Paradigms and Purposes

I found it very interesting to ready about Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes.  Even from the picture that is given in the book it can be seen that these boxes are almost identical to something that anyone could see at a grocery store or that someone would use when moving storage.  This question of “is it art?” is what I have been pondering since taking the class.  I see the photograph of the boxes and do not see art.  I see it al almost someone being lazy about coming up with their next big piece of art.  As I continued to read I came across a line that said that the boxes, “make the narrow and restricted views of earlier philosophers, who defined art in terms of Beauty, Form, etc., seem too rigid.”  This caused me to stop and think about how I was viewing art.  According to this book, I am viewing art too “narrowly” and need to stop thinking like “earlier philosophers.”  The problem that I have though is that I was not taught by these earlier philosophers.  Rather, I came to my conclusions either on my own or based on something else in my development.  However, it appears that in the art community, I would be alone in my thoughts.

            As I continued to read, one other part really stood out to me.  It said that Danto had explained that the art world is welcome to all that that all types of art should be accepted.  However, Danto did not give a good explanation of how this art would communicate its message.  This was exactly what I was feeling.  I didn’t necessarily have an inherent dislike to the Brillo Boxes but it was that I could find to reason or underlying meaning in them that I couldn’t see them as art.  Then, I got my answer in the next sentences.  It said that the lack of communication of meaning doesn’t make it not art but rather the communication can separate art from good art.  This helped me a little with my understanding of “what is art?” but I still am trying to wrap my mind around someone paying millions for art that under this qualification wouldn’t be even considered good art.

The Natural Art

I really had a hard time accepting this piece of writing.  I thought that there were some good points that were presented but also some ideas that seemed too far fetched to be connected.  There are some basic needs that all human beings feel.  There is a need for water and protection.  These instinctual needs, as stated in the text, are most likely found in our DNA.  DNA is responsible for instincts and thus could be connected with our instinctual liking or disliking of certain images or colors.  However, there is one main flaw that was looked over in the text that I believe is equally important to consider.  This is the idea that this instinctual DNA reason for being drawn to a piece of art does not account for the different stages and periods of art that man kind has gone through.  The text does not account for how mankind, and more importantly our DNA, can "artistically evolve" over only a few hundred years.  Even Picasso evolved many times just over the course of his own lifetime and then didn't become fully recognized until after his death.  If he can go through many phases that have no correlation with his natural instinct, then how can DNA describe art preferences?  One other aspect that needed to be acknowledged is that in the text it states that humans are genetically configured to find fear in animal patterns.  This I would tend to believe and could agree with.  The problem with this idea is that it does not explain water.  Water is essential to all types of life.  The text even says that people are drawn to art with blue in it or drawings of oceans or lakes because of this fact.  However, there are many people who cannot swim or have had bad experiences with water.  They would not find these images appealing.  Therefore, what I believe is that there may be some type or instinctual preference that people have to art but I see it as something that you are mostly influenced by your experiences and the world, or art world, that you are brought up in.