Goodbye.

So, Now that my Art and philosophy course has ended, I want to say thank you to all who thought up amazing questions for me to respond too and have responded to my own. Also, this blog has inspired me to write another one. You can find it here http://what-thought.blogspot.com, but be warned, I doubt I will update it frequently. Thanks again for everything, I highly enjoyed the class and I learned a lot, not just about art, but as life as well.
-Griffin

A response to Duncan's response to Denise's response to My response to Denise's response to my question

(sorry about the lengthy title)

Duncan, in his blog post, asked whether or not a work of art created by a small child and an abstract drawing created by a symbolic artist were both art. In my opinion, I would have to say yes. In my opinion (and my own theory of art which you will hear about more in depth later), art is the containment of thought within a creative confines. The child, wishing to put the idea of his family and home onto a creative medium, created that drawing, thus making it art. The abstract artist, wished to put onto a medium the concept of loneliness and depression. Therefore, based on my theory, it is art.

Would an object be a piece of art if the thought behind the piece was imperceivable? 

A response to Denise (again)

Once again, I find myself answering one of Denise's questions. Her most recent question: 'If an artist is unwilling to express [a] point of view, regardless of it's popularity, is he or she really an artist?' Is fairly easy to answer. Yes.  An artists opinions or beliefs should have no influence on whether or not someone should be deemed an artist or not.  Someone who has horrible beliefs can still paint amazing things, although I would like to say that the beliefs one holds do influence the subjects one uses when creating a piece. For example, if one man believes mankind is inherently evil, he will be more likely create art on the monstrosity that is mankind. Same with the opposite.  If beliefs influence the Theme of the art, what would influence an artists artistic style?

A counter to denises response to my question.

Recently Denise responded to one of my blog posts on the humanity of art. (her response can be found here http://denisesphlog.blogspot.com/2010/12/humans-as-art.html)  I would like to raise the point that she did not answer my question. What I asked was whether a Person could be art. She responded by giving examples of tattoos, a sculpture of a man, and performance art that  uses the human body to express visual art. I would like to say that this was not what I meant by human art.
The tattoo on the human body might be considered art, but it would also exist as art on some other form of media. The tattoo is the  inherent art, not the human.
The sculpture of the human body is made of stone, not of flesh. Although sculpture might represent humans, it is not the human body.
The  Performance art was close, but no cigar. The actors used their bodies, but the art was in what they were representing, not in their body inherently. They were the blank canvas, not the art on the canvas, if that makes any sense.
What I want to know is can the human body be the art inherently without it representing some other form of art?

The humanity of art.

I just recently watched a movie where the main antagonist froze people in time and put them on display as art objects. The main people she froze were serial killers who were famed for their murders and violence. She claimed that their violence and emotions made them art. She believed that the acts that they committed made themselves artists, much like a performance artist. She claimed that by creating their artwork, they themselves became art that she wanted to take. This raised an interesting question in my mind:
Can a human be an art object?

A response to Kimberlee.

Do you ever think that people over think things way to much and assume a piece of art work to be much more intentional than it actually is?
The short answer to this question is YES.
The Long answer to this question is YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Seriously though, over-analysis is an incredibly human thing to do. Humans always try to find meaning and intention when there is none, or not as much as one thinks. This is not only limited to the domain of art, but is found in many other areas as well. Religion was founded on the desire to believe that the universe was created with an intention. The human mind just does not like the idea of meaninglessness, or not being able to figure out the meaning behind something.  That idea causes a fear so deep down inside mans psyche that his mind simply refuses to believe it and thus scours his mind and the piece of art for any meaning he could find, even if there was none. Personally though, I believe that art ALWAYS has meaning. I believe that art would not be art if it lackeed at leat some meaning. Can something be art without a meaning?