Who decides on who the artists are?
Hi guys, have a read of this article it posses some very interesting ideas and notions about who decides who the artists are.
I would really like to know your thoughts and get some information and discussion based on the ways of knowing.
Look forward to hearing your response.
I would really like to know your thoughts and get some information and discussion based on the ways of knowing.
Look forward to hearing your response.
I think this is a very interesting topic. The gallery and award classify themselves as art related, however the architects do not believe they are artists. This is very ironic as people who did not believe they were legible for the award, won it. Considering there is no shortage of talented artists in the United Kingdom, it is confusing that they would select people who did not feel like they were even part of the competition. I believe these buildings can be classified as art as they have creative and visually appealing features. Therefore I think calling their work "art" is justified, however maybe not deserving of such a prestigious title given to artists.
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of the Turner prize prior to reading this article, and it was interesting to learn about the history and controversy behind it.
ReplyDeleteThis article definitely brings up the question that we spent a long time exploring in TOK, "What is art?" This is a perfect example of how art and expression can be interpreted so differently by different people, whether it be because of background, culture, or just a matter of opinion. Even though the judges felt as if the work of Assemble was a form of expression and classified as art, the group did not do the work as a form of artistic expression. The concept of it being a work of art was completely unintentional, so it brings up the question of if art is only considered art if the creator intended it to be. Leonardo Da Vinci's "The Vitruvian Man" is a perfect example of people taking a work and considering it to be art, despite this not being the original intention of the creator.
This is actually a theme that I often question during art class. Everyone prefers different styles and takes unique approaches to their ideas. However, where do we draw the line between art and other disciplines. For example, today I had heard someone questioning whether their art is considered art or not due to their approaches to new ideas, and this is a matter of reason. The visual arts contains a unique artistic process that has very little restrictions. I believe that it is when we stray away from its process and techniques people tend to question whether something is considered art. Usually we tend to believe it is if there is a justification and an artistic intention but otherwise it is often disregarded. With the turner prize, I'd say that involving an array of disciplines especially diminishes the chances of winning and perhaps will not challenge former artists.
ReplyDeleteThis article is quite intriguing and does bring up many questions related to art. What is considered art? Does art have to follow the principles and elements of art? Does it have to be labeled art to be called art? Who labels them art?
ReplyDeleteOver the centuries, art have evolved immensely and the lines between traditional art and non-traditional art is blurring. A particular quote that stood out from the article was "the corollary is that all kinds of disciplines – design, food, music, anything – could be seen as contenders for future iterations of the award" which leads the question is it not already art? Isn't art a form of expression, the use of creativity, skills or imagination to produce a work that is and can be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power? It is interesting that the group Assemble does not consider themselves artists since they work to renovate the interior design of the house, the finished work used creativity, skills and imagination creating houses that can be appreciated for their aesthetics but it was not the intention of Assemble. Which leads it back to the concept that what one may not consider art, another might consider it so, therefore referring back to the quotation, music, food designs is art. Art does not have to be labelled as art, anything can be art based on an individual's culture, background or experiences.
Ways of Knowing: Sense perception
ReplyDeleteThe boundaries of art are flexible beyond our understanding; there is uncertainty. Art has many purposes. Besides its visual appeals, the function and purpose is hugely praised whether the judgement is caused by an emotional appeal or just a simple reason. Sense perception also majorly influences what we interpret as art and since all we have very different ideas of what art could be, the degrees of acceptance in the view of art is varied. One may view the Turner Prize award as a praise towards the use of aesthetics in enhancing space, where the social purpose further encourages the idea of purposeful art; on the other hand, the other view may be that because there is a fine line between architecture/design and art, they should not be treated as one and the same. Despite the scepticism from Assemble themselves, the award brings value to the definition of art. Since aesthetics play a large role in both art and architecture, it overlaps with one another; therefore, cannot be entirely disentangled. While in this case, even though the group of architects do not consider their work as art, people should still be allowed to merit on something that they so feel strongly about.
What I think about this article is that art is not just a form that has to be judged by one specific standards. As the time passes, a lot of art piece from the past that have been considered as a bad art piece, became really famous and popular in present. This is because people have different perspectives and backgrounds. I believe this fact is very significant on every certain matters because we can't generalize a thing that it has to be something that one decided. The article is pretty intriguing people with this kind of controversy and me as well.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has a different definition about what "art" is. Speaking from my own experiences, I am taught to be open-minded about the many forms that art can take, but I still feel art itself has some restrictions. Looking at artworks often requires personal opinion and this varies from person to person depending on their culture, background etc. Even though there are certain criteria's people use to judge art upon, there is a border line between what is art and what is not. A linking concept connected to sense perception is interpretation, which artworks forces out of viewers. In the end, I think deciding whether something is considered "art" has a lot to do with personal interpretation as ideas about beauty, aesthetics and the boundaries of art varies.
ReplyDeleteArt means different things to different people. The way they see the artworks might have different meaning to others. Art is a depiction of reality and also a creation that carries a message or depicts a view of the world. Is there a reason for the art being the way it is?
ReplyDeleteI really like this article about awarding the Turner to architects instead of artists. This might be wrong by giving an award to non artists but at the same time, the work from architecture can also be expressed as art. They have their purpose of doing it. Even though they aren’t named as an “Artist” but the work that they’ve done actually means something and also their intention of creating it must link to something, perhaps it might link to their personal life or their society, etc. As for me, personally, I don’t think it is wrong by awarding the Turner to architects instead of artists. Art doesn’t always mean painting and drawing. According to the article, the work that has won the prize is about houses in Liverpool that has fought for decades against attempts to uproot its people and demolish its homes. For others, this might not be art but for me, it actually is because they shows clear message of why they created it.
The overall idea of what art is, is very intriguing and is certainly very debatable. I personally think that it ultimately comes down to one's perception and interpretation. The Turner prize organisers decided to bestow the award to an architectural group that renovated houses. I personally do consider that building can be considered as art if the person had every intention of making it an artwork. However, Assemble was not a group that believed that their product was a representation of art. This does make the organisation's actions ineffective and does not make the architectural group worthy to receive the award.
ReplyDelete