Reading 1 (Response due W Feb 1 – 9pm, Discussion Th Feb 2)
Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society by Raymond Williams
Oxford University Press, New York, New York, 1985
Entry on Art
Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art by Mary Anne Staniszewski
Penguin Books, New York, New York, 1995
Ch.1 What is Art p.1-100
Arts Practice and Theory 
Mary Anne Staniszewski’s chapter gave me a new perspective on what art is and how it becomes art. This chapter continually stresses that art is an invention of the modern era and it has no inherent value or use. The point that I found most interesting is that everything in life (including art) is shaped by the social and cultural institutions that make up our society. These institutions set up certain conventions, rituals, and behavioral norms. In the sociology classes I’ve taken in the past (Intro to Sociology and Media and the Modern Society), this idea has been greatly focussed on. Particularly in the media class, we talked about how the institution or place in which you are experiencing a certain media creates certain norms for behavior and affects the meaning of the media. For example, watching a movie on your laptop by yourself vs. in your house with some friends vs. at the movie theater all come with different sets of practices, behavior, and meanings. In this same way, art is created through institutions. For example, Marcel Duchamp placed a urinal in a museum as an art exhibit, and it become art through the simple fact that it was placed in an art institution. In society, especially modern-day society, cultural codes define our lives.
While reading this article, I was surprised by the idea that the “art” created hundreds of years ago may not really be art after all. I had always thought of the work of ancient peoples as our first examples of art. However, Staniszewski made the point that this art, such as the figures designed to be buried in Egyptian tombs or cave paintings, were not intended for aesthetic or viewing purposes. Some were not even meant for outsiders to see at all. African “primitive” art was intended for religious functions and the Africans who created the work do not even have a word for “art”. These were all simply functional objects created for a specific purpose. In Staniszewski’s eyes, this disqualifies them from being true art. Our society has turned them into something they are not and were not intended for. As Staniszewski says, “The maginificent objects and fragments and buildings created by pre-modern peoples were appropriated by our culture and transformed into art” (28). The article also explained how art was not created for a use or value, but acquires those things once it is released into the art world based on how it is received by viewers. The art world’s affect on a piece of art is compared to a frame’s affect on a painting; it gives it shape, meaning, and importance. Staniszewski claims art is an invention of the past two hundred years created by our society. Art is created for art’s sake, not other purposes.
I found Mary Anne Staniszewski’s article to present a very interesting perspective on what is art. At first I was really surprised at the things she labeled as “not art,” but as I kept reading noticed the distinction that these pieces were “not art as we know it” or “how we have come to define it.” This distinction made more sense to me when she started to describe the conditions under which the pieces of “art” (or pieces of “not art”) were created. It’s odd to think that something that may be an everyday object in our lives could be uncovered centuries from now and thought of as a piece of “art.” In this way, many of the things that people proclaim as art may not be so much “art” as “historical objects.” Even so, it was really hard for me to consider Michelangelo’s famous Creation of Adam painting as not being art. Even in it’s religious context and despite the fact that it was commissioned, everything about the work screams “ART.” It has all of the artistic elements, it is aesthetically pleasing, and is an artist’s representation of a situation (a religious master may have commissioned it but it was Michelangelo in his mind that came up with the details of the masterpiece). It even has the interplay with viewers that we discussed in class – and in this interplay – whether in it’s original religious context or in the modern context of artwork – it inspires and impacts the viewer. To me, this is by any definition, a (impressive) piece of artwork.
I think that these readings related greatly to our discussion in class on Thursday. Both articles confront what is art and how it is defined today. Although Entry on Art was interesting in how it described the evolution of the meaning of the word art, I especially found the ideas of what is art in Believing is Seeing to be very engaging and found it to echo some of my own views on what defines art. I consider art to be anything created with the intention of being defined as art. Art is something that conveys meaning to a viewer, which may or may not be different from the intended message, but without an intended message art cannot exist. Believing is Seeing explains that things we consider art today, such as religious depictions or cave paintings were not created with an artistic intention but a utilitarian purpose. Early Africans did not even have a word for art, much less the concept of it. Everything prior to modern times had a specific functional purpose versus art being created specifically to be art and nothing more. You could even insinuate that the components of art today were drawn from things like Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, which are technically not art. The depictions in the Sistine Chapel were not meant to be paintings, yet they are aesthetically pleasing and meet the essential components of what we today define as a masterpiece.
In comparing Staniszewski’s analysis of what art is and is not, to Williams’ definition of the word “Art,” it becomes apparent that the practice of art for art’s sake – as it has been defined in the contemporary world – developed almost parallel to the evolution of the word itself. The older works that have been and continue to be discovered and deemed “Art,” according to both authors’ definitions, are not actually so, because they were made with a purpose aside from aesthetic value and appreciation. They were created at a time when art was not yet “Art,” but art in the sense that they were skilled crafts made by artisans. It was not until more recently, as described in Williams’ definition and in Staniszewski’s argument, that art became “Art” (and if only because we, in modernity, had deemed it so). While I agree that art, in the parameters that the authors have defined, is dependent upon cultural context and association (ie. placing a work in a museum to give it more artistic significance), and that true “Art” did not arise until it was created with the true purpose of being art, in and of itself, I do not entirely agree with the timeline on which Staniszewski places art. Before the late-18th century boundary set by Staniszewski when distinguishing “not art” from “Art,” there were countless works created for the sake of aesthetic value. Still more were made in response to ideas or politics; these remarks could have been made in writing, but were instead painted or illustrated to convey ideas. Today’s art still serves this same function. It is too hard to determine where exactly “modernity” begins to use it as a point of reference when defining what makes art, “Art.” Staniszewski’s argument overall left me asking: what were these earlier works called, if not “Art”? It is what one deems it to be. One cannot truly discount art for the sole reason that it was not called “Art” at the time of its creation, especially given Williams’ broad definition of the term.
What is art? This is a question that we addressed during our last class and this is the question that Staniszewski’s piece seeks to answer. When I attempted to define “art” in my own mind, I thought “art” to be a means of expression, whether that expression is of one’s self, of a religion’s beliefs, or of a peoples’ culture. As I scan the walls of my apartment and I view a jersey hanging on the wall, I think: “art.” Whoever created the maroon, white, and gray Colgate jersey carefully selected the font, material, and hues of color for the jersey to accurately represent (or express) the Colgate lacrosse team’s culture. For me, it does not matter that this jersey is not exhibited in an art museum or is not declared “art” by our culture’s institution—I believe that this jersey is art, just as I believe that the Sistine Chapel is art.
When I read Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art, my beliefs on what art is were very conflicting with Staniszewski’s beliefs. Staniszewski argues that Mona Lisa, one of the most famous pieces of art in the world, is in fact, not art. When I read this, I was confused, and yet, I was curious and excited to hear Staniszewski’s argument.
In this piece, it is reasoned that Mona Lisa is not art because when it was painted, it was not produced for the purpose of being art. Similarly, when the Sistine Chapel was painted, it was not intended as art, but as a celebration and metaphor of God’s power. So, through Staniszewski’s piece, one meaning of “art” can be taken away: producing a creation for the purpose of calling this creation “art.” This definition reveals the idea of artist intentions, an idea that we discussed in class. Staniszewski revealed another meaning of “art” when the story of Duchamp’s Fountain was described. The culture in which the Fountain urinal was produced saw the urinal as a piece of bathroom plumbing. Because this same urinal has been placed in art exhibitions and has been declared as “art” by modern-day society, the urinal is now considered “art.” Ultimately, the definition of “art” changes over time depending upon how society views “art.” This relates to another idea that we discussed in class—“art” is defined by viewers of art.
I was intrigued by Staniszewski’s argument that art is considered art because of the way it is presented, such as a painting in a frame or a sculpture on a pedestal. The fact that Duchamp’s urinal can become art by merely being placed on a pedestal makes me question if this definition of art is flawed. At first, it puzzled me why an ordinary urinal is considered art, but the gorgeous Sistine chapel frescoes are not art just because they were intended for political and religious purposes, and Michelangelo did not choose to paint them himself. Similarly, the statues of the Egyptian Pharaohs were supposed to be buried in the pyramids and not seen by anyone. After reading “Believing is Seeing,” it was clear to me that art is defined by the intention of the artist himself, not how the viewers feel about the piece of art. This definition allows me to reconcile why a urinal is considered art and Michelangelo’s paintings are not. Furthermore, Staniszewski makes an important distinction between art and beauty through the example of the Venus of Willendorf statue. Viewers do not know who made this statue or their reason for making the statue, so it is not rational to consider it art. However, viewers can still agree that the statue is beautiful and worth studying as an artifact of a past civilization.
In chapter one of her book, Staniszewski addresses the question “what is art?” She claims that “art” is an invention of the modern era. She argues that ancient art cannot really be considered art in the sense that we think of it today. This is because today and in the modern era “art” refers to making something with the intention of showing it in museums or galleries. This purpose did not exist hundreds of years ago, so Staniszewski argues therefore that statues, architecture, and paintings from before the eighteenth century cannot be considered art. Art has been shaped by modern institutions and art historians, so these people are the ones who have attached the word “art” to the objects that we learn about today as being art. It seems that Staniszewski’s whole argument of what is art depends on the idea of labeling something as art. Everyone has their own interpretation of what art is. Her interpretation seems to be that art has to be something that is created by an artist who just felt compelled to create something and with the intention of showing it in an art institution. I do not agree that the Sistine Chapel ceiling, for example, in not art. It was created to be looked at and enjoyed by people in the chapel. Furthermore, it is created by an artist and it is visually interesting and pleasing. Even though it might not have been created with the word “art” in mind, it is what all people today would call art. It is amazing to think that people living in ancient or older times would not consider some of the most famous pieces of art to be art.
What is art? This was the central question the book by Anne Staniszewski tries to answer. This book states that art is a creation of modern time and therefore cave paintings, the venues sculpture, Michelangelo’s pantings, and Leonardo DeVincie’s paintings are not art. I would agree with the argument made to consider Michelangelo’s work art is to ignore the vast difference between that historical moment and our (43). Michelangelo was commanded to paint, modern art is created because the artists wants to. However, personally to me, art is anything that I see beauty in. That doesn’t mean the work has to be beautiful. Michelangelo’s creation of Adam is a beautiful painting, to not conceder that art is crazy to me. Again, I understand the distinction the author is trying to make between what is and isn’t art, but I do not think it is up to one person to label this is art, this is not art like Staniszewski does in the book. The other short article that we read talks about how art takes skill. with this argument I would say that cave paintings, the venues sculpture, Michelangelo’s pantings, and Leonardo DeVincie’s paintings are art. I would think creating all of these things takes an enormous amount of skill, I know I could not create anything like those works. I would agree with the saying that anything is art, yes even the toilet, because to some, that is beautiful.
I found William’s comparison, in ‘Entry on Art’, of fine arts and useful arts to be very compelling. The article mentioned the difference between simply possessing an artistic skill and using that skill for the purpose of Art and how are modern times have forced us to determine between the two.
This difference can be found in every form of art; but specifically, this made me consider the difference between an artistic photographer and a photographer that is simply capturing a picture. I have always wondered what makes certain photographs more valued than others; for taking a beautiful picture surely takes some skill, but we do not consider all beautiful photographs to be Art. When considering those variances, the intent of the photographer becomes the main factor determining whether or not the photograph is art. If the photographer takes a photo with the intent of creating Art for ‘imaginative and creative purposes’, their picture may be considered art. However, if there is no creative intent, the use of the photographic skill produces a useful art, in a visual representation of something, rather than a fine art.
William’s definition of art applied to photography suggests that everyone has the skill to take a photograph; however, the difference between Art and a simple picture is found in the purpose of the photograph.
William’s comparison can also be related to Staniszewski’s example of Duchamp’s “Fountain”. While the actual creation of the toilet took more artisan skill than Staniszewski’s titling and placement of the stool on a pedestal, Staniszewski’s piece is Art because he presented it with the ‘imaginative and creative purposes’ of Art.
While seemingly simple, the term art has become an extremely broad and possibly controversial term for the range of definitions or lack thereof that it embodies. Both of these readings seem to highlight the general concept that the term art has many different definitions, and these many different possibilities are completely subjective based on the individual using the term, and the context in which it is used. While museums and galleries certainly enhance the chance of a work becoming a well-recognized and supposedly successful piece of art, they do not define what art is for every individual. For example, Jackson Pollack creates paintings that many people would look at and describe as paint thrown haphazardly on a canvas. Perhaps the same people would even proclaim their ability to create the same thing. So why do Pollock’s paintings sell for hundreds of millions of dollars? The answer for me is simple—he was the first to create these images, the first to use such a strange technique, and the first to recognize his own ability to make something beautiful out of splattering paint on a canvas. Perhaps this notion of novelty (as we discussed in class) truly has a lot to do with what we as individuals and also as a culture view as extraordinary works of art. Similarly, this idea discussed in “Believing is Seeing” of religious pieces not being true works of art is a completely subjective viewpoint of this author. While these works were certainly created to enhance the religious experience of all those who viewed them (such as the Sistine Chapel ceiling), the sheer beauty and exquisite technique of these works does, in my opinion, make them truly phenomenal works of art.
In the first chapter of her book, Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art, Mary Anne Staniskewski examines the question of “what is art?”. We proposed a similar question in a previous class but Staniskewski has an interesting view on the question. She believes that art is produced by the modern era and that the art of pre-modern is made into art by our culture. She argues that pre-modern art is not art because it is not made for museums or galleries like modern art. Pre-modern art is not considered “art” to her. I disagree with this claim simply because I believe that anything intended to be art is art, no matter when it was created. I feel that art is created skillfully and artistically and intended to express despite the time period. Staniskewski does make an interesting point when she states that early artwork wasn’t intended to be art, it was just made for specific purposes. Although when Staniskewski claims that Mona Lisa is not art because it was not intended to be, I disagree because other people believe it is art and can take something away from viewing it. It is very interesting to me because her article has began to make me question whether I truly know what art is and what my definition of art should be. I am interested to learn about different perspectives in hopes of understanding art more deeply.
While reading Mary Anne Staniskewski’s “Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art”, I thought about what Art meant to me versus her definition. To me, Art means anything manipulated my an artist or group of artist. It can have one of many purposes: religious, informative, organizational, representational, or a portrait. However, one should be open to how time can change our opinion of what is considered art. In my opinion, Staniskewski’s controversial opinion of art being “invented” in the modern era too closely categorizes what art means and ignores the idea that time plays no part in the way others define art. For one, art museums, though a secularized and more modern way of displaying art, have been around far longer than the author implies. Art is multi-purposeful and all around us, just because it is a more obvious choice today to “make” art because we have more research and knowledge about it does not mean that people around centuries ago did not consider past creations to be art, and so on and so forth. If the only difference between defining art is time, then Staniskewski is quite possibly wrong, because the art she displayed as being true was possibly not considered so at one point. I do not think the idea of a “primitive” person who connects with an item they have created in one certain way to be very relevant when defining art. I believe that Statinskewski over-thinks the theory of art and is too dismissive of previous works because of opinionated ideas on what is “natural” and what is an “ideology”. So many people, such as Rene Magritte, Marcel Duchamp, and Andy Warhol have tried to re-define our perspective on what art can be in the 20th century, this is a true and important fact. However, just because art has become more objectivized, unique, and secular in recent centuries does not mean art was not also progressing during the Renaissance, Baroque, and Romantic eras. If our history and culture is accurately and best looked at by studying and understanding art from previous eras, people in the future will continue to learn about us in a similar, but not exactly the same, fashion. Perhaps one day a historian or researcher will come across a chair from a classroom and put it in the same category as an installation in MOMA, NYC. These are things we will never know today and therefore should not come to such harsh overall conclusions as this author did.