Re: Xhirley (12/6)

When it comes to Adrian Piper, she can be extremely confusing in which some of her theories may not make sense or make some sense to the average reader. She does state that the "spatiotemporal" location does make each object unique because one object cannot also occupy the same area at the same time. This does make complete sense when an individual breaks down the word because this large word, is more like two words fused together into a fancier or proper word. Personally this word has never crossed my mind as even a real one because I strongly believe that this word is fake, authenticated by Adrian Piper, an intelligent philosopher. However not to get off track, if the spatiotemporal location did not exist, there are many characteristics that would make an object unique. For example on a Biological Basis, humans all have unique traits and chromosomes that differ from one another. No exact person is going to have the same genetics as anyone else in the world, even twins that share similar genetics whether identical or fraternal. So physically and genetically we have established that any individual does differ "genetically". But what are some characteristics that would make art unique? Well again, any painting will not be the same physically but the ideas of the certain individual (artist) differ dramatically? When we view the Mona Lisa for example, we tend to just applaud the painting due to that Leonardo DaVinci painted it, but do we also ask ourselves, what was the artist thinking at the time? What was he/she feeling when this masterpiece was created and does the Mona Lisa reflect the ideas, emotions, and well being of the artist. As Piper stated that the art object (masterpiece etc.) is not what is unique, it is the individual who created this object that is unique. In this situation I feel as if Adrian Piper had kind of contradicted herself by stating that the artist is unique but also the spatiotemporal location makes the object unique. Does this situation contradict her theory of what makes art unique or does it add to the theory? But to answer you last question, being "unique" does have its category that may possibly have a negative connotation. Being unique is inevitable because everything in the world is unique from each other, even a forgery which is unique from the other forgeries if analyzed at a microscopic level. In general, there is nothing wrong with unique because if this world did not experience some type of "uniqueness", then everything would be alike, with no personally whatsoever, kind of like the movie "Pleasantville".

Outfoxxed

Throughout the past week I have seen a great documentary in which has provoked the sense of reason withing myself. The name of the documentary is "Outfoxxed", a documentary in which portrays Fox News and how they are basically pro-republican and how their type of news is only what they (Fox Network) want to be displayed. Basically the documentary starts off with Rupert Murdoch, the founder of the news corporation acquiring a Washington D.C based news station, and about a couple decades later Fox news had became the offspring of this "D.C" based news station. When he founded the Fox news corporation, he was fond of President Ronald Reagan which led to an obsession with the Republican political party and this is where the seed of injustice began. From this point on, Fox news displayed only what they wanted to display, in favor of the Republican political party. For example when Senator John Kerry was running for President, all Fox news did was they displayed on how George W. Bush Jr. was such a great man, president, husband etc. and how John Kerry was could only destroy the United States. All of those rumors about Senator Kerry that the news generated were all false. The most controversial rumor and also the most ridiculous was that Sen, Kerry was French because French people are assumed as lazy. In addition, Fox news had also brought in some pretend French politician state that all french people do is think all the time therefore no work is done whatsoever. Honestly these statements/examples are completely ridiculous because who can properly designate which ethnic group is lazy or not and then relate these examples to John Kerry just because he looks like a French citizen (which does not make any sense whatsoever). Another example is that news anchors, reporters, and analysts could only say certain phrases or reveal certain answers delegated by Fox news because they were under contract and if they breached the contract they would be fired and in most situations, sued. Is this even legal even if these employees of Fox News are covering the truth with lies? So this brings me to my question is that are there morals and standards within news that should be followed on a daily basis and if so, why?

Analysis of Adrian Piper

Throughout the past week we have analyzed the philosophy of Adrian Piper in which she critiques how we view art and argues for the special status of performance art. She has an interesting background, being the first African American philosopher and on the other hand an accomplished artist which is miraculous. In addition she has received many awards, taught at multiple prestigious universities such as Harvard, Stanford, and Michigan and has traveled all around the world. However not to get off track, Wartenberg states that Piper makes her case with a familiar view of some modern works of art: that they seek to make the uniqueness of objects available to the general public as viewers. In addition she also argues that instead that the contemporary art world values artworks precisely for their uniqueness and that it is the aura that endows artworks with their distinct ontological character. Precisely she does give two major and key reasons why humans are drawn to art. In every art object there is some type of “uniqueness” in which she defines that the spatiotemporal location of the object divides each object from everything else. However are we truly drawn to art because of the uniqueness of the object or the aura? Truly the aura of an object attracts anyone for numerous moments of time but in general it is more of a combination of aura and “uniqueness”. For example “Starry Night” by Vincent Van Gogh truly is unique but the uniqueness is only a necessary quality that can define the painting and the aura lures viewers, attracting them to analyze the whole object. There is a specific type of “glow” within the aura of art that also distinguishes a piece from another piece of art. The painting “Starry Night” is evidently shadowed by darkness through the bleak tower that seems to dominate the painting but there is also life through the presence of light in the town, the stars in the sky and the lights in the town. Anyone who views this painting should be immediately drawn and moved but the presence of the aura in this painting because this object is just not a painting but a masterpiece. Piper also states that we are regularly blinded to the mystery of objects in daily life because we so often utilize them as tools or instruments for achieving, or for satisfying our needs and desires. Under these conditions, the objects in question are not seen as self-subsident entities to in their own right; rather, they are perceived and conceptualized through the lens of the final ends they are utilized for. Again she is also correct because many viewers within and outside of the art world do lack to properly locate the mystery of art, primarily due to an analysis that is not deep or in depth. Furthermore humans in most situations lack to view the bottom of the iceberg only perceiving the top, thus the mystery of the art object is never located. Therefore it is necessary to look beyond the art physical nature of the art object. Viewers should be questioning the meaning and asking, what truly is the mystery of this object and does it intertwine with the meaning?

Q:When Piper states that every object possesses a “spatiotemporal location” that will differentiate itself from others, is this true or does this statement reflect solely her personal views?

Response to Blog: Alyson Carey

Well let me just start at the beginning. I am so surprised that the concentration camp or holocaust survivor was actually getting his "number" that he received at Auschwitz re-traced via tattoo. Mr.Zmijewski should be arrested immediately because what he did was convince the man to get his number retraced. This is ethically and morally incorrect because you make this poor old man re-experience what he faced during the holocaust. The holocaust definitely was not a time or tranquility or peace but more of horror and what us Americans would call "a living hell". I honestly don't care if Arthur Zmijewski is an author or not because this definitely is not what anyone, by any means would define art as. Zmijewski is taking full advantage of this man and does not even know what the holocaust was like, even so being born in Warsaw,Poland does not make you an expert. As Ken Johnson (the author of the article) questions the ethics of Zmijewski he asks," Ostensibly, renewing the number is a metaphor about memory and history. We mustn’t forget the Holocaust and other catastrophes, or similar events are bound to happen again. Was this hackneyed lesson worth the price of a vulnerable old man’s peace of mind?". As anyone can see this man is not sure if he should have the artist tattoo the "number" onto his arm because the man clearly does not want it done. For example I feel that Arthur Zmijewski is just like a child that begs and begs constantly for his own way in anything, not giving up, thus being extremely persistent. He just had to be morally incorrect and does this man even have a conscience? On a daily basis this old man will never forget those horrific days that brought so much mental, social, and physical pain. I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for him because many other Jewish Europeans could not survive the holocaust and were tortured against their own will. This old man symbolizes survival, courage, bravery, persistence, and perseverance. He should be honored on a daily basis not tormented, re-tortured by engraving his "numbers" back onto his arm, and respected, a quality that Artur Zmijewski lacks and must gain.

Pre Analysis of Dickie

During the last class (11/30/2009) we discussed George Dickie and his deceitful philosophy on art. Basically Dickie believes that if an artwork is a candidate of art, then it pretty much is art. However this statement can be argued in which a candidate of art may not be an artwork in most situations. In addition we must understand what a candidate is before we analyze Dickie's philosophy. Basically a candidate can be a person or object which possesses characteristics that will make the person or object an ideal fit for a certain or specific situation. For example Dickie classifies Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" a piece of art because Duchamp's actions confer artistic status on it. Duchamp made "Fountain" a work of art when he signed,stamped,named, and exhibited it because in doing so, he made it something that others in the art world would treat as art. However this "Fountain" created by Duchamp was not really created by him, he just signed his name on it. In addition how can a fountain become a work of art? It is more furniture like than anything else and did this "fountain" have some type of candidacy? For example one of my friends could go into a bathroom or hardware store such as Home Depot or Lowe's, pick out a toilet seat, autograph it, and name it, but is this still art? The thing about art that confuses me the most is that the field is far too inclusive in which anything can be or become art. So far I tend to disagree with Dickie one hundred percent because how can a pre-art object that may confer artistic status (and I said "may")become a work or art? Dr. Johnson exemplified this situation perfectly the other day when he stated that there were multiple parties that ran presidency of the United States of America thus possessing some type of candidacy. However were these candidates ideal leaders to become president, probably not. More or less any object or person can possess some type of candidacy but is that person or object an ideal candidate? In art I believe that a toilet bowl or fountain(such as Duchamp's) does not possess any type of candidacy to become art because an object that is used to dispose of human waste or to hydrate an individual serves more as a tool instead of an artwork.

Q: If an object possesses some type of candidacy, even though most situations the object does not (since art is an extremely inclusive field), how is an object conferred as an artwork as Dickie states?