Innovation

So how does innovation differ from its little brothers, creativity and imagination. Well, Imagination is fluid and constant. Creativity is narowwing the focus of your imagination with a pupose in mind, some sort of creation, and an innovation is the creation itself, the newness and ingenuity of creativity, paired with utility to create something new and useful.

Creativity and Imagination

The relationship between creativity and imagination was brought up in class. I believe thaat Imagination comes naturally and consistently to the human subconcious. These are ideas and concepts that have little to no ties with reality. When one decides to use there imagination for some pupose, we begin to use our creativity. Creativity solidifies a new idea into a concept that be applied with a pupose in mind, in a way that has not been thought of before

Can Art Emote?

Can a song be sad? According to Piper, no the tones themselves cannot be sad, they do not have that quality merely built into them. And I agree. A certain combination of tones can evoke sadness, and therefore associate that combination of notes with sadness. We then perceive the emotion the artwork is supposed to invoke, but it is to be stressed that the artwork doesn't possess these emotions. That is what Piper refers to a fetichizeing the art oblect, or believing it to be more than it was intended. Our perceptions affect how we experience art.

Performances=Unique

It is really nice to hear something about the performing arts, as previous authors have seemed loathe to broach the subject. Piper however delves into the subject, saying that the people ARE the art. And so each performance is unique unto itself because it holds different possibilities depending on the performer. The mysteriousness of performance art distinguishes it from art objects in that you cannot fetishize the performance. The people are the art

Conferred with a Catch

So which is better, to have a status conferred upon you, based on mandatory prerequisites, or simply constituting. Well, is seemed to earn a status has the more powerful edge in that it calls for the acceptance and recognition of others. However, I believe it is imperative that those doing the conferring, that is, those in charge, are constantly being tested themselves, so there is no room for slacking in any direction, and hopefully, makes they playing ground a little more equal.

Humans, not Artifacts, Thank you!

In class, there was a point raised about humanstechnically being artifacts, in the sense, that our parents made us, society shapes us, and as we grow older we have more and more control over our appearances and choices--we MAKE ourselves into something. Well, while I agree with these things, I cannot agree with the sugestion that humans are artifacts. Aftifacts are human crafted objects which are used to serve a purpose. Everything from the paint on the walls to the hormones in our food was create to perform some necessary function. As far as I know, there are no shortages of humans anywhere, and other than increasing the population, which we would be doing anyway, we would not be serving a function, not created for some purpose.

Isness

Danto's theory and use of the word "is" is somewhat interesting. While is normally helps us refer to an objects state of being i.e. "the ball is round," at any given time, we find it insufficient to merely say "the ball is" as this only conveys the balls existence. What Danto does is he uses the word "is" to separate an object from an art work. To say something IS art is to say that though it may contain properties of an mere object, it has its place in the artworld because some kind of artistic theory has been applied to it, and therfore it IS art. While I don't necessarily believe this, because according to Danto anyone who understands art theory and history can confer this status, it is nevertheless an interesting concept.