But is it Art?

US Higher Education Not for profit. Skip to main content.

BUT IS IT ART?: An Introduction to Art Theory

Go directly to our online catalogue. Purchase Send feedback Also available as: Ebook This title is available as an ebook from RedShelf. But Is It Art? Features About the Author s Reviews Features Explains why innovation and controversy are so highly valued in art. Discusses the various theorists of art, from Aristotle and Kant to Baudrillard. Reviews "I know of no work that moves so swiftly and with so sure a footing through the battle zones of art and society today.

Danto "Profoundly refreshing and satisfying Table of Contents List of Illustrations 1. Blood and Beauty 2.

• Trouble on the Heath - hilarious story from Monty Python star, Terry Jones;
• This Time Around?
• Navigation menu!
• The Application of Neural Networks in the Earth System Sciences: Neural Networks Emulations for Complex Multidimensional Mappings (Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences Library).
• But Is It Art?!
• But is It Art?: An Introduction to Art Theory by Cynthia A. Freeland.

Oxford University Press Bolero Ozon. But Is It Art? An Introduction to Art Theory. In today's art world many strange, even shocking, things qualify as art. She discusses blood, beauty, culture, money, museums, sex, and politics, clarifying contemporary and historical accounts of the nature, function, and interpretation of the arts. Freeland also propels us into the future by surveying cutting-edge web sites, along with the latest research on the brain's role in perceiving art. Misschien wel een van de eerste "leerboeken" die ik met minder tegenzin heb gelezen en geleerd.

Sep 15, Mayalekach rated it really liked it. Not as easy to read as the author clearly thinks it is. It is no 'Ways of Seeing' but it was wildly informative. Jan 15, Anthoney rated it liked it Shelves: Ritual theory, formalist theory, imitation theory, expression theory, cognitive theory, postmodern theory — phew …. Art has so many masters, iconoclasts, styles and mediums. The brief coverage on women artist was enlightening as I was unmindful of the lack of gender disparity and representation in the art world. That in a nut shell concludes my review, and commences my lecture, so class is free to leave if you may wish.

But if you were to complete reading, may I request if you can refer me to discussion forums on art. I am not convinced with the process of deconstructing art by theorizing it. I am not sure if theories are required to understand art, it serves only an academic purpose. Art, IMO, is a very personal experience. Its qualification and understanding may vary from person to person. Understanding and appreciation of art is seemingly difficult to generalize and should not be generalized.

Like for me, Picasso is overrated and I would consider that Duchamp was more revolutionary than him with his anti-art. Theories endangers and is likely to influence how a general populace absorbs and relates to the artwork. I would consider aesthetics or the lack of it? And aesthetics can be subjective, a matter of personal taste, comprehension and - to some extent as the author asserts — knowledge and cultural background.

Theorizing of art specializes art, delineates art, draws boundaries on aesthetics and limits appreciation of art. Contrarily, an artist may have chosen to nullify or dumb the aesthetics of their work.

See a Problem?

But they still aspire for some balance and form; seek appreciation or regard for their power of imagination, their intent; or to build consensus for their personal agenda and belief. One may try to organize or attribute some semblance and reason to the chaos projected by the artist and find it beautiful, appreciate if not the form the thought process.

Art theories seem just opinions and cannot be empirically tested. It kind of provides a guiding tool, a reference manual on how to create beautiful art. Art appears to be an such an instinctive, endowed and uninhibited process, and in modern context exploring and describing a subconscious mind at play. Such references could be exploited by a shrewd artist and thus maybe counterproductive. Of course, art is not only about inherent talent but also learning and developing finesse, technically and creatively but that cannot be a justification to proposition finer fundamentals of beauty and art.

While it can be harmful, I feel it cannot be deemed dangerous and endangering art and talent. Especially in the context of indigenous and native art, where its commercialization will only aid in the survival of the craftsmanship. It will encourage the future generations to preserve their culture, motivated by the financial incentive if not societal or ethical principles. Yes of course there is a risk of corrupting such art and craft but the risk is all pervading in all spheres and aspects of our living.

Conclusion — Theories seems crap, and commercialization is a necessary evil.. Apr 29, Luke Sherwood rated it really liked it. In it, Professor Freeland expounds on competing and converging beliefs held by critics and philosophers, and she does so in a logical, concise, and accessible way. The book is a slim one, bolstered by References, Further Reading and an Index, like any scholarly book will.

However, as I say, the body of this book contains no stuffy jargon, no obfuscating phrases; its points are painstakingly made, and highly accessible to the average adult reader. Her own preferences and beliefs are no mystery, but she handles the presentation of competing thought processes with commendable fairness and even-handedness. You will get a very convincing and non-judging assessment of some of the more shocking art which has been presented in the last 25 years. This book is required in an aesthetics class at a local university.

Suffice it to say, I found this brief, direct, and accessible book a commendable starting point in discussing art. The flow of the ideas reach other media besides graphic art, but those media are its main focus. It's been almost fifteen years since I sat through an Aesthetics class, and mostly what I remember of it are the cram-packed class handouts enumerating the thirty to forty things we'd touch on each period during our whirlwind tour of years of art theory.

The only absolutely clear memories I have are of a Quincey Troupe poem about killing cattle and of watching John Cage perform 4'33, so it was nice to come across Freeland's basic intro to art theory, which served as a lucid and lovely refre It's been almost fifteen years since I sat through an Aesthetics class, and mostly what I remember of it are the cram-packed class handouts enumerating the thirty to forty things we'd touch on each period during our whirlwind tour of years of art theory. The only absolutely clear memories I have are of a Quincey Troupe poem about killing cattle and of watching John Cage perform 4'33, so it was nice to come across Freeland's basic intro to art theory, which served as a lucid and lovely refresher course.

She juggles Kant and Hume and Freud in the same breath as Mapplethorpe, Goya, and fetish sculptures from the Kongo, and does it all in a clear, concise style. Scholars in the field will find nothing for them here -clearly, a page primer is going to offer samples and simplifications rather than deep insights - but for those interested in exploring new ground or trying to remember what it looks like more than a decade after taking a very rushed guided tour! Jul 29, Nat added it.

Freeland endorses Richard Anderson's definition of "art" as "culturally significant meaning, skillfully encoded in an affecting, sensuous medium" She admits that what counts as "culturally significant" is contentious. But one virtue of this intro to art theory is that debates over Freeland endorses Richard Anderson's definition of "art" as "culturally significant meaning, skillfully encoded in an affecting, sensuous medium" But one virtue of this intro to art theory is that debates over how to define art are quickly dispatched by looking at a wide variety of different art works.

But Is It Art?: An Introduction to Art Theory - Cynthia Freeland - Google Книги

Focus is consistently kept on the art, and the pleasure of theorizing about it. It never devolves into the corrupted pleasure of theory for its own sake. Sep 12, Mina rated it really liked it Shelves: Wonderfully easy read for beginners to art theory. I used this as a basis for a presentation I had in my philosophy class and it did help greatly with the basic underlying foundation of my topic. It is quite interesting as well!

The use of blood and beauty in art is really interesting- first chapter. Darkness in art is always intruiging. Nov 05, Christine rated it liked it Shelves: I enjoyed it, particularly Ch. I could have done with more of that, but never having taken art history or studio art of any kind none of this was too repetitive.

Still I could have done with more sophisticated and varied answers to the title question.

Related Titles

May 22, Bokabud rated it it was ok Shelves: Ofrece una gran multitud de perspectivas que se agradece , pero finalmente no llega a nada, lo cual nos deja en el punto inicial. Jul 31, Sharon R. It was a good intro or overview, but very thinly spread. I understand a little bit more about art theory and criticism, but I'm still looking for more depth on good art vs.

I would recommend this for anyone just starting out with understanding art theory. Jun 20, Elizabeth Schlatter rated it liked it Shelves: Not to sound too obnoxious, but this book is so introductory that I couldn't finish it.