tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2980274420447240280.post4575721184869925508..comments2023-12-01T05:30:39.244-05:00Comments on always spread love: I once saw a man who reminded me of Allen Ginsbergiseeyoubrightlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09021576763482611042noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2980274420447240280.post-68322781711511796732008-11-03T09:26:00.000-05:002008-11-03T09:26:00.000-05:00So perhaps regarding my definition it would be aki...So perhaps regarding my definition it would be akin to using a round key in a square keyhole? It fits but it doesn't work?iseeyoubrightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09021576763482611042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2980274420447240280.post-6200004493466342582008-10-29T21:43:00.000-04:002008-10-29T21:43:00.000-04:00To be fair to your long suffering philosophy teach...To be fair to your long suffering philosophy teacher, he can only respond to what you actually say in class and the claim that the Warhol works mentioned here don't produce emotion does smack of the philistine. I think the trick with the soups cans, etc. is that 1) art doesn't have to produce a consistent warm and fuzzy emotion to be evocative (disgust is an emotion, right?) and 2) these kinds of images are designed to evoke emotions in us (Campbell's Soup--warm, wholesome, family, tradition) so what happens when they are completely recontextualized? Will we truly view them for the first time? Is it possible to be manipulated by the image in the same way once we have an idea of what it's doing?<BR/><BR/>I think Warhol is easily one of the most important artists of the 20th century. Not only is his influence everywhere, but his work is full of enduring ideas--ideas that are especially suited to the image saturated culture in which we find ourselves. He also managed to capture that postmodern aesthetic of the abolition of hierarchy ("high" and "low" art are part of the joke for him) and yet, almost single-handedly, preserve some notion of the worth of "art for art's sake."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that the definition from Dictionary.com of "art" is the one we want to use for this type of endeavor (that definition sounds like the one we use when we describe the "art of public speaking" or the "art of chopping onions") but I do think the work of art is more in intentionality than in whatever is produced (be it an object or sound or movement).Scott.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08320399715816359386noreply@blogger.com