set ground for acknowledging that art and technology in conjunction is nothing new, but in fact has been very much a part of art and art making. The idea of original reproductions was new and intriguing to me. I hadn't before thought to value a copy as a thing to itself. This and the rest of the reading prompted me to reflect on context and how capitalism, ideas of commodity and rarity, effect art. The idea that struck me most in the reading was "authenticity." As it defined itself I came to understand it in my own terms and question when and why an art work loses this quality. The explanation in the reading of authenticity itself also gave me pause though. The definition or idea was vague, yet communicable and acceptable. This distance between the viewer and the work seemed almost half defined, half reasonable, and so the ineffability of the mystery that attracts us to art was still there to tug but receive no answer in words.
Why is the idea of distance in the concept of authenticity enough to describe and define it? What more about the idea do I ask to be revealed, named? How does value, capitalism, commodity effect the value of art and copies? Is there a difference between a copy and a reproduction? Is reproduction a misnomer, or is a copy outside the realm of art?
No comments:
Post a Comment