So today i watched a talk by David Polka, a street artist. I thought about his opinion on how street artists portray death and decay and i think that he has an interesting opinion and i agree with his thoughts and feelings on this subject.
He says that cities and olden buildings express decay. They speak for the passage of time and human presence. They’re inspiring with there cool textures and the way that we can relate to architecture. You can see all the processes that had happened, you can see the contrast of seeing man-made structures return to the way they were from. It opens up new questions when you see the processes happen, like overgrown plants etc.
He says that as a graffiti artist he wants to leave a mark on the world. We all do because if we don’t, we feel lifeless. Graffiti art is highly controlled visual advertising on blank walls. It makes people feel that they can give an opinion when they look at it because its not like going to the gallery, its more open and it makes people think. This is an example of the power art can give and another opinion on decay.
If you’d like to watch the video i have been referring to, you can watch it here:
Over the next 12 weeks i will be writing regular entries with images to my blog. These entries will be based on different artists and art works, philosophies and ideologies.
Now for my first blog post i am going to talk about beauty and the sublime. Beauty i think is all around us. In nature, in people, in music. But what do you think?
I have recently read part of Kant, Schiller and Hegel’s views on beauty. Schiller discusses that: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, freedom is an appearance, autumn in appearance”. Schiller insists that freedom itself is something ‘noumenal’ and so can never actually manifest itself in the realm of the senses. I believe that this could be true. We all see differently and to each and every one of us different things are beautiful. For example: a partner, flowers, a child. Hegel agrees with Schiller; against Kant that beauty is an objective property of things so it’s either beautiful or ugly.
But Kant argues that: “beauty is not itself an objective property of things”. He believes that when we judge a natural object or work of art and call it beautiful we are making a judgement about an object and that the object has an effect on us which we expect that others should have the same view on it. But it is actually setting our imagination in ‘free play’ with one another, and it is the pleasure generated by this free play that leads us to judge the object to be beautiful.
What i also found rather interesting was William Hogarth’s artwork of the lines of beauty. He belives that wherever you see these lines in nature it indicates beauty. You see these lines in a persons body shape , in shops, food. I find this rather strange and I’m quite intrigued about whether its true or not but you see it everywhere. This leaves quite a mystery to me and find it an interesting opinion.