Week 2
Art
I found this artist’s intent to be an interesting
undertaking. In general (because of the context of our society) we see smoking
as a negative thing, with more and more places banning indoor smoking (or even
outdoor, as we’ve seen on U of L’s campus.) Because of the connotations that
come along with tobacco in today’s society, it is an alternate point of view
when someone is neither for not against it. The artist featured in this article,
Xu Bing, is trying to show the neutrality of the plant through his work, but
what I think makes the installations so much more poignant is the fact that
they are focusing on the history of the area they are being showcased in. The
fact that the show adjusts itself for the artist’s research about individual
cities and even individual people within those cities shows an attempt to
connect with the viewers on a more personal level than just doing the same installation
everywhere. The artist wants people to see tobacco as it fits into a history,
rather than preaching his opinions or trying to sway the viewer in his favor.
Even with the death of his father from lung cancer he shows the place tobacco
has in our culture, and the fact that it is not good or evil through his interesting
installation choices.
Social Change
This is an issue everyone in our class can relate to,
textbooks or e-books? While this debate has continued on college campuses (professors
endorsing the use of technology versus forbidding it in the class room,) there
has been less of a question about non-higher education textbooks. The ebook
system hadn’t crossed over to the K through 12 school system until now. Apple
is attempting to launch a set of textbooks aimed at these grade levels that are
interactive. While it could take a sizable amount of time, it could mean the
end of traditional textbooks in the class room. But this article doesn’t approach
the issues of what schools don’t have access to this technology. It does
mention that Apple has said that there are over 1.5 million iPads being used in
educational institutions today, but what type of institutions have them? Are
they in private or public schools? How many iPads do the institutions that use
them actually have in their schools? While it is an impressive number (1.5
million) it doesn’t really help us know what that means. The iPad has proven to
work well in many schools that have experimented with them, but there are many
schools that can’t afford to convert over to iPads when their budgets are being
cut so often. The textbooks are said to stop at $15.00 per book, which is a
great price, but the schools will have to make the initial investment to buy
iPads, and that amount may not be comparable to the textbook budget they have
now. While I think that the iPad’s interactive textbooks are going to impact
schools in a very positive way (it makes learning more interesting and fun for
children,) it is going to take a long time to see these changes in the less
funded schools. It is those schools that often times need to make learning more
fun in the first place, in order to keep a higher graduation rate amongst their
students. This innovation is going to have an impact, yes, but it will take a
while (as many new technologies do) to come into the hands of those that need
it.
Thinking
I’ve never read Nietzsche’s work before, so in reading this
(I’m assuming simplified) article explaining his view on aesthetic and art is a
different perspective than one that I have heard prior to reading it. The idea
that art is the “highest form of human activity” is one that I think many
artists would like to agree with; who wouldn’t want to be in charge of creating
something so meaningful to humans in this world? But I find the most interesting
point of this article that which says art doesn’t need a purpose, for its
purpose is the purpose of life. In our artistic education we are taught that
everything we do as artists must be deliberate, meaningful, and primarily with
purpose. Nietzsche’s argument, that art needs no additional purpose than
continuing to be a “stimulus for life,” is an argument I’m not sure I entirely
agree with. I think as artists it is impossible for us to create without an
additional purpose at heart (if not at mind.) If that purpose happens to
stimulate life (which we generally hope it will in some way) so be it, but our
soul purposes as artists is not entirely based on this concept. Our art brings
different points to the table, some want to make art that focuses on the formal
qualities, while others want to make art with a message, and still others do
want to follow that which Nietzsche has noted and focus on their contribution
to the human life. I do think it is a shared purpose to stimulate the viewer in
some form or fashion, which lines up with Nietzsche’s perspective; however I
don’t agree that the purposes of the artist should be overlooked or ignored
because it isn’t being sought after by the viewer because art is only for art’s
sake. Saying art is always for art’s sake is too general and misleading to
viewers of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment