What makes something beautiful? Who decides what is beautiful? Why do I like what I like? Is taste instinctual or developed? What is the purpose of criticism? What is art? How does art connect to culture? These are some of the many philosophical questions explored in A. O. Scott’s book, Better Living Through Criticism. However, this book does not give us all the answers. Scott doesn’t give us instructions or a clear answer to any of these questions; he simply gives us the knowledge and insights to draw our own conclusions, because the answer is different for every single person. While it may sound cliché, beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. Taste is one of the most personal things we as human beings have- taste is determined by feelings, and you are the only person who knows exactly how you feel. Your taste is the most personal, specific representation/projection of your feelings towards the world. This was a central theme that I focused on in my first page of commonplace notes. Taste evolves through life experiences and is shaped by personal growth. We mold and develop it over time. I do not think I will like the exact same things 10 years from now, because my experiences will change and my feelings towards things will shift with them. If this is true, why do we also consider taste something unchanging that we are born with? How much of what we like is simply because of an instinctual, innate part of who we are? Scott acknowledges this contradiction when he says, “taste, we assume, is innate, reflexive, immediate, involuntary, but we also speak of it as something to be acquired” (pages 43-44). Personally, I think it is a combination of both, but I am sure it is more nuanced than that. “It’s beautiful because everyone thinks it is, and everyone thinks so because it’s beautiful.” This quote stuck out to me and led me to question the fundamental ideas of beauty and individualism. If art and taste are subjective, and everyone has different feelings and different tastes, what qualities can possibly be viewed by everyone as beautiful? Are there universal traits that are considered beautiful? Art is a ubiquitous, ever-evolving concept. From reading this text, I have found my own definition of art, which probably differs from many other common definitions. For me, art is anything with the power to move people emotionally. It is the attempt to physically manifest true beauty. We are drawn to art that makes us feel new emotions, that serves as an escape from reality. An example of art that does just that is “The Artist is Present” by Marina Abramóvic. This piece is unconventional and modern, unlike anything I had ever considered art before reading this book. In her piece, she simply sat in a chair at the MoMA and guests sat in a chair across from her and stared into her eyes. I tried my best to draw this picture in my commonplace book. However, what I could not draw was the unspoken connection between the artists and the guests, the true art. This piece stretched the limits of what can be considered art. Abramóvic was her own work of art, but she was also a mirror, the true art being the members of the audience. Everyone who attended the museum that day looked into her eyes and saw something completely different. They formed unique connections and felt unique feelings from the silent conversation. They were all touched differently; this is art. Not everyone will understand this type of art. It is completely okay to look at something and say, “I don’t get it”. Not everyone will understand art in the exact same way, and if they did, it wouldn’t be art anymore. There would be nothing personal about it. People feel pressure to accept art that society deems significant or beautiful, not actually judging it for themselves or feeling moved by it. They feel like if they don’t appreciate it, they are somehow viewing it incorrectly. This is why I included my sketch of the Mona Lisa, one of the most famous paintings of all time. Surely, not everyone looks at this painting of an expressionless woman’s face and is moved by it. We feel like we are “supposed” to get it because we think that everyone else gets it, but it is okay to look at the Mona Lisa, and not feel emotionally touched. I haven’t even referenced the title of this book. What is criticism, and what role does it play in society? Criticism is a way of challenging or affirming beliefs to enact social change. Because of criticism, society is constantly changing and amending itself to new beliefs. A critic is not just a critical person- it is someone who challenges conventional ways of thinking and uses it to enact change or make a difference. It is essential for societal progression. Criticism is its own art form, but it exists to enhance other forms of art. It enhances literature, or maybe even cooking (like the critic in Ratatouille)! Criticism is not just praising or disliking something. It is the engine of social change, and allows society to adapt and evolve, challenge and confirm ways of thinking and systems of beliefs. So, it’s not better to live through criticism. It is essential. I hope we use this text to become better critics of the literature we read in AP Lit throughout the year. It has certainly changed my perspective of art and beauty, and I am excited to discuss as a class and challenge and be challenged by my peers. I anticipate that we will talk deeply about art and how it connects to society and plays a role in our everyday life. I am excited to use the knowledge I have learned from this reading throughout the year.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm Melissa! I love cats, violin, books, and Netflix. Archives
November 2019
Categories |