Hi Allison, I came across a quote that brought me back to our conversation about modern art.

Art is full of intimations of the negative in ways that allow you to participate imaginatively in their possibility. The experience of art can help you build a creative friendship with the negative. When you stand before a painting by Kandinsky, you enter the church of color where the liturgy of contradiction is fluent and glorious. When you listen to Martha Argerich play Rachmaninovs Piano Concerto No. 3 in D minor, Op. 30, you experience the liberation of contradictory forces that at every point threaten and test the magnificent symmetry of form that holds them (ODonohue 116). Does a single-color canvas accomplish something like this or does it fall into a different category altogether? Does the artistry of the single-colored canvas extend to the cultural fabric that surrounds it, instead of being contained more within the piece itself? Just some thoughts. I love the dialogue. Chris " I have always believed that the character of society is largely shaped and unified by its great creative works, that a society is molded upon its epics, and that it imagines in terms of its created things- its cathedrals, its works of art, its musical treasures, its literary and philosophic works. One might say that a public may be so unified because the highly personal experience is held in common by the many individual members of the public." (The shape of Content, by Ben Shahn, pg. 39) I think the concept of Abstract and the ability to understand or appreciate is an evolution of sorts. The more in tune you are with yourself, the greater the meaning. Staring at a solid orange canvas to some would simply retain interest only for a few seconds, however, the more enlightened or persistent would be able to stand and notice such things as the aura of the color, the consistency of the media and the reflections of the warm tone. This also stands true for listening to classical music, noticing the sunset on the beach or the lighting on a leaf... now, what makes the enlightened spirit? Not sure. Experiences, education, stillness, spiritual presence, insanity? To each their own. An acquired taste maybe. "Might not one surmise that there is some degree of nonconformity in us all, perhaps conquered or suppressed in the interest of our general well-being, but able to be touched or rekindled or inspired by just the quality or unorthodoxy which is so deeply embedded in art?" (Shahn, pg. 76) So.. what is abstract- the actual art image, or our reaction to it? It is our inability to understand that keeps us from understanding, or is our expectations for directives demanding more information given? Allison Stiles

I love the quotes. Is there a consistent expectation for art? Does artno matter the form or quality-become a kind of mandala or focus point for personal meditation? The Japanese try to

imitate nature in many ways for the purpose of further self-exploration. They meditate on the significance of a leaf or a rock in nature, but they also artificially create gardens, flower arrangements, etc. What is the difference between a rock in nature and a rock intentionally placed in a garden? How integral is the intent of the artist and the success or failure to communicate that intent to the piece of art? An individual has literally millions of possible things upon which to meditate and self-reflect each day. A reflective person may be able to pull profound insights out of any of these. Shouldnt a piece of art hold something more significant than a random gum-wrapper? Chris

I think there are several different means or reasons for art- and not all creation is "art" however.. creation itself is a process that leads itself to the art of the individual. There is nothing different than the rock found in nature..... to the rock placed to replicate nature.. if the intent of the person is to create an artful setting or mental space. However, the creation process, the act of making something with your hands.. isn't always done to create something meaningful or meditative. And should be allowed this right. When you give a child a crayon, they are of open mind with no preconceived notion. They draw, scribble or create. Is it "art"- not necessarily, but it is an expression of a true creative process. They can explain exactly what they meant and are not defined or self conscious. Purely uninhabited. We take their drawing and try to define it using advanced words, real world terms and philosophies and create a setting that is honestly of our own doing. When you hand a mentally disturbed person, or a individual dealing with a traumatic event art materials, their self expression is a release.. there is not the focus of "creativity" but a need to use it as an emotional outlet. Is it "art" - not necessarily, but it's an expression. Is it from creative processing?.. questionable. But we take their drawing and try to define it using real world terms and philosophies. The act of making "art" I feel, must combine the need for expression, combined with the intention of creative processing. Granted there are numerous degrees of proficiency- and even greater levels of public acceptance, but it all goes back to the nature of the context and the original intent of the artist. Then.. it also goes to the mastery of the media and the techniques used. If the materials are unique or interesting, the creative expression raises to a new level. If the idea is unique or different, then it triggers a thought provoking area in the brain as well. The "ah ha" Jackson Pollock wanted to use his entire body to create artwork that created a "visual dance" - but when did he know it was time to stop? Did his addictive personality and his high degree of excessive abuse allow him to push the limits further, or did spontaneous artwork and his lack of objective control add to the unorganized mess? Or are they the same? Ever wonder why artists at times can drive themselves to the brink of insanity? Ever wonder why artists spend so much time pondering the ideas that circulate in their brains only to abandon them before they manifest? Ever wonder why there is such a broad range of good to bad modern art? Ever wonder why the majority of artists live in the space between normal and abnormal? They are

interested in the unconscious. Look at the surrealists. A group of artists who finally declared a name for the state of trying to look at the un-real. So much for the realists and the photo realists.. they weren't "intellectual". Because it is all subjective to each individual and their own personal experience in whether they like or dislike it. Then.. what becomes popular is driven by the consumer and popular culture. Is artwork highly evolved from prehistoric cave paintings.. or are there no more stories to be told? That is a thought. Allison Stiles This is a helpful discussion for me and, I think, ultimately we overlap in our ideas quite a bit. I tend to emphasize the communication and skill and you tend to emphasize the process, but we both seem to recognize the importance of the other. Both are critical to understand art in its complete context. The end question about the cavemen taps into the idea of universality of human natureJungian stuff. Are we expressing the same ideas, perhaps in cycles, through new mediums to new audiences? Or are we evolving in our understanding of ourselves to explore new, more refined ideas? Is humankind advancing or spinning around the same merry-go-round with different scenes scrolling by? Are we, in the midst of our scientific discoveries, devolving? At least in America, I see the vast majority of the public devolving in their understanding of self; for many their opinions about themselves, fashion, etc. is decided by others, partly because of a lack of silence. Many people dont allow themselves the quiet to explore what makes them unique, often making choices because it goes along with others or goes against others, instead of making choices that goes along with who they are. This quiet space is where the artistic explorationno matter what kindallows the soul to breath and develop. As you mention, when self expression goes from a private journey to a public display, it is serves a different, more public, purpose that is governed by a different set of criteria. Does a collective popularity of a particular artist or art form make it good art or is there some other criteria? Is it all a matter of opinion? When I look at other art forms, such as architecture or writing, many of these forms have a basic requirement of form. If an architect designs a beautifully artistic building but it collapses when built, the architect has failed. If a novelist does not artistically incorporate a complexity of literary elements, then the novel does not enter into the realm of literature but remains unpublished or is not respected as literature. Like your description of the process of art, a writer can journal or express themselves in any number of ways, but if s/he wants to be published, then s/he needs to meet some kind of standard that is identified and respected/appreciated by others, whether it is purely entertainment, an artistic exploration of form or both. Is there a similar standard for other forms of art? Chris You know... how to interpret art, is really a discussion on interpreting the visual culture. We know we live in a world increasingly saturated visually. Television, shopping malls, furniture, internet. Through the visual culture we view fine art and thus new images are created based on what people view and interpret. (the concept that nothing can be original anymore.. it is

all based on a previous image, idea or something someone else has created- has street cred.) In the process of viewing art, people develop ideas about art. Ranging from definitions to aesthetic judgments. This is why the role of the museum curator is so critical to the success of a museum. How art is "staged" is just as imperative as staging to sell a house. "Art is purchased by corporations, not only as financial investments, but also to legitimize their industry and represent their work as a part of high culture and achievement. Because the art is purchased to influence people's thinking about the business, its not kept in a vault, it is displayed, often in special gallery spaces in the workspace" Teaching visual culture, pg. 86 What we deem "good art" is based on our point in life. When I was 18, I loved Matisse' but I also loved Whitesnake and went to concerts wearing bikini's- As I became more "educated" I began to look at the work of artists such as Lee Krasner as inspiring, not only because of the aesthetics of the work but also because of her individual trials and tribulations which I find completely inspiring. I think our concept of judging art comes from a place of individuality. Before I became a teacher, I got a degree to become a museum curator. This was before I realized how competitive the job was and that it was so subjective. It's almost "who you know" and "what museum board members know you" sort of environment. (similar to a school board position really) We become knowledgeable about artwork, not by chance, but often by a serious marketing campaign. Which is why I try to teach kids to feel free to like, what you want.. and know that not all art appeals to everyone. Not every creation will speak to everyone. The judgments that are imposed within text books to "judge art" have to keep up with modern times as well. "one of the ways that contemporary visual culture illustrates these dynamics is through connections and juxtapositions of past, present and future". How can we still judge art based on Renaissance guidelines, if the artwork is created in the 21st century using machinery of highly evolved design? We can't. We constantly have to reinvent standards, and those standards are based on?????? Theres one for ya.