Literature Post 6

Discuss the question “What is art?”

The discussion we were having today while walking through the city was a very interesting one indeed- What is art? If we were to take the literal definition of art being “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination” then would not EVERYTHING be art? As sensate beings, humans experience everything through their senses, so any interaction we have by definition involves the expression and application of our “creative” (to “bring into existence”) skill. After all, anything we do involves us bringing into existence (i.e. creating) our own beliefs, ideas and values.

Of course, to take this literal (and rather generic) description of art would diminish the real beauty of what art is. Perhaps, instead, we can look at the intentions of the creator. If a five year old paints a car at kindergarten, they are involved in the process of creating an ‘artwork’, but I’m sure most would agree that it is not “art”. In a similar vein, if a person simply puts a dot in the centre of a page and declare it their masterpiece, are we  obliged to call it art? (After all, it was their intention to create art).

In fact, we saw something similar on our visit to Whiteley’s studio where we viewed “Alchemy”- Blake’s grain of sand. This in itself raises a fair few questions:

1. if the “grain of sand” wasn’t part of a larger piece of work, would we still consider it art?
2. If we weren’t told explicitly that it was “Blake’s grain of sand,” would we still consider it art?

I think, with the knowledge we have now, the answer is undoubtedly yes, but what if we consider “Alchemy” never existing and Whitely only creating a dot on a canvas. He knew that it was Blake’s grain, but if he never told us we would not, so does it lose its artistic qualities?

This is why to answer the question “what is art” is so difficult. Personally, I believe it is the intention of the creator, first and foremost, that decides what is art. Of course, the effect of art on an individual or group has merit, but one must consider if the same effect would be achieved if one did not consider the piece “art”. I think a great example of this is graffiti- The Graffiti Tunnel at the University of Sydney is considered by most to be a wonderful piece of art, yet when someone graffitis in a place they’re not supposed to, it is frowned upon and quickly removed. What is so intrinsically different about the two that decides one is art and one isn’t, besides the fact we are ‘told’ one of them is beautiful?

Literature Post Five

Produce a collage of photographic images that reveal what it means to see through rather than with the eye.

Literature Post Four

Find a single line in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell and write a short paragraph explaining what it is about this line that you find so arresting. 

“Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.”

I think the inclusion of this line is absolute genius from William Blake! He is saying that without contraries human life could not exist, and so the contrasts in our world are merely human constructs. Our idea of heaven and hell being “good” and “evil” respectively, are no exception to this. The divine is not limited to these worldly constructs created by humans, and Blake represents this by bringing together these two realms in the Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

For our “feeble” human minds it seems impossible for this to come to fruition; how can to seemingly opposites (after all, heaven and hell, by definition, are opposite) be joined? But of course we can’t even begin to comprehend the complexity of this divine world, almost to the point where no words exist that I can use to truly encapsulate what Heaven and Hell are.

That’s why I find these words of Blake so interesting. He is explaining to us how we are limited to understanding the world through the finite and narrow minds of humanity, and we are incapable of comprehending that which is infinite. That is why he created the Marriage of Heaven and Hell; to highlight to us that we can never truly understand the divine, and we have to see through, and not with, the eye to gain any appreciation of the true miracle of life that we are a part of.

Literature Post Three

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite”. This is the next line in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell after his description of his printing method. Describe what you think Blake means by this.

<Post Under Construction>

Literature Post Two

Can art transform the world? Have a think about this from what you know of the impact of art, artists, writers on the global situation. Write a short paragraph that expresses your thoughts on whether you think it is possible for artists, writers, musicians to have this kind of power.

Can art transform the world? To be honest, I don’t think anyone can fully answer that question. For me, art is the physical embodiment of the human “experience” and so you must consider art as necessary to participate in life. As sensate beings, humans understand the world through their senses and the art we create is designed to appeal to these (in particular sight and sound, especially in terms of literature). As such, I think art is a reflection of society (that is, how can art transform the world if is in many ways a reactive activity).

On the other hand, of course, art has the ability to transcend the barriers of time and therefore aren’t limited to the times/societies in which it was created. This is of course, why we can still appreciate the paintings of Vincent Van Gogh, or the Homer’s epic Illiad and Oddessy, or indeed the poetry of William Blake even though we exist in a different time where society has different beliefs and values.

I suppose when it comes down to it, the only force strong enough to transform the world is that of the collective human experience, and artists (with their art) have the power to appeal to the human spirit and evoke feelings strong enough to bring about change. Art itself does not transform the world, but it does act in many ways as the genesis of change.

 

Picture from here!

Literature Post One

In “The School Boy”, in “The Poison Tree”, in “The Human Abstract” -and in his letters- Blake shows penetrating insight into the human condition. What part of the human condition has he most to say about to you?

I think the most striking aspect of the human condition is how naive we have become and how in a blind quest for “knowledge” we have either ignored or forgotten what is fundamental to the human experience. In The School Boy, Blake points out that rather than spend the summers outside in nature, children are forced into schools. Students are taught to clinically look at the “science” of the world, which we must consider as the one truth, and it is in this environment devoid of any emotion or interaction that we lose our appreciation for the natural world. It’s all well and good to understand how  photosynthesis works, but it is another thing entirely to stop and appreciate the miracle of life that exists in every flower.

Similarly in The Human Abstract, Blake highlights four values: Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love, that are widely considered ideals of a ‘good Christian’. Of course, he then describes how these values rely on poverty, unhappiness and fear to operate, and if we as humans only stopped and reflected we would realise that we don’t need to value these things, because they are in actual fact holding us back from achieving a greater quality of life.

It’s easy to see how Blake urges us as humans to simply take a step back and reflect on our lives. He is asking us to abandon our foolish quests for “ultimate knowledge” when the answers we seek are already around us if we were only bothered to look. He is telling us to see through, and not with, the eye.