Scan barcode
tardycreative's review
4.0
A good insight to what is classified as art... basically anything, especially anything that sells!
o88's review
3.0
This book examines the diversity of art and its relevance in the world. Chapters 2 and 6 were interesting as she examined art broadly and historically and the ways in which it's interpreted by theorists and critics. The rest of the book is mostly filler, but it does provide a comprehensive look at how art is an essential part of the social fabric of society. She expresses how human beings are storytellers and creators while echoing philosopher John Dewey's sentiments that art is the best way to understand culture around the world.
On art interpretation, she touches on expression and cognitive theory. Expression theory is the realm of feelings and emotions. Cognitive theory is the intellectual realm of complex thoughts. Both theories hold that art is a means of communication, and that meaning can be derived from context. She explains that a good interpretation must be grounded in reason and evidence, and should provide a rich, complex, and illuminating way to comprehend a work of art. She goes on to say that an interpretation can even transform an experience of art from repugnance to appreciation and understanding. Art theorists draw on philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc so it is a full cognitive enterprise to understand and appreciate art.
Lastly, I just wanted to touch upon controversial art which she examines in Chapter 1 as a test to see if she can scare you off or not. She writes:
“Art includes not just works of formal beauty to be enjoyed by people with ‘taste’, or works with beauty and uplifting moral messages, but also works that are ugly and disturbing, with a shatteringly negative moral content”
People who make disturbing, blasphemous, and controversial art via shock value to grab people’s attention reminds me of stand-up comedians, reality TV stars, politicians, etc who do whatever they need to do in order to be in the front of the conversation. They hide behind the guise of being a free spirited and free thinking artist to justify the most repulsive content. In my opinion, art like that is trash (with some exceptions). I think a degree of grace and decency is essential in all works of art otherwise the moral values of a society are threatened. I understand that progressive ideas will rattle some people, but there needs to be a sense of dignity in art otherwise the message will never be taken seriously. Also, you should be able to tackle dark things without getting lost in some form of moral nihilism; there are just way too many cowards and pessimists in the art world. Some of the more repugnant artists contribute nothing of value to humanity and are often times just crying out for help.
All in all, this book is a decent primer, but further reading and exploration is needed. Artistic exploration and creativity is more enjoyable than critical analysis, but it may lead to a greater appreciation of art while deepening a personal philosophy as a creative so it's worth a look.
3/5
On art interpretation, she touches on expression and cognitive theory. Expression theory is the realm of feelings and emotions. Cognitive theory is the intellectual realm of complex thoughts. Both theories hold that art is a means of communication, and that meaning can be derived from context. She explains that a good interpretation must be grounded in reason and evidence, and should provide a rich, complex, and illuminating way to comprehend a work of art. She goes on to say that an interpretation can even transform an experience of art from repugnance to appreciation and understanding. Art theorists draw on philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc so it is a full cognitive enterprise to understand and appreciate art.
Lastly, I just wanted to touch upon controversial art which she examines in Chapter 1 as a test to see if she can scare you off or not. She writes:
“Art includes not just works of formal beauty to be enjoyed by people with ‘taste’, or works with beauty and uplifting moral messages, but also works that are ugly and disturbing, with a shatteringly negative moral content”
People who make disturbing, blasphemous, and controversial art via shock value to grab people’s attention reminds me of stand-up comedians, reality TV stars, politicians, etc who do whatever they need to do in order to be in the front of the conversation. They hide behind the guise of being a free spirited and free thinking artist to justify the most repulsive content. In my opinion, art like that is trash (with some exceptions). I think a degree of grace and decency is essential in all works of art otherwise the moral values of a society are threatened. I understand that progressive ideas will rattle some people, but there needs to be a sense of dignity in art otherwise the message will never be taken seriously. Also, you should be able to tackle dark things without getting lost in some form of moral nihilism; there are just way too many cowards and pessimists in the art world. Some of the more repugnant artists contribute nothing of value to humanity and are often times just crying out for help.
All in all, this book is a decent primer, but further reading and exploration is needed. Artistic exploration and creativity is more enjoyable than critical analysis, but it may lead to a greater appreciation of art while deepening a personal philosophy as a creative so it's worth a look.
3/5
linesfromlinh's review
4.0
I don’t quite understand why readers expected this small book will deliver the answer for the classic question “is it Art?” aka “what is art?”. Maybe some people think Cynthia made a false advertising titling the book with the question, but the version I read named An introduction to Art theory”. Hence, I was left nothing but appreciation for its neat and inspiring content. Thanks to it, so far I wrote 4 essays about the contemporary art, aesthetics and art theories.
A book doesn’t have to answer a question in the end. It might be good enough when shedding the light on the way leading to the answer. As a result, I found roughly 10 more books to dig deeper into art theories :(
A book doesn’t have to answer a question in the end. It might be good enough when shedding the light on the way leading to the answer. As a result, I found roughly 10 more books to dig deeper into art theories :(
iseefeelings's review
3.0
As far as I remember, I had never be so mindful about theories of art until taking an online course with this book as my required textbook reading. The reason to scrutinize this field, as the author wrote in the Introduction, "guiding us in what we value (or dislike), informing our comprehension, and introducing new generations to our cultural heritage."
A fairly short overview of art theory and I would hesitate to recommend this book to the common readers since too many chapters require you to have further research and a good background in art history or aesthetics.
In order to convey the challenge in coming up with any suitable theory, Freeland took both the prominent concepts (such as those of Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Tolstoy, Clive Bell, Arthur Danto) and the little-known ones (Guerrilla Girls, Walter Benjamin, John Dewey, Robert Irwin and a few more). She did a good job in putting out and summarizing a wide range of theories. However, the book seems to lack a good structure for readers to follow somehow. I guess I would struggle a lot to read this book without any learning materials because each theory is so thinly spread and not as clear as it should be. Similarly, some theories were analysed at a good pace but others were rather unconvincing and lengthy.
But notwithstanding all the shortcomings, I genuinely appreciate three things from the book: its pocket size, Freeland's great prediction of digital/ interactive art in the following years (this book was first published in 2001) and the way it considerably expanded my view on modern and temporary art.
To end this review, I will take a quote of my favourite theory by Robert Irwin, just as Freeland did in her Conclusion, in which he "proposed to describe art as 'a continuous examination of our perceptual awareness and a continuous expansion of our awareness of the world around us.']
_
* my page
A fairly short overview of art theory and I would hesitate to recommend this book to the common readers since too many chapters require you to have further research and a good background in art history or aesthetics.
In order to convey the challenge in coming up with any suitable theory, Freeland took both the prominent concepts (such as those of Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Tolstoy, Clive Bell, Arthur Danto) and the little-known ones (Guerrilla Girls, Walter Benjamin, John Dewey, Robert Irwin and a few more). She did a good job in putting out and summarizing a wide range of theories. However, the book seems to lack a good structure for readers to follow somehow. I guess I would struggle a lot to read this book without any learning materials because each theory is so thinly spread and not as clear as it should be. Similarly, some theories were analysed at a good pace but others were rather unconvincing and lengthy.
But notwithstanding all the shortcomings, I genuinely appreciate three things from the book: its pocket size, Freeland's great prediction of digital/ interactive art in the following years (this book was first published in 2001) and the way it considerably expanded my view on modern and temporary art.
To end this review, I will take a quote of my favourite theory by Robert Irwin, just as Freeland did in her Conclusion, in which he "proposed to describe art as 'a continuous examination of our perceptual awareness and a continuous expansion of our awareness of the world around us.']
_
* my page
More...