Wk 1: Nice 2meetU!

1. 

   adamshannah96yahoocom

   23 August 2016

   I found this video interesting and thought it left a good amount of room for watchers to explore the era or eras he or she was intrigued by. I have always enjoyed the history of art from the distant past. The words “art history” generally conjures images of the Middle Ages’ illuminated manuscripts, the Renaissances’ paintings, or the Romanticism of the 1800s. But what I never really hear about is the more modern eras. Particularly anything past around the 1980s. I did a little research and found an excellent page on Wikipedia called “Contemporary Art”. It lists major art styles from the 1950s to the 2000s. The last entries were art styles like video game art and virtual art. I find these kind of art styles interesting partially because it is becoming harder to classify digital art as art. I went to a Windows store recently to try out an illustration app on their tablets. This app can turn jagged lines you draw into smooth lines. As nice as this feature, it feels as if computers are taking a little more of the human element out of art. In the short video, Professor Zucman said something to the effect of “art is the work of human hands”. But at what point does art stop being an individuals work? Let’s say someone creates a program that “draws” random scribbles. Would those scribbles be considered the programmer’s art? Or no because technically the program created the scribbles. I just find the question of “what is art?” interesting.

   Reply
   1. 

      tinanguyen97

      28 August 2016

      Hi there, Hannah!
      I agree with you that the question ‘what is art?’ is really interesting! I like how you pointed out that you tried an illustration app at the Windows store and really wondered to yourself ‘is that art?’ especially when in Professor Zucman’s video he said that art is something with human influence. Personally, I believe that the definition of art isn’t very clear, and I think it can depend on what people view as art. I also liked how you bought up contemporary art and the fact that on wikipedia it says lists video game art and virtual arts as ‘contemporary art’ for the years 2000s, which demonstrates how we’ve taken a leap towards the technology era and how things are slowly changing. It will be so interesting to see what is considered contemporary or modern in 10, 20, 30 years!

      Reply
      1. 

         abigaildmanuel

         28 August 2016

         Hi, Tina!
         I also agree that the question of exactly what art is, is a very interesting one that really forces you to think over what you personally define art as. Like you, I also think that it all depends on whoever is experiencing the art’s interpretation of the piece that they’re looking at, whether it be a classic Renaissance painting or a washing machine piece like Professor Zucman presented as an example in the video. I think it’s interesting to see the contrasts between classic and contemporary art pieces, and personally, it kind of makes me wonder what this era of art will be labeled when a new era arises.

         Reply
         1. 

            rjcay

            28 August 2016

            What’s up Abigail!
            While our professor was mentioning his sculpture friend making $10,000 off a rusted washing machine, made me realize more of what art is really about. A painting on canvas, for example, is one of the images that pops in our head when art is mentioned. However, once we get deeper, art can be described, depicted, displayed, sprayed, drawn, or shot up that it has so many wholes and sell for a lot of money, because different people have a little art in them. In my opinion art is what I consider a preference of what people want to look at, what people want to see, and whatever makes our imagination go wild.

            Reply
2. 

   aleahlomeli28

   25 August 2016

   I thought this video was interesting because it’s amazing to see the way art has transformed throughout life. It goes way back to the Renaissances and Middle Ages to present day. I believe that art back then may have been portrayed differently than what it is now. For example, I feel that back then going back to “before” had more meaning whereas today a simple drawing or doodle is seen as “art” by many. The question “what is art” is interesting and varies in response. I think we all have our own opinion to what we see art as. This video had me thinking about art in the past that has affected the present. I find the Renaissances, Middle Ages, Romanticism, etc, more interesting because of the meaning it has behind it.

   Reply
3. 

   tinanguyen97

   25 August 2016

   I found this video interesting because it demonstrates the long history of art (specifically 3 million years!). The amazing thing that I found in this video was that art has outlived the human race. One thing that really stood out to me while watching the video was the definition of art. In the video, Professor Zucman says that one way to define art is ‘something that is worked by a human hand.’ Professor Zucman gives the example of a rainbow not being considered art, however, a drawing of a painting would be considered art. I personally feel that art could be expanded to something more than just something a human made. I believe that anything that can be appreciated or can fill up space beautifully should also be considered art. In the video, Professor Zucman talks about the pebble, which was not made by a human hand, and therefore should not be considered art. However, when I first saw that pebble I thought it was something beautiful and art. I know the definition of art is very broad and I feel like art can apply to so many things and it just depends on ones views about the world.

   Reply
   1. 

      stepharciva

      28 August 2016

      Hey Tina!
      I agree with your point exactly that art depends on the one’s view about the world! I feel that many different experiences in people’s past will greatly influence their perspective on art. This can be drawn further in a general sense when we talk about history. We tie art to these events because they help us understand the culture of those times and we get a better understanding of why certain events happen the way they did. We can apply this to any discipline because there is going to be history in everything including the development of sciences, mathematics, literature, and various other disciplines that we ourselves take interest in pursuing. It’s great that we see this in the video as well, seen in the ‘beyond’ example of art. Although we cannot predict what the future will make of the diagram of the voyager, it will have significance behind it and future life will interpret it as it will.

      Reply
4. 

   amysongblog

   26 August 2016

   I think the question “what is art” is a mind boggling question. I think that art is very subjective. Different people will give different answers to the same question. Professor Zucman mentioned that one definition of art is something that is made by human hands. However, I think art is more broad than that. Personally, I think of art as something that affects something inside you. Art can be something that is simply aesthetically pleasing or something that represents a deeper meaning. The example of the stone that was given in the video would be considered a piece of art because it was meaningful to the Australopithecus. I also find it fascinating that there is so much art history that exists. Art has been an integral part of human existence. In every time period recorded art was always there as a representation of that period. Since art is important in human history it has me wondering why is it that in our modern society art is pushed back as science and math takes priority. I think art should be appreciated more and held more importance in schooling.

   Reply
   1. 

      selenalarablog

      27 August 2016

      Hello Amy!
      I agree with your idea that art is subjective, especially when something aesthetically pleasing to you might not be for another person. You also say that art is meaningful and should be held with more importance in schooling, another point of yours that I agree with. But aren’t science and math forms of art as well ? I personally consider science a form of art because of the beauty and the craft it takes a scientist to mimic how something as small as a cell works in a human body. The video itself discussed how interstellar objects too can be considered a form of art. If for some reason our lives were to end, then the interstellar objects would be a representation of who we were. The art behind those interstellar objects would be science, wouldn’t it? In the same way, there is beauty in the way mathematical equations and physics laws come to life by creating our entire world that is often depicted on an Artist’s canvas.

      Reply
      1. 

         adamshannah96yahoocom

         27 August 2016

         In response to Selena’s comments, I completely agree that math and science can be forms of art. Throughout my life I have found great interest in the link between science and art. My brother would be the math expert, though I see the beauty in the equations I can wrap my head around. Some people have even made wonderful works of art with complicated shapes and forms using graphed equations. As for science, many procedures, like staining cells or plating colorful microbes, yield end products that can truly be considered beautiful and even maybe a work of art. But as for Amy’s original post, I think that art in it’s most literal interpretation definitely needs to be more stressed in schools. Many concepts I’m studying now would be much more difficult to understand were it not for the numerous photographs and drawings in my textbooks. In fact there is an entire profession known as “scientific illustration” that deals solely with the drawing and animating of scientific concepts and objects. I think the more one studies the disciplines of art and science, the more one can see how incomplete they are without each other.

         Reply
5. 

   Daniel Velazquez

   26 August 2016

   The most interesting thing about this video was the meaning of art. Art does change throughout time, a drawing that is considered art today 100 years ago could have been a piece of junk and not considered art. One of the meanings of art in the video is that something has to be hand made in order to be considered art, I believe that are could be anything regardless if it is hand made or not. The barrel that was sold for $10,000 could have been a piece of trash to many but as said in the video it was considered art by the person that bought it. People want art to be something that they can have just so that they can own it but because a rainbow in the sky cannot be purchased many will not consider it to be art. I believe anything can be art as long as it is unique, I would consider a fossil put on display that was not hand made to be a work of art, and people enjoy observing these artworks.

   Reply
   1. 

      Joy Uba

      27 August 2016

      I agree with what you said that anything can be art. The person who bought the barrel for $10,000 considered it an art, but to me, I would just think that it is just a barrel. I think as long as there is a meaning to the person, then it could consider an art. I saw this picture on tumblr where it says, “The problem of art is.” I consider that picture an art and the content of it because it made me think. I reacted to this picture when my friend didn’t really have anything to say to the picture. Art is an expression and I agree that anything can be art as long as it is unique.

      Reply
   2. 

      Christian Gallo

      28 August 2016

      I agree with Daniel that fossils put together is art because people did put effort into building it. I also agree that not everyone considers the barrel a work of art. Everyone has a different opinion on what is art. Some might say that anything is art and others might say only man made things are art. I find it fascinating that art has many forms. For example, a drawings, sculptures, statues, technology, and many others things. People put effort into building and creating these things and that is what i consider man made art but there is also natures art like rainbows. I believe that art is also a way to express your emotions at that time.

      Reply
6. 

   jajamave

   27 August 2016

   I really like this kind of interaktive timelines. An other great example i can highly recomment is the website http://geacron.com/home-en/ that gives you a wonderful overview on the changes of political territorys between 3000 BCE and today.
   As for the Art History Timelime, the freemind software seems to be a great medium to capture the huge amount of time, art and its context. I’m looking very much forward to spend some time there digging for information. Thank you for the links!

   Reply
7. 

   selenalarablog

   27 August 2016

   I thought this video was very intriguing because of the way it defined art, that is something worked by a human hand. I find this definition to be very specific and limiting to what I would personally define art as. As long as I can remember I always thought art to anything beautiful and abstract. For example, I personally find the way that the summer winds blow on tress as an art because of the delicateness of nature. However, the video did illuminate how art changes overtime, what was junk 15 years ago can be tomorrows art piece that changes the life of an artist. After watching the video I got a little curious and googled, “art 100 years from now.” I clicked on images and I saw a ton of pictures of many of today’s trends including cellphones, computers, doc martins, and calculators covered in rust, mold and dirt. Those images did in fact highlight possible art pieces because they’re items that we use everyday and hold near and dear to our hearts. For example, today we see our cellphones as communication devices but 100 years from today, they could possibly be seen as ancient technological art pieces. It was also interesting to see and compare how those art pieces from the past including the stone and the interstellar plaque were a representation of the people in that point in time.

   Reply
   1. 

      Roxana Chavez

      27 August 2016

      In response to Selena’s comment I agree that this video showed how art changes overtime and how someone else’s junk can be turned in to an artist’s art. Similar to the saying ”another man’s trash is another man’s treasure”. You are right that 100 years from now people are going to view and see our pieces of technology, fashion trends, etc as a form of how we communicated and express ourselves through in an artist way. Its like for example my grandmother used a type writer to write her high school papers and we now see type writers as a unique way to see how older generations would write. Also many people from previous generations whenever they see some of there old technology they buy it and display it as art in their homes. Like my grandmother has a rotary dial phone that was from her era and displays it in her home as decor like art. And every time i see it I imagine on how it would of been to have used one of those. So it is interesting to see how our art will be seen to future generations.

      Reply
   2. 

      Alex Miramontes

      28 August 2016

      In response to Selena’s comment, I found it interesting how you mentioned that someone’s junk fifteen years ago could be tomorrows art piece. I completely agree with your comment because there are professions dedicated for studying ancient civilizations though materiel remains, such as archaeologist and anthropologist. There are historical museums that are dedicated to the discovery of these items, and they are displayed as art pieces. What I find most interesting is how the discovery of certain artifacts such as pots and pans from an ancient civilization is seen as art, but they were just items used on a daily basis by these civilizations. As you mentioned its interesting to think about how art would look 100 years from now, casual items that we use on a daily basis such as our cell phones, laptops, and tablets may be viewed as a piece of art by future generations. At this moment we may not view these items as art because we use them day to day, but eventually they will be seen as rare artifacts.

      Reply
   3. 

      Christopher Yuen

      28 August 2016

      I love the way you described your definition of what art is to you. I totally agree, I feel like art is determined one ones personal experiences and life. One person may feel like a barrel with bullet holes is art but it could be completely different to someone who grew up with a different background. I also feel like nature is a large model for what art is based on. To say something created by nature isn’t art is hard to believe for me. Trees, animals, us humans, and the elements themselves are cultivated masterpieces all in themselves.

      Reply
8. 

   Roxana Chavez

   27 August 2016

   The way I see art is interesting because what I may think is art others may not and thats okay because everyone sees the world and how they view art differently. For example my friends may think that kanye West is artist while other people may not. I did once define art as something that is crafted by the human hand, but as I grew up I began to define art differently. For example to be artist you do not necessary have to draw or paint you can consider art to be photographs, movies, fashion, almost anything that you consider as art. The pebble to me looked as if someone had drilled onto it to create a face. It was interesting to know that it was not in fact done by the human hand but by the years of nature. Which reminded me of a time when my family and I took a trip to Mexico, my family and I were hiking by a stream when my dad found volcanic rocks. We did research and found out that they were the remains of a volcano that had erupted in Parícutin in the year of 1943. My dad thought they were pretty neat so we brought them back home and ended up displaying them in our living room as decor. One day he asked us if we saw a face on the rock because it appeared as if it did. I examined it and did not seem to see the face my dad was saying he was seeing. It took me a while to later on see it, my younger brothers see something else but my dad and I see a face so its pretty neat. Since then that rock still displays in my living room and we consider it art. I agree with digging deeper in the earth is like time travel because the human kind has been able to find dinosaurs, old artifacts, and have discovered evidence that there has been civilizations from many years ago.

   Reply
   1. 

      Patricia Avendano

      28 August 2016

      Hi Roxana!
      I definitely agree with your first sentence that everyone sees the world differently and everyone views art differently. At first I believed that art has to be created by someone and found that Professor Zucman’s story about the sculptor who found the barrel and considered it art to be a bit confusing. But your example of your dad finding the volcanic rocks and placing them in your home as an art piece makes sense. Maybe art doesn’t necessarily have to be made my humans. Maybe it just has to mean something for the audience and evoke some kind of emotion. Art involves personal emotions and individual experiences. Since every one on this earth has very different experiences and thoughts, art is difficult to limit to a definition.

      Reply
   2. 

      johncrewsavage

      28 August 2016

      Hi Roxana!
      Your opening statement is very good because it is very true. Everyone has a different view of art because of how they view the world itself. This made me realize that the reason art is so subjective is because everyone lives a unique life which has different experiences that mold their views on everything in their life even art. You can even use your example of some of your friends consider Kanye West an artist and some don’t, and this shows that the experiences they’ve had have led them to not consider Mr. West an artist. With my own life experiences I also consider Kanye as an artist because I consider music ,no matter what type it is, to be a form of art.

      Reply
   3. 

      Evan Burton

      29 August 2016

      Roxana,
      I definitely agree that art does not have to come from human hands, since it is formed in nature all the time. If I were to see a stone proudly displayed as the centerpiece of anyone’s home, it would be assumed as an art piece regardless of its origin. This leads me to believe that the definition of art should be broadened to include natural objects. Most pieces of art draw their inspiration from the natural world, so if the reflection counts, why should the real deal not count? I understand that there must be some limit to what can be considered art, but the sources definitely need to be included. For example, the Grand Canyon is a wonderous natural landmark which attracts just as many tourists as the Mona Lisa. Just as sculpture is a human form of expression, the canyons were carved by millions of years of water making its way towards a final destination. Art is a universal language that encompasses more than just human participation in the natural world. It has existed far before humans and will exist far after us, but we are the only species to intentionally recognize it.

      Reply
9. 

   Alex Miramontes

   27 August 2016

   Through watching this video I realized how art does not have a definitive definition because art is subjective. The contrast found in the 3 million years of art history “before” and “beyond” is a prime example of how art is quite ambiguous. “Before” is a pebble that was worn down by water, while “beyond” is a plaque from a pioneer spacecraft. Although, these two items are quite different they both allude to a specific time frame, and demonstrate the progression in technology. As professor Zucman mentioned in the video, “art is something that is worked by a human hand.” However, this is just one of “art’s” denotations/connotations, because I find art to be more than what is worked by a human hand. I find daily living to be a form of art, at times our daily living may be mundane, but as humans we meticulously construct an image of “ourselves” for others to view. For instance, we express ourselves through our clothing, hairstyle, the way we react and behave, etc. It is almost as if daily living was a form of performance art. Therefore, something I was interested in researching was Egyptian fashion and how their style correlates with their daily lives. Egyptian fashion is typically associated with their intricate headdresses, and a particular headdress that I was intrigued by was the “khepres.” The “khepres” headdress was made of leather or cloth that was died blue, bedazzled with yellow sun disks, and had a uraeus in the front. I also discovered that Egyptians developed laws that prohibited slaves and servants, from wearing particular headdress, such as wigs. Through this research I discovered that art is not only a creative expression such as the “khepress,” but it is a form of expression that allows us to know more about the civilization and era it comes from.

   Reply
   1. 

      jajamave

      27 August 2016

      Hey Alex! I think the term ‘art’ is indeed very vague and always has to be seen in a cultural and also temporal context. The art term of the ancient Egyptians differs a lot from the art term of the european baroque which again is entirely different from what contemporary artist would define as art. So if we want to speak about a piece of art and discuss if it is indeed ‘art’ – we can’t do so without first agreeing on its context in time and space and the concluding definition of art.
      It is quite difficult to find any communality in all these definitions. The only one that I can come up with right now, is that art never seems to be a necessity but an addition of human live. But everybody be welcome to proof me otherwise!

      Reply
   2. 

      marysolj

      28 August 2016

      I definately agree, i believe that art has a very vague definition because of the fact that art can be absolutely anything. I think that art is whatever catches your eye and our life style is a prime example of it because we say and do a variety of things that can define ourselves. With clothing we define our style, with food we define and religion we may define our culture etc. In addition, I enjoy that fact that you researched Egyptian fashion because I learned something new not only about art but about another culture. I find it interesting how they prohibited slaves and servants from wearing head dresses thus, I assume they might have been a sign of power or higher class back in history. There goes to show how one can find art in anything!

      Reply
10. 

    Joy Uba

    27 August 2016

    Many people interpreted art differently. In the video, it said that art is something that is worked by a human hand. Many people think that anything created by a human is art – paintings, calligraphy, latte art, fashion, etc. This is true, but art can be something that does not have to be created by humans. I consider a lot of things art that are not created by humans, such as nature, and emotions. One example of nature is a famous hotspot in the Philippines called Chocolate Hills. These hills weren’t created by humans but it have sense of art in it. The view of it is amazing and from what I heard, it actually looks like chocolate powder on the hills. These hills are covered with green grass but it will turn brown like chocolate powder during dry seasons. I also consider emotion an art. Anything that triggers an emotion, reaction, and imagination, I would consider it art as well. Art is a very subjective, there is no right or wrong definition of it.

    Joy Uba

    Reply
    1. 

       yulitorres21

       27 August 2016

       I couldn’t agree more with you Joy! Art is practically anything we set our eyes on. The video did exemplify man made art work versus natural art pieces formed over time. However I view both to be art as long as it inspires the artist. Your research on the Chocolate Hills was fascinating to read, as I can only imagine the beauty brought out during the dry season in the Philippines, and the comments mentioned on its scenery.

       Reply
    2. 

       allisoncruz25

       28 August 2016

       I definitely agree- there is no right or wrong definition. It is like our first exercise that we did in class where we had to name a whole bunch of things that could be made into an art piece- some were cliche and some were just random and silly. The chocolate hills could be related to the beauty of looking out into the Grand Canyon and seeing all of the amazing colors or even just its “grand” state of being. Art and mother nature all create some sort of feeling in us- whether it is distaste, beauty, awe or disinterest.. its up the the viewer!

       Reply
    3. 

       aleahlomeli28

       28 August 2016

       Hi Joy! I also agree with you! I believe art doesn’t have to be hand made. I see art as a scenery and a visual in which we perceive it as. A simple sun set can be seen as art because many even paint nature! I think art cannot be defined specifically because it’s something that everyone views different. It is what the eye sees and the way we portray it.

       Reply
11. 

    yulitorres21

    27 August 2016

    This video interestingly well explained in briefly going over 3 million years of art history. I found fascinating that art has outlived the human race, leaving pieces of art work to be recognized. Art pieces constantly receive many opinions, wether or not the piece is really considered as art or not. I loved the example Professor Zucman presented, about an local sculpture finding a shooting barrel in the Mojave desert and taking the barrel to showcase it as his own art piece. This implicated the question whether the piece is to be considered art, since it was not intended to and he had no physical work done played into it. I believe that art is much more than man made. For example if a scenery of let’s say a sunset is painted onto a canvas. Can we not say the sunset that inspired us to paint it, is art? Art is everywhere!

    Reply
    1. 

       Andrew Nguyen

       28 August 2016

       Hi Yuli! I do agree with you that art could be more than man made. There is more to Art to than what is created by hands. I like what you said about inspiration. I really do agree that many people are inspired by art. Art is everywhere and people are constantly inspired by other works of art.

       Reply
    2. 

       Ana Maya

       29 August 2016

       Hi, Yuli! I agree with you completely! I too am surprised that art has outlived the human race. I always thought that only humans were capable for producing art (like music, paintings, poetry, etc.), but art is universal! Like you said, art is everywhere, even a sunset could be considered art.

       Reply
12. 

    Lydia Chang

    28 August 2016

    Whilst reading through comments and watching the video, the question “what is art?” seemed to have popped up numerous times. I would usually brush the question off with the answer “everything” or “it’s a subjective question, so there are many answers,” but after rethinking upon it, another question formed “what if art is a human-made conception/idea?” The reason I say this is because (bear with me, it makes sense in my head) humans see something they like (for instance, in the case of the sculptor who found the old barrel in the Mojave Desert) and call it art, whether it’s in fashion, music, or art; or they’ll create something — a building, sculpture, or a painting — and call it art. If we go by the definition that art is any activity or product made by humans in a visual form for aesthetic or communicative purposes, expressing ideas, emotions or, in general, a worldview, then nature or emotions would not count as art, even though they may inspire or provoke certain strong emotions.
    Throughout time, human civilization has created countless pieces that classify as art, while the conception of art has also continued to evolve. Now, people have become more open and more willing to accept even the simplest things as art (I remember reading many posts on where a random person would just put their glasses, or even their apple on the floor, and pretend it was art, only to find many other people flock around to take photos and appreciate the “art piece”). This supports that “art is a conception,” because daily things that people would normally pass as regular things are now being accepted as an object that serves some aesthetic purpose, reinforced through the idea that “it is in a gallery.”
    If we use nature as an example, one can say that because a sunset is beautiful or it evokes happiness, it is art. Going back to the definition, it would not count as art, as Professor Zucman said [regarding the rainbow example]. Why? Because it was something created by nature and I (call me biased) doubt that nature creates for the sake of art or to express itself, unlike man. Moreover, someone else might just see a sunset simply as the sun setting, while another may see it and call it art because it looks nice or it makes them feel warm inside (which reinforced the conception idea).
    But then again, this is just my opinion and art is, of course, a very broad and subjective topic.
    (I would like to formally apologize to anyone confused by this post.)

    Reply
    1. 

       Laura Lockett

       28 August 2016

       Lydia, I agree with you idea that “art is a conception” simply because one persons view of something could influence another persons view. For example, there have been many illustrations of someone having an art show and they put random normal items in the exhibit room as well and people believe that it is a part of their show and admire something that is so simple. Once one person notices this “piece of art”, many start to gather around it and try to make it creative and artistic in their view. Although everyone may have a different view of what they consider art, something like a apple would not normally be viewed as a marvelous piece of art just because it is sitting the gallery. I definitely agree with your post and after reading over it again i understood all that you said.

       Reply
13. 

    Patricia Avendano

    28 August 2016

    Art is definitely subjective, and very difficult to give a definite explanation. Art is such a vast topic and I believe that there is more to it than something that can be specifically explained with a few words. I do agree with Professor Zucman’s definition of art being “made by human hands.” It does make sense that for something to be considered art, it has to be created and it has to mean something to the creator. However, it’s not simply limited to human hands. For example, dance is an art. Dance choreography isn’t made with hands, but with the entire body. Same with singing, or any performing arts. Although the premise of the video’s definition of art is correct, it does not stop there. The important part is the creation.
    Furthermore, there’s a line between nature and art. Artists can be inspired by nature and create a painting, sculpture, song or choreography based on nature; what makes it art is the fact that it was created. On the other hand, if you consider yourself religious, then maybe nature and the world around us is art since it was created by God. Going back to the beginning of this post, this is what I mean about art being a vast and indefinable topic. There are so many possible loopholes that we can miss because each individual has their own artistic experiences. Three million years is a long time and art was interpreted in so many ways in those years, each almost differently every time.

    Reply
    1. 

       nataliesantanablog

       28 August 2016

       Hey Patricia! I thought you wrote a very good post and you made me think about things in a different way. I agree with you when you said that it is very difficult to give a definite explanation as to what art is. I also think that art is different to every single person so there is no way that there can be an answer as to what art is. I didn’t really agree with Professor Zucman’s definition of art being “made by human hands” because of the example he gave about the washing machine barrel, that was considered art so the definition does not apply to that. However, now that you mentioned it I thought it was a good point when you said that for it to be art it should be created and mean something to the creator. That made me second guess my opinion. I like how you brought up all the different kinds of art that there is. I honestly did not think of that. However, that also went against the definition that the professor mentioned because when it comes to singing or dancing, it is not created by human hands but it is considered an art. That brings me to a what I wrote in my post. An answer that I liked for the question what is art, is “Art is not a thing– it is a way.” I think that what it comes down to is the way you feel about whatever you are looking at.

       Reply
14. 

    johncrewsavage

    28 August 2016

    The video was very intriguing because of the ultimate question proposed which is what is art? or even can art be defined? With this question some people will answer yes art can be defined. They will say it is anything considered art, however there is a problem with that statement art is very subjective and since art can be art to one person and not to another that definition does not work. So this means you can not simply define art. There is another question in the video asked by Professor Zucman, which I found very interesting, is art just made only by human hands or can it be anything we as intellectual beings find appealing and worthy of our own definition/standards of art? In my personal opinion, I think that art is anything, whether man made or not, that sparks a sense of creativity in me and makes me feel an emotional connection or have an emotional response.

    Reply
    1. 

       amanateeseawarrior

       28 August 2016

       I agree I feel that art could be anything the is aesthetically pleasing to a person and makes them think. It also depends on the person because one person may love something and think it is beautiful while the person next to them does not like it at all. I also feel that art can be things that were not created by humans. However, I do like the definition given by Professor Zucman as a way to narrow things down.

       Reply
    2. 

       Shalane

       28 August 2016

       I found your last two sentences very interesting. You used the word ‘appealing’ in your comment. This is a key word also in my definition of art. For me, art is anything that appeals to the senses, whether it be made by a being, or simply selected by one. Through whichever senses an object appeals to, the audience experiences a connection to the piece. The nature of this connection may vary, but nonetheless, is still there.

       Reply
15. 

    stepharciva

    28 August 2016

    When asked the question, “What is art?” we try to set some definite parameters in order to define the word. After watching this video, I first thought I had a better understanding of art and could possibly try to better define it. But I found myself repeatedly thinking over the topic and I came to the conclusion that rather than helping me define art, this video allowed me to see a broader perspective of what art encompasses. The definition will always be evolving but the importance is not that we try to define something as art but learn to appreciate different forms of art. A large component that contributes to this ambiguity is that art is reflective of things like cultures, events, or experiences. There is no specific event that you can measure to be important enough to compare to art, but through appreciating art, I feel you will discover the importance of those different experiences. My favorite example encompassed the Australopithecus species with their water-worn pebble. This pebble reflected something to the Australopithecus, something compelling. We don’t necessarily have to understand the experience they had, but rather that they found something compelling in the piece. Okay so art makes you feel something, we established that. But I feel the larger significance of this all is why do we care? Well, we can see that art applies to everyone: historians, scientists, archeologists, the whole human species! We care because art is reflective of ourselves, and can help define our cultures, interests, and experiences that we appreciate and learn to value.

    Reply
16. 

    Laura Lockett

    28 August 2016

    Everyone has a different perception of what they consider to be a piece of artwork. For example, the barrel that was picked up and sold for $10,000 is a prime example that one persons trash could be another persons treasure. It also brought up the idea that the most famous pieces of art may not be the pieces with the most creativity but instead a piece that someone with power and money might consider beautiful. Professor Zucman mentioned that the barrel was sold because “someone with power and money was willing to acquire it”. That could be true for many art forms today, someone with power and money had an eye for a certain piece of art and if it is sold for a large amount of money others may become interested in that piece making it become more and more popular. Money is not what makes art but it can definitely take part in transforming how art in viewed and created to attract certain people. Technology has also transformed what is to be considered art. An example of art from technology is the structure called “petting zoo” where there as tubes hanging from the ceiling that react to your bodily movements and speech. Different interpretations of art cause for many forms to be created.

    Reply
    1. 

       Andrew Nguyen

       28 August 2016

       Hi Laura! I definitely agree on your assertions about art. I feel that art is so subjective and many people view things differently from one another so in a sense art is versatile and could really attract different crowds of people. In addition I definitely do agree that money could influence how art is portrayed depending on what kind of platform is might be displayed from. However, one thing I feel that money can’t really influence is the opinions of how people might view the art.

       Reply
    2. 

       Raylyn Diep

       28 August 2016

       I definitely agree with you, Laura, that everyone has a different perception of what they consider to be a piece of artwork. One piece of artwork could trigger a memory or experience in someone and nothing in another person. That person could look at another piece of artwork and find it meaningful and think that there is some kind of message behind it. I also agree with you mentioning that money is not what makes art. Money is only there to draw attention from other people. I can see that we have so many different forms of art today due to the different views and perspectives a person has about art.

       Reply
    3. 

       dannyvel23

       28 August 2016

       I definitely agree with your thoughts on art. I also believe that someones trash could mean so much to someone else. Money does not make art but shows that someone appreciates the artwork more than others by the amount of money they are willing to spend. My personal meaning of art is anything that can be appreciated.

       Reply
17. 

    Andrew Nguyen

    28 August 2016

    Art is something that could be expressed in many different forms. In the video we take a journey through the different types of era and genres of art. Art transforms from year to year, and there is always something new to be amazed about. I love how art is subjective and there could be many perceptions of art. Art to me could be expressed freely in many different types of medias and forms. According to Professor Zucman art could be defined as something created with human hands. However, I think although this is true art could also be expressed beyond that. We see art in many different forms through literature, fashion, design, and photography. In the video there was a barrel that was purchased for $10,000 dollars because someone found that art piece aesthetically pleasing; however, in my eyes it is something I would not appreciate as much. And that is the one thing I really find admirable about art there are different perceptions and opinions about art. One person might find something beautiful and the next person might disagree, but I like how there is a common ground for expression with no wrong answers.

    Reply
18. 

    Raylyn Diep

    28 August 2016

    In my definition, i think art is something that a person finds aesthetically pleasing and meaningful. When a person looks at a piece of artwork, it may trigger some kind of feeling or thought in them just like your sculptor friend who discovered a barrel of a washing machine shot full of holes. The hollywood producer just simply thought it was pleasing and decided to take it. Some people might have also thought the art piece was pleasing, but there are others who might think differently. I found this video very interesting as you talked about the timeline and how it was read from bottom to top. When you talked about the story behind the stone, it really shows that a person would go far for something that pleases them. The person found the stone to be so meaningful and pleasing to his eye that the person was even willing to walk 20 miles while carrying it and ultimately leaving it in the cave.

    Reply
    1. 

       Jacqueline Sanchez

       28 August 2016

       Hello Raylyn! I agree with what you said about art being different for different individuals. The fact that one person can look at the same piece of art and have two completely different reactions and/or emotions towards it comes to show how difficult art is to define. It does not have a clear cut definition and is instead more of a feeling/thought about/towards something.
       It almost seems like art is more about individual opinions/feelings/meanings than it is about the piece itself.

       Reply
    2. 

       irepbrian

       28 August 2016

       Raylyn,

       I totally agree on the point that art is something that is aesthetically pleasing to someone. I think that art is something that catches someone’s mind or eyes. The interesting part that you also pointed out that it may be aesthetically pleasing pleasing for one person, however, it may not be for another person. I think that everyone perceives different things depending on what they have been exposed to. I also thought that I was interesting that the timeline was presented from bottom to top. Lastly, I never really thought about the fact that people were going out of their way to get these art pieces that they liked. The stone one was a good example because the stone was carried around 20 miles, which is absurd. Along with that, the movie producer went out of his way to pay $10,000 for something that was merely left out in the desert. Thank you for sharing your thoughts though!

       Reply
    3. 

       bryaan821

       28 August 2016

       In response to Raylyn’s comment, I would agree with that. There are just so many ways one can interpret art and the feelings that it can evoke. Since mostly everyone has a different view of an art piece and whether they consider it art, there isn’t a clear answer to define art. I would say art is seen through perspective. Someone could think that’s the greatest thing in the world, but to another individual it would just be an ordinary sunset (if that were the example). Who knows as we progress in this class, our perspective might change of that.

       Reply
19. 

    Jacqueline Sanchez

    28 August 2016

    I found this video very interesting because it made me rethink the way I initially defined art. I never thought art could occur naturally, and instead was something that had to be created intentionally. After this video, I believe that art can be created unintentionally and even by something non-human, like nature/time, however, it would only be considered art if someone attaches a connection to it (whether it be an emotional connection or attached meaning etc.).
    This makes the definition of art even more subjective.

    Reply
    1. 

       JonathanGirgis

       28 August 2016

       Yeah I figured that for most cases, “art” would be man-made. I mean if something is art usually there’s an artist behind it, right? Like Da Vinci or Mozart, for example. Well who would be the artist if nature is art? God? That becomes another subjective issue and one that is debatable. Nevertheless, I think it can be hard to look at nature and not say it’s art. Some landscapes and geography can be breathtaking.

       Reply
20. 

    amanateeseawarrior

    28 August 2016

    I like the idea that art is something made by people. It seems ridiculous that a washing machine barrel that was found in the middle of no where was sold for $10,000. I feel like if the person who purchased that had seen it out in the middle of nowhere then he would have just though of it as trash, but because an artist put it in a gallery they assumed it had some deeper meaning. As humans we are very influential and tend to believe the things we are told. To me that barrel is just something found on the side of the road that probably looked really cool. I understand why the artist took the barrel and why the Australopithecus probably took the rock. The rock was interesting looking and had an aesthetic value. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and to someone else the rock is just a rock and the washing machine barrel is trash. It is a shame that if Earth were to cease to exist that all there would be of us was that one drawing of the man, women, stars, planets, and hydrogen molecule. That does not do humans justice it is plain and simple. There should be more color to represent the beauty of this world.

    Reply
    1. 

       Lukas Fuentes

       28 August 2016

       HELLO! I agree with almost everything you said. I think it would be interesting to hear from the guy who bought the washing machine shot full of holes on why he actually bought it. I know I personally would’ve saw it in an art gallery and thought, “hmm.. kinda cool but basically garbage”. But, of course, that’s just me. Obviously others see it differently. I am just very curious as to what those other perspectives are and have them explained to me. I can totally relate to the Australopithecus taking the rock though. I’ve definitely have seen interesting rocks before and wanted to take them home with me due to their unique aesthetics. I see your point about the drawing that we included in the space object. It absolutely does not give a fair representation of the beauty of our species and our planet. However, I think it perfectly serves the function it was made to do, which is to potentially introduce the human species to another intelligent life-form somewhere else in the cosmos and accurately define where they can find us the in universe while being as succinct as possible to fit it onto a single frame of something.

       Reply
21. 

    Jasmine Figueroa

    28 August 2016

    I found it interesting how art has existed for as long as humans have been around, documenting our earliest experiences and allowing future generations to catch a glimpse of what life was like and what things were important to us. Art can be used to tell a story of human experience, just as with the barrel. Although not created with the intention of being considered an artistic piece, there is an interesting aspect in that behind each bullet hole, there is a story as to who made it, where they came from, and how the barrel and it’s qualities were interpreted by the person who purchased it. To me, art is something that can be used to tell a story of experience and what we prioritize, as well as what we find beautiful for whatever reasons. Maybe we simply find something aesthetically pleasing, or maybe our interpretation of it goes deeper into our personal human experience. Although we can find beauty in many things, it is more likely that we find something pleasing when it speaks to us in terms of what we prioritize, or what we can identify with.

    Reply
    1. 

       Linda Nguyen

       28 August 2016

       Hi Jasmine,
       I agree with your point that art can be used to tell a story of human experience. It reminds me to an art piece I learned about in one of my past classes. It’s called “La Guernica” by Pablo Picasso and it tells a story about how Picasso felt after the bombing of Guernica. When I saw the piece without knowing its background story, it gave me a feeling of agony, pain, and darkness and by learning the story behind it, everything clicked together and I was given a glimpse of the agony and pain that was felt by those personally and or emotionally affected by the tragic bombing of Guernica. And while Picasso’s piece was made intentionally and the barrel was not, both are considered art which is what makes art such an interesting and hard to define subject because there are so many possibilities of what art can be.

       Reply
22. 

    Linda Nguyen

    28 August 2016

    I found this video very interesting as it quickly and clearly explains art history over a span of 3 million years. In my opinion, when it comes the question of “what is art?”, I believe its all depends and is subjective to the viewer/admirer themselves. Professor Zucman mentioned that on way to define art is “something made by the human hand” but I don’t think that art has to be something made by the human hand. I think nature itself, like sunsets/sunrises, rainy days, and rainbows can be art as well because art (in my opinion) causes certain emotions in people and makes them feel a certain way. For example, watching the sunset can give a person the feeling of serenity and warmth and the day comes to a close and the sunrise can give a person the feeling of happiness and hope as the day starts anew. Of course, some people might not share the same feelings or consider it at all and that is what makes art so different and interesting—its completely subjective and there isn’t really such a thing as a wrong answer/interpretation.

    Reply
    1. 

       Jasmine Figueroa

       28 August 2016

       Hi Linda! I agree with what you said about how art is subjective in terms of how it makes the person feel, considered that what may be comforting and pleasant to one person, may not be the same for another. I definitely think that art can carry different meanings for different people, and that a piece is valued by each individual’s personal tastes. Not everyone is going to view everything the same way, and we all have individual backgrounds that may cause us to place higher values on certain things as opposed to others.

       Reply
23. 

    samueldelacruzblog

    28 August 2016

    I found this video to be interesting because it shows you how far from the beginning to end of documented art is. It is interesting that the oldest piece of art found was a rock that is 3 million years old, it was carved by nature but was moved from its original location to twenty miles away. This proves that art can come in many forms and does not have to be man made in order to touch someone emotionally. A good example given in the video of non-man made art is the rainbow. Although it is created by nature many people love the site of a rainbow because it is beautiful and can touch people emotionally. There are many places in the World that nature has carved out its own master pieces and they can be in the forms of waterfalls, beaches with amazing coral reefs, caves with crystals inside, and many more to list. These places can be very soothing and create environments for people that they can enjoy themselves and create emotional memories they will never forget. In the same way a man made art piece can bring out the emotions, amazement, and awe from the object created. Any art form whether man made or not, “the beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and the person themselves will give the value of this art item and it can be different for every individual.

    Reply
    1. 

       Nhi Truong

       28 August 2016

       Hi samueldelacruzblog, I agree with your statement about how art can come in a variety of forms and does not have to be man made. I believe that nature is a type of artwork that has not been touched by man, only time. Art is art because it evokes some kind of emotion from its viewer. It gives you something to feel, something to think about, something to wonder. I also like what you said about how “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, because it is true. Art is subjective to each and every person. Anything can become art, as long as a person puts value into it.

       Reply
24. 

    juanfvasquez

    28 August 2016

    The video definitely made me think more about what I consider art because I feel that things found in nature can definitely be seen as art but it’s not man made. There are many things that you can find beautiful that aren’t man made and would be difficult to state that it is not art. On the other hand I wouldn’t consider everything that mad has made to be considered art either. The act of creating something on purpose alone doesn’t entitle the object to be called art. If someone had programmed a computer to draw random images based on randomly generated numbers I would not want to call that art, even if the result was indeed extraordinary. I would only consider the latter art if the individual used the computer and knowingly made an image by any means through some thought he meant to project. Above all though art is very subjective and can lead to different opinions and views on any object and as such oneself must stay open to different views to try and grasp any understanding of what they are seeing.

    Reply
    1. 

       lozano1021

       28 August 2016

       I completely agree juanfvasquez art is definitely subjective and open to interpretations. As i mentioned in my previous comment, i believe that nature is a work of art in itself. For example the grand canyon, the forests, the beaches, the waterfalls, its blossoming flowers and trees; everywhere that one may look they can find beauty. And isn’t that what art is meant to do, to arise emotions from its viewers?
       And though I agree with you next comment about the computer generated numbers not being art, I can’t help to think that for other people it is considered art. Just as nature is considered art to us; even though it is not man made.

       Reply
    2. 

       miisstinatrn

       28 August 2016

       Hey Juan! I agree with you that all things man-made can be considered art and that the term “art” would be considered if the “artist” had made the piece with an intention to project some kind of meaning to the audience through the piece. Art is definitely a subject open for people’s interpretation and even poor painting or a household item can be considered art by various people. It is up to people’s interpretation of what they consider to be a form of art and whether or not it may cause them to feel a certain emotion. I do have to point out that even though nature is not man-made, it is still a valuable asset to traditional and modern art. Many forms of art since prehistoric times have been based on the inspiration found in nature, and truly without nature, what is considered art today would be totally different.

       Reply
25. 

    lozano1021

    28 August 2016

    I found this video to be a bit mind blowing. There is so many slices in time and in those slices new techniques were developed to create art. For example, the indigenous people used seashells to decorate their clothing and also used difffrent raw materials found in nature to dye their clothing. They used objects to make their clothing look more appealing and giving it a different meaning. Going deeper in the example, the indigenous people who had more beads in their clothing meant that they were better off. That is what came to mind with the example Professor Glen’s gave about the barrel being sold to the movie producer. People want to acquire beautiful things, they want to be able to own it and be able to continuously look at it.
    Also what stood out to me about the video was the definition of art. If in order to consider something art, does it have to be man made? Me being a nature junkie, every time i go hiking and see nature, i consider it to be a work of art. Mother nature has created these trees that shed their leaves and turn different colors as the seasons change, when you observe it with an open mind you see this amazing scenery. In my opinion just because it is not a man made work of art, does it take away the breath taking aspect of it.

    Reply
    1. 

       Marcelo Ceballos Jr.

       28 August 2016

       Hey lozano1021! I totally agree that there is a deeper meaning to the art. I do however feel that people don’t necessarily want to acquire beautiful things and look at them. If they do that too much, they will have a big pile of art that’s to messy to even look at. I think the real reason why people are willing to spend so much money on a piece of art is that they want to experience whatever sensation they feel when they look at the piece of art. Whether it be a good or bad sensation, I think the art acts as a sort of trigger or reminder of that sensation. In a way they are buying an emotion that they can hang in their home and refer to when they want or need to. I also agree with you that nature can and does act as an artist. Nature takes its time to evolve its creations into pieces of true beauty just as human artists have refined their craft over the years. Thanks for sharing your insights and glad to hear you’re a nature junkie!

       Reply
26. 

    lozano1021

    28 August 2016

    I completely agree juanfvasquez art is definitely subjective and open to interpretations. As i mentioned in my previous comment, i believe that nature is a work of art in itself. For example the grand canyon, the forests, the beaches, the waterfalls, its blossoming flowers and trees; everywhere that one may look they can find beauty. And isn’t that what art is meant to do, to arise emotions from its viewers?
    And though I agree with you next comment about the computer generated numbers not being art, I can’t help to think that for other people it is considered art. Just as nature is considered art to us; even though it is not man made.

    Reply
27. 

    Nhi Truong

    28 August 2016

    This video was very interesting to me because it explained the simple question of “what is art”. In the video, art is defined as something that is worked on by human hands. However, art can be defined differently by different people. For me, I believe art is something created that evokes some kind of emotion from a person. For example, although the Grand Canyon isn’t made by human hands, I would still consider it art because it evokes strong, intense emotions, such as awe, wonder, amazement, etc. It is amazing how art begins to differentiate itself as the years go by. I noticed that there was a correlation between art and technology; as technology begins to become more advanced, the art itself changes. Of course, there are exceptions to my statement. The most important thing that I got out of this video was that art is different to most people. What one sees as trash, another person sees as art. To me, paying 10,000 dollars for a barrel that has bullet holes in it would be absurd. However, another person might see value in that piece and would be even willing enough to pay money for to obtain it.

    Reply
    1. 

       kayaquarles

       28 August 2016

       Hi Nhi! I agree with what you said about “what is art?” Art is something that stirs a reaction from someone whether or not it was man made or natural. Many people travel to the Grand Canyon to sight see not because it is a boring place to go, but because it is cool and it’s basically art. This is similar to these hills in Kauai, Hawaii. As you are driving towards the north shore, there is this giant hill referred to as the “Sleeping Giant” because if you look close enough it looks like the outline of a giant head, and this hill definitely wasn’t man made! So basically my story just further emphasized the fact you pointed out which was that nature can be considered art as well. I never really thought about the fact that as technology advances art changes..good observation!

       Reply
    2. 

       adrianhasalife

       28 August 2016

       Hello Nhi and Kaya, I agree with you both that something can be considered as an art piece if it causes an emotional awe to it. I just want to add that I think a part of that awe has to do with the fact that it took time to create such a masterpiece like the Grand Canyon, regardless if it was manmade or not, and of course its beauty. When Nhi mentions that a piece of trash can be seen as art by another person, reminds me of the phrase, One man’s trash is another man’s treasure and I think thats how art is seen. Yea in the end the answer to the question of whether you consider something an art piece is just your opinion and nothing more.

       Reply
    3. 

       maritessanne

       28 August 2016

       I completely agree with your definition of art. In my comment, I had defined art in an extremely similar way. I also agree that things, not manmade, can also be a work of art. Erosion for example, is like nature’s way of creating its own art. Art really does take such different forms as time goes by. 3 million years worth of art, and here we are today. It is crazy how someone can look at something and think it is trash, yet someone else can look at it and think it is treasure. Perspective plays one of the biggest roles in art, I feel like. How one person sees something defines what it is to them. There is no definite answer when it comes to art. A barrel can be useless to one person, yet brilliant to another. Although I am sure there are many others that feel the same way about how we look at art, I am glad we shared the same opinion/definition.

       Reply
28. 

    abigaildmanuel

    28 August 2016

    This video actually made me rethink a lot about what I think art is. To be honest, the question hasn’t ever really crossed my mind too much. I’ve always recognized art as the obvious sculptures and paintings that you find inside any museum today as art, but never did I really think about it in such a way that art can be in anything. Even before watching the entire video, the question “What is art?” kind of gnawed at me the entire time. I would say that art is anything that you see that makes you feel something. Any object, any scene that you lay your eyes on that you feel an automatic connection with. Although I do love the definitiveness of the rule of thumb that Professor Zucman offered in the video when he said that art could be anything that has been worked by human hands, I believe that art doesn’t and shouldn’t really have hard rules or boundaries as to what is and isn’t art. I feel like art is very personal, as every different person defines art in different ways and sees art in different things, such as the sculptor and movie producer seeing art in the barrel. Art is everywhere, you kind of just have to decide what it is.

    Reply
    1. 

       Carlos Villicana

       28 August 2016

       I like that last bit you included about us having to decide what art is. I think that is a really great way to help us define art. Though defining art with one definition would feel restrictive, it ends up not being so in this case because it says that art can be open to anyone’s interpretation. I find that art is incredibly personal because, like you said, we define what it is to us. I feel like art is so personal that we can actually learn about other people based on what they consider to be art.

       Reply
29. 

    Lukas Fuentes

    28 August 2016

    This video really puts things in perspective! As a lover of space and someone who is awe-struck by all that lies beyond our planet, I was surprised to hear about the four objects we’ve flung into space, mostly because that’s insanely cool and I can’t believe I didn’t know about this! Also, I love the drawing/art that was included in the earliest of these objects we flung into space. It so elegantly and succinctly explains the level of intelligence of our race and exactly where you can find our home planet, Earth. Hopefully, a friendly intelligent alien race finds it before we all go extinct! Anyways, I also find it fascinating that 3 million years ago there may have been a species on our planet that was able to appreciate art in much the same way that we do. This literally means that art has been around for at least that long! I can’t even begin to fathom all the different works of art that have come to be between then and now. Glenn’s story about the washing machine that got shot full of holes reminds me of one I heard about a well-known artist, at least I was told he is well-known but unfortunately I don’t remember his name. The story was that this artist found an old toilet somewhere, took it and placed it on its side in an art gallery and slapped his name on it. Sure enough, he sold the piece for $100,000 dollars. His point? It is his name that is selling the “art” not the art itself. Sure, this story may be totally false, but let’s assume its true. Do you really think that it was his name that sold this piece or could there be something more to this sideways toilet? I’m interested to see what you guys think.

    Reply
    1. 

       amysongblog

       28 August 2016

       Hi Lucas! I am also always amazed to hear about space and am always awed when I think about what could be out there and the vastness of space. To answer your question about the artist’s sideways toilet, I think that the toilet could possibly be considered a piece of art. I personally think art is subjective and my definition of art is something that makes someone feel something. By this definition, it is very possible that this toilet could have caused someone to feel something and thus could be considered art. Although I can also see why people would question if this piece should be considered art or not. In essence this piece is just an old toilet placed sideways. Some may think that because this piece is by a famous artist then it must be art. So I guess it really depends on who is appreciating the piece. Again, this ties back to art being subjective.

       Reply
    2. 

       Nick Lemmerman

       28 August 2016

       Hello Lucas! I agree that the basic little sketch of humans and earth easily, but elegantly, tells the story of the probe’s origin, and where the beings who created it are in the universe. I also agree that it’s almost baffling that art has been around longer than humans have; other beings and species were able to see an object, formed over several years entirely by nature, as something aesthetically pleasing and therefore valuable to them because of the feeling it gave them. Also, interesting story regarding the toilet. Maybe it’s not supposed to be taken as entirely true–maybe it’s a metaphor of some kind regarding how literal crap can be bought for a ton of money just because of the name…maybe? Not sure, but that sounds pretty metaphorical. It’s also entirely possible that someone just really liked that toilet and paid as much as they could for it.

       Reply
30. 

    allisoncruz25

    28 August 2016

    This video really made me think and made me reconsider what is really art, not only to me but to others as well. Not only that, but this video brought up questions of how art comes to be. Before watching the rest of the video, I believed that the definition of art that Prof. Zucman gives us at the beginning was correct. After, I believe that art is considered to be many things. What I think is that, what is considered art always has a story behind it- a reason why it is sitting in front of us, the audience, to view. Who is to say that nature that created the oxidation- copper, brown color on the barrel is not art? Or that the pebble created by nature- the water and erosion over time, is not art? It was considered valuable. Someone was pleased enough to take and keep it. Maybe the person who bought the barrel saw the beauty its end state, after all the shots and discoloration. The art could be in the story of how it came to be and we are just viewing the end representation of that story. All in all- art is very subjective. The fact that art has been created, evolved and changed over the millions of years and more to come is amazing. It is amazing to think of all the people who have contributed to the art world in-between “before” and “beyond” periods. I therefore have to give credit to the supporters, viewers and analyzers with many different aesthetics who have helped shape this world as well. Without these people, the art world would be very static. It is great to have classes to discuss these kinds of topics.

    Reply
31. 

    Marcelo Ceballos Jr.

    28 August 2016

    The video was pretty amazing to me because I learned about things that I had never even thought about in my life. I never realized art had been around for so long. 40,000 year old art is insane! Even if this ancient art was not created by humans I think it should still be considered art because it was created over time in a process. Just like the natural world, art is developed over time and is evolving. I think that is a reason why art can be so many different things to different people, because it is alive and it continues to evolve.
    In regards to the barrel that was sold for $10,000 I feel that the buyer had a good reason for buying the piece. I believe that the buyer truly felt moved by the piece that is the reason that they spent so much money for what is pretty much trash. I say this because of an episode in the new Daredevil series. In the series the villain purchases a very expensive white painting. While you are watching it doesn’t make any sense as to why he would buy what is essentially a canvas with white paint splashed on it. Later on though, you find out that the painting has a much deeper meaning to the villain because it connected him to a moment in his past. I feel that this really exemplifies the different perspectives people have towards art and the world around them. We forget sometimes that people are all very unique and something that means a lot to you, may not mean anything to someone else.

    Reply
    1. 

       demikong

       28 August 2016

       Hi Marcelo! I agree with you in that 40,000 years of old art is absolutely insane! The current world is so involved in the present world that we forget to recognize the past so it is easy to forget how old the earth is, humans are, and how long art has been around. I agree that the buyer who bought the $10,000 barrel felt a deep connection to the piece so he wanted it for himself, otherwise I don’t know if he would drop that much money on what some may consider “junk” or “trash.” On the other hand, I also think that art buyers do not have to have a deep connection to a piece or be moved by it. They may simply just be rich and want to buy something to perhaps support the artist. Of course we’ll probably never know why the buyer bought the barrel, but I would like to believe that it is because of the former reason rather than the latter. Art is truly unique because it caters to different perspectives just like you have stated. Everyone’s mind works differently and processes in ways that may not be coherent to certain individuals.

       Reply
    2. 

       dschmitz137

       28 August 2016

       Yoyoyo Marky Mark! I thought the video was pretty cool too. I don’t really understand what you mean by “even if this ancient art was not created by humans”. Like aliens or something? That’s cool I guess. http://i.imgur.com/HkPOzEH.jpg?1?fb

       But yea anyway I totally agree that art is an ever-evolving specimen, just like the rest of this massive world we live in. I’ve never watched Daredevil so that reference went way over my head, but you explained the situation pretty well. It seems to me like you’re saying that art gets its value from the people who appreciate it. One person might only pay $1 for painted rock, whereas another might think it’s awesome because it reminds them of their childhood and be willing to pay $1000 for it.

       Reply
32. 

    irepbrian

    28 August 2016

    The video was interesting. It brought up a controversial topic with great examples. The first interesting fact that popped into my mind was the fact that the art history was ordered with the newest on top, however, it made sense when the example with McDonalds was provided. After that, the red jasporite was presented. It was an interesting fact that the human race is 40 thousand years old with the pebble being 3 million years ago. It was stated that art has a different definition by different people for different things. The common definition that people could go for would be that art is something that is worked on by a human hand. I would personally disagree with that just because I feel like nature is art. The sunset, sunrise, mountains, and the Grand Canyon. These are just common examples of things that I, like many other people, consider to be art. Another example that was brought up was the rainbow. The rainbow is naturally created, not by a human being. For me personally, a rainbow would be art. It doesn’t make sense to me that a painting of a rainbow would be art, however, the actually rainbow itself is not. The example provided after that was concerning the barrel with multiple gun-shot holes. I would argue that the barrel would be a piece of art because it was molded by gunshot wounds completed by human beings. Along with that, since I consider it an art and Mr. Zucman stated that the barrel was just picked up by the sculptor, he didn’t really complete it. I totally agree that he didn’t complete it, but another artist did, and therefore he was stealing someone else’s artwork. Overall, it made me solidify my stance on what is art and what isn’t.

    Reply
    1. 

       Cynee

       28 August 2016

       Hello!
       I totally agree on the whole idea of “why is this an art form, but the other one isn’t?”. For me, nature is one of the biggest stages for art. It has the ability to inspire and to create, yet not many recognize it as a form of art. I wouldn’t agree to disagree about your stance on the mentioned artist stealing art however. I say this because, no one really claimed the barrel full of bullets to be necessarily their property. As the professor mentioned, the artwork originally was something that the artist put value in when he decided to put it on display. I agree that he didn’t make it himself. Yet the value he gave it, essentially made the idea his. So, it’s safe to say that he did have a part and a right to say that he can sell his idea. No one took a second look at it, so why couldn’t he claim someone else’s trash as his?

       Reply
33. 

    maritessanne

    28 August 2016

    Something that intrigued me about the video was when Professor Zucman said that one of the many definitions of art was “something that is worked by a human hand”. For example, how a rainbow isn’t art but someone making a painting or drawing a rainbow is art. Art is such an abstract thing, so to give it just one definition is quite subjective. To each, their own with the definition of art. Personally, I think art is anything that makes you feel some sort of way about it. So going back to the rainbow example, someone can look at a rainbow and think that it is nature’s art because it makes them feel happy or loved or some other type of emotion. A drawing or painting or any other manmade form of a rainbow could also make someone feel a certain way and would thus be considered art to them.

    The “bookends” of art history was very interesting. I have never been one to really look into the history of art, so I was glad to be given this opportunity. Documenting the history of art and having elements of art from millions of years ago is so crazy to me. A quick little thought I had during this video was that art is something we have proof of. There are artifacts from long ago to prove that it was created. I am a science major and sometimes I ask myself, how much of all that I am learning is true if a lot of what I am learning are just theories. But back to the video, the McDonalds version of strata gave a different, easy perspective of how the earth and its many layers was. Digging down earth’s layers and viewing it as time traveling was also something I have never thought of before. Digging down earth’s layers truly is time traveling because the farther down you go in layers, the further back in time you are. This video broadened my definition of art as well as helped me view certain aspects of life in different ways.

    Reply
34. 

    JonathanGirgis

    28 August 2016

    I loved how this video discussed the “Beyond” part of Art History, which seems ironic at first given we are talking about history. Nevertheless, it was really interesting. There are man-made spacecraft orbiting the Earth. That’s not unheard of. But the very fact that they actually contain art pieces in case humanity is erased as a way to “document” our existence is fascinating. The first thing that came to mind is what it would be like to stumble upon the artwork in the video of the male/female, planets, etc. as some kind of alien. Or even interacting with the spacecraft, trying to figure out what it is. It’s just weird to think about. I also liked the story of the sculptor in Los Angeles who found the laundry machine barrel in the desert. I think most people, myself included, would not find anything special about it. It would just seem like a piece of junk. But to this guy it was different, and unique enough to be displayed to others and even sold. While the sculptor didn’t really do much other than pick up the barrel it shows you can find art in the most random, unexpected place.

    Reply
35. 

    nataliesantanablog

    28 August 2016

    I found this weeks video interesting and I liked how there is a timeline of the art history and little by little we are given facts about each part of it. The question mentioned, is one that is very difficult to answer and that was What is art? He mentioned that there are many different definitions as to what art is but the definition he gave us was that art is something that is worked by human hands. It confused me a bit because the washing machine barrel that the sculptor found was considered art, yet he or no one actually made it. Therefore, I do not think that definition is the best definition to use to answer the question. When I first saw the picture of the pebble I immediately considered that a piece of art, however if we go by the definition that art is something made by human hands then this piece will not qualify as art which in my opinion is unfair. I looked up the question what is art and there were many answers given. An answer that caught my attention was “Art is not a thing– it is a way”. The way I interpret this makes it the best answer in my opinion because I believe everyone has a different definition as to what art is and what it comes down to is the way you feel about whatever it is that you are seeing.

    Reply
36. 

    demikong

    28 August 2016

    First of all, the Art History Timeline is so cool! It seems like it would be endless clicking for hours to explore and learn about art. Secondly, this video truly embodies the idea that art is subjective. Everything is about perspective and individual aesthetics. What one person may see as art, another may not. A fellow classmate I knew in high school once told me he considered math an art. I was confused at first and wanted to know more so he told me that in math, everything has it’s place and belongs somewhere. You have to do things a certain way to get the final product and to him that was art. When he told me that it really changed my perspective on art. I also think that art does not have to be a man-made creation. I think that if it is then it is definitely art, but there are simple things in nature such as a rainbow or sunset that may be considered art. Art can also be utilized to express yourself and maybe one day you feel like a rainbow describes you perfectly so you use that rainbow you see to embody yourself. No one can deny or validate your definition of art because it is all about what you think.

    Reply
37. 

    Christopher Yuen

    28 August 2016

    I find this video very thought provoking as it gives you a larger perspective of how far our human race has come through these millions of years with art. The question “what is art” is such a subjective question because almost anything in todays world could potentially be considered art by at least one person in the world. Regarding nature and how it can’t be considered art, I would have to disagree with that statement because I feel like nature is also a major part in creating the images and inspirations that humans create things out of. We were born into this world and immediately we are exposed to so many beautiful visuals created by nature and I feel like that is where art is born, first coming through nature. As with the timeline, I feel like it is a profound amount of time to take in, knowing that art has been expressed throughout the world for such a long period of time further reinforces my idea that art is truly a way of how humans behave, almost like it is an essential part of being a human.

    Reply
    1. 

       andyybui

       28 August 2016

       Hi Christopher,
       I agree with you that nature should be considered art. You are right about how it gives inspiration to us humans. Almost everything we design has aspects that can be seen in nature. I feel that without nature, we wouldn’t have been able to fabricate anything that is man made today. When we design curves, they can possibly be found in natural occurrences such as waves, or maybe bends in a stream. Every piece of art is unique in it’s own way, so I feel that nature should be considered art since everything created in nature has special characteristics of its own. So it makes sense that the red jasperite pebble was the first piece of art on the timeline and for a human drawing to be the very last.

       Reply
38. 

    Esmeray Lopez

    28 August 2016

    This video was very very interesting! It made me think and really go into depth of what really is art.
    “Art is different things to different people” This sentence really stood out to me in the video because it really is. I don’t think art can be defined into one solid definition because it is a universal thing. Art depends on a persons perspective but we all know that art existent and it is a beautiful thing. Art dates back to the beginning of the human race and it’s evolved and evolved over time and even though it may seem meaningless to some ancient art holds value in time. At first the video had me a bit confused but as soon as I saw the pebble that is 3 million years old I was a bit mind blown like WAIT WHAT. This was an awesome video and I not only enjoyed it but I also learned a thing or two.

    Reply
39. 

    Briana G

    28 August 2016

    This video really made me question whether art is solely the act of creating or putting together a piece or also the ability to observe and analyze anything, really, and find its uniqueness and beauty. I agree that many people today would not see that rock and think of it as a piece of art; however, I think it takes a creative eye and open mind to be able to understand how this specific rock is different from any other. How it was made is another factor that makes it interesting. Whether or not it was created for the purpose of art and entertainment, I am sure that some people still might be fascinated by it because they have a creative eye. It’s like they saying, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, but in this case art. I wouldn’t call myself artistic or creative but that’s my take on the topic. The way people interpret art has much to do with the way they themselves feel or view the subject.

    Reply
    1. 

       Yonathan Sahle

       28 August 2016

       I think you bring up a great point! The way people interpret art has very much to do with the way they feel or view the subject. On top of that, I believe that peoples way of interpreting art can be a reflection of their lives and their personal experiences. Their Interpretations can also be a desire. Art truly can be whatever the viewer sees the particular piece as. I also believe that what a person is going through at a certain time can also highly effect how they view things including art.

       Reply
40. 

    dschmitz137

    28 August 2016

    This video was super eye-opening. To be honest I’m not a very creative/artistic kind of person, so when I think of art my mind immediately jumps straight to the Mona Lisa and the Renaissance. Watching the video, I realized I never thought of cave paintings and ancient relics as art. I’ve always thought about them as artifacts that belong in a museum. Take an ancient Egyptian sarcophagus as an example. Normally I’d just think about and be like “yea, it’s some hollow stone with an old mummy in it”. But now I realize hundreds of hours must have been put into just shaping the sarcophagus, let alone imbuing it with gems, treasures, and intricate designs. They really are incredible pieces of art. I guess that’s why they call them “art”ifacts.

    From the last five minutes or so that I’ve been thinking about it, I’d have to agree that nature is not art. I feel like art is something specifically created by people (or maybe even elephants that can paint with their trunks). Obviously nature isn’t created by people, so I wouldn’t consider it art. I’m not saying nature isn’t beautiful, in fact I’m about to say the opposite. I think nature is better than art. Not painting, sculpture, architecture, drawing, song, poem, or book I’ve ever seen has been close to matching the beauty and complexity of nature. Think about one of Bob Ross’s paintings with some Titanium Hwite clouds and little happy trees . They’re cool and everything, but they have nothing on the real thing. If nature is an art, then who is the artist?

    Reply
41. 

    Cynee

    28 August 2016

    Professor Zucman goes over quite a lot about the types of general ideas of what kind of form art takes. It intrigues me how, we as a human race, already decided to hurl “artifacts” about our race for future generations or for some life form to discover many years later. Art takes its many shapes and forms through the eyes of the beholder. Factors that affect how each and everyone of us sees art, would be our experiences, our backgrounds, and especially what we value. For me, objects or ideas don’t have any real value to it, until we give it value.

    Reply
    1. 

       klauduso

       28 August 2016

       I have to agree with you Cynee, when you state that “objects or ideas don’t have any real value to it, until we give it value.” I agree that it is true. If your economic teacher haven’t told you yet, the dollar bills in our pockets have absolute no value at all. If you think before the times when we didn’t had currency, we could not go to a marketplace and trade a piece of green paper for a month’s worth of food or supplies. You would have needed to trade something with the same of value. However, in the modern century we decide to put our value into something that has no value ‘realistically’. Same goes with art! When go to an art gallery, and an artist places up his piece of a paper and ink written all over it. That piece of paper, now costs $1,000 dollars. However the amount of money placed into creating the art piece was only $20. Before, it was just a blank piece of paper, and now with ink drawn in a certain way, it costs $1,000. We put value into the paper thinking it contains something.

       Tommy Duong

       Reply
42. 

    Yonathan Sahle

    28 August 2016

    I really liked the descriptions in this video and I found this video very informative. One part that really made me question my own opinion was the question “what is art”?. This question is obviously subjectively answered but it puts it into perspective to where you draw the line between what is and what isn’t art. Its also crazy to me to know that art has been around for 3 million years and we are able to connect with the art from that many years ago. I also learned a view things when I came to the title of the different genres of art by eras, such the middle age being known as the dark ages. Another cool part I learned about and never really thought about much is the Strata that listed out all of the layers of gravel and rock throughout the thousands of years that compiled. This part of Archaeology is also considered to be art, at least for me, and I actually never considered it to be until now.

    Reply
43. 

    Christian Gallo

    28 August 2016

    I found this video to be very interesting and informative on the history of art. It is very fascinating that art can change throughout time and people from a different era might have a different point of view on what is art. They might think that what we consider art is not art for them. For example the video mention that some one sold a barrel for $10,000 and claimed it was art. I do not consider that art and it was way to expensive. To me art is something that an artist put effort into and is unique. Any thing that is not man made I might consider nature’s art. For example the pebble and the rainbow. Anything that is man made is real art because that person made it and put some effort.

    Reply
44. 

    mrvillicana

    28 August 2016

    I believe anything can be art, so long as it is created with some type of purpose. That purpose can be anything from setting out to comment, inspire, teach, or entertain. What I hadn’t considered was that definition of art having to be something that was worked by the human hand. I agreed with that when first hearing it explained in the video, but the example of the pebble made me question whether I really did agree with it. It very well could be that the pebble was worn down by rain and rain alone, and yet someone saw something in it that inspired them to take it with them from wherever they first laid eyes upon it. I ended up adding to my definition of art because of this. This video left me believing that anything art doesn’t just have to be something that was created with a purpose, rather it can also be something that one finds purpose in.

    Reply
    1. 

       Carlos Villicana

       28 August 2016

       I just wanted to say that this was me, I forgot to change the name that I submitted the comment with. My bad!

       Reply
45. 

    Ali Garawi

    28 August 2016

    I thought this video was extremely interesting, it made me look at art in a totally different way. After watching this video I literally was convinced that art is as important as all the other “factual” subjects out there like biology and math. Art has been in existence from the time humans first hit the earth, there’s not one person that can really come up with one concrete definition of what art it, art is different to different people. It was especially interesting how in part of the video it showed how archeologist actually time travel by digging deep in the earth and discover different materials and objects all helping people better understand how people lived back in the day, and how there was different types of materiel in different parts of the world. Which shows how art as beautiful as it could be segregated people. This was a mind blowing video, it was crazy to see how someone living so many thousand years ago, for the most part only concerned about survival saw the water pebble as a piece of art, and carried it with him 20 miles out.

    Reply
46. 

    andyybui

    28 August 2016

    I found that this video from Professor Zucman was a great lesson in not only art history but other subjects such as science. It was cool how while still talking about art, Professor was able to incorporate other information from other subjects like science, such as when talking about the layers of stratification of rocks to help explain how the timeline of art history was read from bottom to top. Also, it was intriguing how he talked about science and technology of the space voyagers to talk about art. He stated that the art on this will outlast the human race. I thought this was incredible because it really makes us think about how we set the end of our art history before we even possibly make it that far. Something that we created earlier in the timeline can end up at the very end where we won’t be able to even live to see the conclusion of the timeline. Now I believe that was very mind boggling. Maybe in the future, we could create something else that take the place of the drawings on the voyager that will be a better representation of our race. I feel that art can be anything after seeing this video. I am a little more inspired to look at everyday objects and try to seek out the artful aspects of it and the uniqueness of it.

    Reply
47. 

    rjcay

    28 August 2016

    k

    Reply
    1. 

       vsantos50

       28 August 2016

       This is good response because people may just see this as a letter but there’s a lot more meaning behind this. K is the symbol of Potassium. Potassium is found in food such as bananas, milk and orange juice which is important to have on a daily. So art is like this letter it can be interpreted in many ways.

       Reply
48. 

    Nick Lemmerman

    28 August 2016

    I liked that this video discussed the bookends of art–the beginning and the (potential) end. The idea of art being “something worked by a human hand” has always struck a chord with me, but I can only agree with it to an extent; I’ve always thought of art as anything that expresses one’s self somehow, and/or causes one to feel something. You can view the sun setting over a lake surrounded by forest as art because its natural beauty makes you feel cheerful, but that setting isn’t touched with human hands (maintenance of the forest and lake excluded). You can also view someone’s painting, sculpture, music, dancing, video game, etc. as art as well, because it can make you feel in a certain way and the creator put passion into their work. I like the example of the pebble being considered art even though it wasn’t touched by human hands–and that a being all that time ago most likely liked the pebble enough to walk 20 miles and leave it in its cave (assuming it lived in that cave)–this is a way of saying that art has always existed, even before the time of humans, it just took different forms. I also like the idea of the Pioneers’ plaques depicting a very simple explanation of where exactly the space probe came from and what the beings who sent it look like. Should (or when) humans die out or the planet ceases to exist, we continue to live on in the way of that plaque (which can be considered art–it all ties together!).

    Reply
49. 

    bryaan821

    28 August 2016

    After watching this video, I came to the conclusion that art can be anything. It is said that art is something that is handcrafted by someone but that may not necessarily always be true. Art can vary. There are tons of ways art can be displayed, which is something that was said in the video and how it has changed. What I’m referring to is that it doesn’t always have to be handcrafted by someone in order for it to be considered art. Nature for example is something that I would consider art. A sunset can just look more vivid in person than it would in a painting even if it was as realistic as it could be. Having that experience and seeing it firsthand is what I would define it as art. Everyone’s perspective is different, and there isn’t an exact answer to the definition of art since there are so many ways to express it.

    Reply
50. 

    rjcay

    28 August 2016

    After all my years of taking art in all 12 grades, I was never introduced to the Prehistoric era of art. I had no idea that the human cave paintings, which I have seen plenty of times in Disney films, originated from the Paleolithic age. Also called the Stone Age, this era is very interesting because the humans did not have any art supplies, canvas, or any art references at all to make simple stick figures. Everything was made out of stone and since it was usually cold, their tiger coats were made out of real tiger fur. How cool is that?! It is like they paved way to our modern society today. Speaking of paved, I really liked the comparison of the Strata to a Mcdonald’s parking lot because it was funny and I actually work at Mcdonald’s so I can relate. In addition it was very intriguing to think that the past or the thousands of years of human existence is buried right beneath our feet. At the same time I was totally mind blown when you said that digging down was basically time traveling.

    Reply
51. 

    kayaquarles

    28 August 2016

    This video was very interesting. The history of art was somewhat confusing for me to grasp until the McDonald’s example was used because it helped me visualize the fact that art is constantly changing and being recovered. It is no secret that every one will always have a different point of view when it comes to art because of how subjective it is, but this video just highlighted that fact even more. In my opinion, art is anything and everything that has depth and meaning behind it. Professor Zucman said that art can be anything created with human hands; however, that is just another opinion. The rainbow may not be created by man, but it can symbolize other things and trigger memories and emotions for others, and to me that is an aspect of art. Art really just exemplifies the idiom, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, because I would never spend $10,000 on the inside of a washer barrel. But, that’s other people’s prerogative. Art is what you make it.

    Reply
    1. 

       marlenedotrodriguez

       28 August 2016

       I totally agree with you, most people won’t consider the washer barrel art but it meant something to the artist so he called it art. There isn’t really a definition of art the perspectives of different people will change the value of the item.

       Reply
52. 

    Samuel De La Cruz

    28 August 2016

    Hi Nhi Truong, I agree with what you said in terms of Art as how it can change as technology advances. There is evidence all around us when you look at cities that have been around for hundreds of years and have not been touched for the most part. People in general tend to create art with what they have at their disposal and what makes it easier for them to create their art works. I also agree with how you mention that art is different to everyone. One person can see an object as trash and throw it away and then another person comes and sees that object thrown away as an amazing piece of art. It goes back to the saying, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. What one person may see as ugly, another person can appreciate the same thing and see it as beautiful.

    Reply
53. 

    marysolj

    28 August 2016

    This video was extremely interesting and informative! I learned a couple of new things about art history. When I thought about art I never thought about the history of it. It was amazing how the video put it into words, art goes way back. Coming from an open mind about art and thinking that art could be “anything”, i never thought about the value of it, the video mentioned that something as simple as a washing machine barrel was sold at a price of ten thousand dollars! This confirmed the fact that it really can be anything but it all depends on how one perceives it. The person who threw it away thought it was a piece of trash but the person who picked it up thought it was pretty cool, in the other hand, the person who bought it thought it was an amazing piece piece of art. This goes to show how different people have distinct perception on things and like they say ” someone’s trash can be the other person’s treasure.” Overall, this video made me think twice about my “trash” that can probably be used to create an art piece that someone might find amazing.

    Reply
    1. 

       moniquealcala

       28 August 2016

       I completely agree with you Marysol. Most people do not realize that there is history behind art and are quick to assume that it is just about paintings and artists. This video also allowed me to become more open minded towards art and the variety that it can be. It is interesting to think about your comment “someone’s trash is another person’s treasure” and relate it back to art. It allows me to truly envision what it means to see beauty from the eye of the beholder. So after viewing this video would you consider the washing machine barrel as art?

       Reply
54. 

    Shalane

    28 August 2016

    The video truly put into perspective that we are just a very small portion of history, a blip if you will, that actually exists within boundaries. Never before have I tried to envision the chronological boundaries of art. Now that it has been laid before me, it makes more sense to see it in such a linear fashion. My definition of art is a piece that appeals to the senses, whether it be created by a life-form or simply selected by one. While I use the word “piece,” I do not even necessarily mean something we can physically touch. As long as at least one sense has been triggered and intrigued, it is possible that one is experiencing art. Seeing that even beings before humans were intelligent enough to select an object truly extends the boundaries of art farther than I realized was possible. While I may acknowledge a piece as art, that does not mean that I value it as ‘good’ art. Ten thousand dollars is simply too much to pay for such a piece.

    Reply
    1. 

       vsantos50

       28 August 2016

       hello, i like how you used the word piece because i see art as something that intrigues us. One really good example would be when a writer descriptively describe a part of a novel or short story.

       Reply
55. 

    vsantos50

    28 August 2016

    After watching this video i realized how different people see art and how far art really goes back. Honestly,i would not have thought art would be seen differently. Some people may see pile of junk but in reality it can be an abstract sculpture that people may be fascinated by and willing to pay money for them. Before watching this video i seen art all around but never really admire it. The art i would mainly pay attention to would be simple thing like comic, music and obviously paintings. The reason i consider these art was because i could relate to them or it would create a vivid image in my mind. Looking forward into the future i believe art will be creative because people see art in many forms. The more open minded you are the more you can see and appreciate art which is all around. Art has been here long before us and will be here long after we are gone.

    Reply
56. 

    adrianhasalife

    28 August 2016

    I just want to start off by saying this is an amazing way to set up a timeline. I like how Prof. Zucman mentions that if you dig deeper it’s another form of time travel and I thought that was an interesting way to put it. Other than the timeline, the actual question is whether or not something is considered as art. Mentioning the the rainbow it’s strange how I actually never considered it as art even as a whole being extremely beautiful. I think it does have to do with the fact that it must be man made of some sort, but not only that in my opinion. I also think if an object of some sort has history all over it and depicts it, such as the stream of water making that pebble the way it was form, I would definitely consider that as an art piece. Likewise with the barrel, it has history of many people shooting at it for years, yup lets throw that into the art list. The book end Beyond, I find it very sad actually, meaning if we were all to annihilate ourselves and an alien happens to intercept that carrier, is that all we have to give to show our existence? My question is, why didn’t we put more information? Unless I miss understood the professor. To conclude, I found this video interesting and the definition of art is pretty much an opinion if you ask me.

    Reply
57. 

    klauduso

    28 August 2016

    In your video, I found the information about the space plaque really interesting. From what I learn from the video, the twin pioneers hold plaques that show earth’s location in the galaxy. An amazing fact is that the spacecrafts carrying the plaque was launched in 1983 and 1990. We recently just launched the spacecraft and its amazing to see how they end up so far away from earth already. From my curiousity about the plaque I did further research about it and discovered that the drawing of the man and woman was computerized to look like the average human being. When I analyzed the plaque, from my eyes I could not understand anything on the plaque. I feel that if another intelligent living being were to try and decipher the plaque, they would have a really difficult time understanding why there are two circles and lines flying everywhere.

    Tommy Duong

    Source
    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/missions/archive/pioneer.html

    Reply
58. 

    miisstinatrn

    28 August 2016

    The video support the idea that anything can be called art and even if did not intend for their creation to become “art”, the message behind the piece still triggered people to become fascinated with their creation. Take the Prehistoric and Ancient Egypt for example, Egyptians created holographics as a way to tell a story and relay their message to pass down their traditions and beliefs. They did not merely create these holographic as a way to be as creative as they can be. However, looking from our perspective now, 4000 years later, the holographic found in the pyramids and caves of Egypt symbolize much more than traditions and language. It is also a great piece of art and history that is irreplaceable. Moving past the ancient times, the modern art today can be consisted of anything, even regular household items can be considered an art piece, which is the beauty about art. It has no bound to time and no bound to object. I can be created from anything and it can be anything.

    Reply
59. 

    moniquealcala

    28 August 2016

    After viewing this informative video I was intrigued to learn about the prehistoric age. Prior to this, I was quick to judge and assume art revolved around paintings and artists such as Pablo Picasso or Diego Rivera, but this has broadened my mind and allowed me to see that humans have been creative since the beginning of time. The earliest prehistoric art has been dated back to 2,500,000 BCE, considered the lower palelithic era, and has been found all over the world. With the cave art it shows a time where humans began to become more sophisticated and separate from the gorillas. With just seeing the cave art one would not automatically think about how it relates to human evolution. With art comes history and with history comes knowledge and the insight ability to think about a much broader picture.

    Reply
60. 

    marlenedotrodriguez

    28 August 2016

    Watching this video left me questioning myself as to what people really consider art to be. Throughout the video he mentioned an artist who picked up the middle barrel of a washing that was rugged and had holes in it. The artist threw it in his show he was having a got $10,000 for it, it wasn’t man made by him it was just something he found that he thought was art. So does this mean art can be man made or nature made? I honestly think so. Art should be a form of expression or emotion that is appealing to the artist or even the person viewing the art. It was also interesting to know that art had some connection to archeology and that artifacts nature made are considered emotional, valuable, and precious to people during that era and even now.

    Reply
61. 

    Ana Maya

    29 August 2016

    This video was like an eye opener to me. Never before had I truly considered non manmade objects art before. I can say that I consider nature beautiful and artistic in a sense, but not in the same way I consider paintings, poetry, music, etc., as art. Three summers ago I was able to go with family on a road trip from Washington, to Oregon, to Nevada, and to Utah and back to California. Every mountain, every sunset, and every sunrise I witnessed, I considered beautiful. And now that I look back on it, I consider them art–just like I would with a painting. The video also mentioned the two “bookends” of art, to which I am surprised by the fact that there will come a point in time in which that drawing will be the only thing that an extraterrestrial will have to represent us. Overall, I enjoyed watching this video and I am aware that art is much more than just a painting or a poem; art is universal.

    Reply
62. 

    Evan Burton

    29 August 2016

    I believe it was very interesting to hear a literal definiton of what can be classified as art. It was defined as “something that has been worked by human hands”. He later provided an example of the disconnect between this definition and its practicality. What if a piece of nature was so beautiful that it inspired you to create a piece of art representing that visual, but the scene from nature could never itself be considered art? That is the problem in trying to define something which is meant to be limitless. Art may branch off into many distinct forms, but it shouldn’t have any boundaries that limit the broader definition. Using the video’s example, I would be skeptical of any person viewing both a rainbow and a painting of a rainbow, but only calling the painting actual art. If the natural visual stimulates the viewer and inspires feelings more so than the art piece, it should be considered its own branch of a unique, nature-made art form. Although these nature pieces are considered beautiful, they should be given more credit for their roles in creating the most timeless pieces in recent history. Photography in particular is a simple snapshot of the real art, which only gains credibility after it has passed through human hands.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.