Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of The Arts
Most arts have used technology, over many centuries (for example, musical instruments, pencils). Has the relationship between the arts and technology changed as a result of the possibilities of mechanical reproduction and digital manipulation?
Technology and the Arts- Its Complicated.
Throughout history, art has depended upon technology.
However, the advent of computers and resulting technological revolution has led to an even greater link between technology and arts.
New forms of Art are becoming more and more dependent on technology.
It's a healthy relationship- new forms of technology unleash more creativity, and a desire for great art drives the development of many technologies.
Well, not really.
Art has always been limited by the available technology.
Innovation in art is dependent on technology, yet technology is also dependent on art.
Art drives the innovation and development of technology.
This dependent relationship hasn't changed.
However, it has increased.
New technologies are also new avenues for creativity. So increasing technology is also benefiting art.
This increased relationship has not affected the knowledge that we can gain from art.
Art And Anthropology
Who has the Authority?
Is a work of art enlarged or diminished by interpretation? What makes something a good or bad interpretation?
By Alina Montia, Alex Wilson, Sam Lewis, Sarah Bader, Danielle Fernandes and Bhargav Bompalli
Nature of the Arts:
art must have a certain standard of aesthetic beauty in order to be considered "art"
the way one sees art influences how they respond to it (basically, art is subjective)
the meaning of art changes with time
no non-interpretive claims can be made about art (the artist vs. their audience)
art can provide objective knowledge about the artist
there has to be purpose behind art otherwise it can't be considered art
How does one decide the "standard" for beauty?
Is it universal?
Is it subjective?
If knowledge is universal and art is subjective, how can knowledge be gained from art?
If art is subjective then can it have a linguistic meaning?
If the meaning of art changes with the passage of time does that mean art has no inherent meaning?
Can anyone be considered an "artist?"
Do the conditions under which the art was made matter?
Can "meaningless" art exist?
"the best known, the most visited,
the most written about, the most
sung about, the most parodied
work of art in the world."
What knowledge of art can be gained by focusing on its social, cultural, or historical content?
The historical, societal and cultural context of a work of art, whether it be a painting or a poem, can impart knowledge to the audience.
This painting is by artist Vincent van Gogh. It was
painted in 1882, titled "The State Lottery."
Is it possible for Art to be Immoral?
Explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions): "interpret the evidence".
Propaganda from WWI informing the citizens of Britain about the situation in Belgium.
Does the Artist Matter?
Photographs of Pyongyang, North Korea, sent by David Guttenfelder of the Associated Press straight to his Instagram account while he was vising the country.
Context is something... but not everything
Does the Medium Matter?
Does an Immoral Medium=Immoral Art?
Does what I think Count?
Yes, You have the Authority. Remember
the comparative study of human societies and cultures and their development.
If all Art is merely representative of something else: Nature, Religion,
Culture, Society etc. Then can it
really be immoral or just
No knowledge can be gained from art, even if one studies social, cultural and historical context.
If Art is a form of social commentary then regardless of what the artist intended, then isn't art depicting immorality just demonstrating the problem in an attempt to better society? But that would make it moral?
An abstract painting by Robert Delaunay from 1913.
An argument can be made that there is no knowledge to be gained from this because it's just a circle with a lot of colours. What can be learned from that?
All Art can be both moral and immoral at the same time...
Because, You get to pick!
There's a catch though you have to be able to justify you answer based on the...
By looking at historical, social and cultural context, art can become meaningful and even allow the audience to gain knowledge. Just because something is "abstract" or "modern" doesn't mean there is nothing to learn.
This is important to remember when looking at the arts as an area of knowledge. Despite the subjectivity of art, many facts can still be learned. A student can also choose to study how art and other areas of knowledge interact, for example the art created by a specific culture might fall into anthropology (human sciences).
Two ways of understanding art are emotion and reason. For example, the North Korean art shown previously might incite anger or fear in an onlooker (emotion) but a different person might begin to process and understand the facts that the images are trying to convey like an oppressive government (reason).
In conclusion, there is knowledge to be gained from art!
art? not art?
Subjective, personal, emotional
all about interpretation
can be abstract or realistic
art and culture influence each other
Creation of Art
painting, writing, singing, dancing, etc.
Artists start with a reason or goal, then purposely create art
Interpretation of Art
Limited in terms of reliability
Use emotion, language, and perception - limited use of reason
Is originality essential in the arts?
Unoriginal idea, therefore no new knowledge
Originality is needed for arts as a way of knowing
No context = No fame
The implementation of context is what makes a piece of artwork such as the Mona Lisa famous
Originality is essential in the arts as a method of gaining knowledge
I would argue that by looking at such abstract paintings, one could look at the history of abstract art in the 1900s. It turns out that beginning in the 19th century, abstract art became very popular. One could also study the culture and society at that time and learn how that influenced artists to make more abstract pieces.
Is the relationship between the individual artist and tradition similar in all arts, in all cultures and across all times?
Ultimately, the art made by the artist is influenced by tradition
The relationship between the individual artist and tradition in all arts and across all times is similar
An artist creating a type of art which is not affected by his/her tradition. This is the start of a new era in art
The relationship between the artist and tradition is DIFFERENT in all cultures
Influenced by customs, or beliefs
Cultural influences in tradition result in cultural art
Culture can influence tradition, and as a result, influence art
The relationship between the individual artist and tradition is different in all cultures
Thanks for listening :)
Can or should artists’ intentions and the creative process itself be understood through observing artists or knowing something of their lives
-An artist’s intention in art is usually to deliver a message
-Emotion acts as the bridge between the artist and the reader because without emotion there is no art
-The creation of art is due to an emotional experience and is the purpose of artistic expression
-What does it depict? Can you without previous knowledge know the true knowledge behind the painting?
-Is observing the creative process as important?
-Observing the creative process can help interpret the artist's intentions but it is not nearly as important as knowing something of their lives
-Would observing him really help us with knowing his true intentions?
-To sum this up