Reading Due: Korsmeyer, Part Five – Preface through Chapter 25 (pp 225 - 243)

In this reading, it discusses the theories of aesthetics: pleasure. They describe this aesthetic pleasure as the beauty of the experience. Nietzsche first references the Greek tragedy and how it brings about emotions. He goes on to talk about two different aesthetic experiences that evoke two different emotions. The first, Apollinian, creates and looks at the beauty of form. Examples he gives are those of sculptures and paintings because they display something the viewer can understand and reach on an emotional level. The other is Dionysian, which creates a atmosphere which the viewer then needs to participate within it. The viewer loses their identity and adopts another that more closely relates to the piece. I thought of movies and books while reading this description, when you read a book or see a novel often times you find yourself trying to more closely relate yourself with the piece or character. In turn this is why people cry at sad parts and laugh at funny ones. Nietzsche describes Greek tragedy shows the unfair and tragic emotions most closely related to real life.

Are movies and books good examples of the Dionysian category?
What are some examples of the Apollinian category in todays world, are they still simply paintings and sculptures?
What if other emotions are evoked from a painting, does that exclude it from the category?

Korsmeyer, Part Five – through Chapter 30 (pp 274 - 294), Kristeva on the Abject

In this reading Noel Carroll uses the term "Art-Horror," to describe the typical horror movies or films that usually include a monster or vilian. He talks about how "the genres that are named by the very affect that are designed to provoke suggest a particularly tantalizing strategy through which to pursue their analysis." These "genres" he talks about are ones that make you think about 'strategy or analysis' or either the piece itself or the story within it. He says works of horror are "designed to elicit a certain kind of affect." He says it is an emtion, that he calls "Art-Horror." The suspense of the piece, which he ususally is speaking about film pieces, create a sort of suspense that provokes the viewer to explore into it more, or ask themselves questions that can only be answered in viewing the film.
Cynthia Freeland however sees horror talks about how horror starts in the newspapers and ends up on screen in Hollywood, something she calls realist horror. She talks about 'The Silence of the Lambs,' and how the story was based upon facts about the real-life corpus stealer, Ed Gein. The media coverage of the arrest of Dahmer, caused the movie scene to produce the movie, "Body Parts." Which is not only a great supporting example for Freeland but also very true. Look at the media coverage of 9/11 and everyone who was lost, and now there is a movie about it. right? who is to say whether it is right or wrong, but another example of Freeland's point.
Is this cycle every going to break? or will we continue to create movies out of horrifying real-life stories?

Korsmeyer, Part Five – through Chapter 28 (pp 244 - 273);

I found this set of readings a little hard to digest, and I am not sure I completely understood them. I did enjoy Edgar Allan Poe's "A Decent into the Maelstrom." I found I liked it because of it's short story persona. It was written in more of a tone that you could imagine with, instead of opinions and people's feelings. He talks about getting old, and how he thinks he is "getting old," but in reality he's not that old. Kind of makes me think about my own birthday and how my whole life it's seemed like all I wanted was to be older, get older, and be in an older part of my life. Although now that I am about to turn 20 on friday, I find myself thinking "woah where did the last 20 years go?" all of the sudden I feel Old, but im "not really old" at all!
He then goes on to talk about how he went to the ocean in Maelstrom. While there he is caught in a whirlpool and escapes it. After this ordeal he changes his tone in the story from first person to that what seems to be the view of another character in the book. Like suddenly he detaches himself from his story. Yet he still brings the aesthetic experience to his story. Giving his reader the liberty to take what they can from the story itself. This is somewhat the same in Burke's article about tragedy, he says pain and pleasure are simple ideas incapable of thier definition. He says that people have thier own opinioins about pain and where it comes from and what things cause it.

Steiner Chapters 3 and 4.

Chapter 3
Fetish or Fatwa?
In this chapter Steiner dicusses Salman Rushdie's novel, "The Satanic Verses." The novel is fictional and written with the same "aesthetic liberties taken by thousands of other writers." Steiner talks about how Rushdie's novel started an international debate dealing with the artistic license. When the novel was first published, the Muslim world saw it as having rediculous and outrageous references. As result the novel was banned in India and burned in the United Kingdom as a demonstration. Rushdie then was forced to go into hiding because of fear that the Muslim community would find him because of what he wrote. How could a fictional novel be so controversial and cause so much havic? Everyone is going to have a difference of opinion when it comes to art, writing being one of those arts, and because of this anything and everything can be interpreted in a negative way that could cause so much controversy and distress. Even though his piece was fictional and in a sense "not real to life," it is a piece of art and effects the person who reads it in an aesthetic way.

Chapter 4
Caliban in the Ivory Tower
In this chapter Steiner discusses the academic world and all that involves it. She dicusses what is acceptable and what is not within the academic field and educational world. She goes on the say, "Whichever side of the fence one stands on, 'Political Correctness' is an intellectual virus spewing out mind-numbing contradictions--an ideological gene gone wrong." She speaks of the 'Political Correctness' as a virus, when the universities talk about free speech. She goes on to say that there should be no restraint on free speech on campus'. Since last class I just learned that universities could designate a "free speech area" where it would and could be tolerated to use your right of free speech. So, how is this really free speech? They are telling you where you can and cannot use your right. I don't understand how they can do this with the constitution giving you the right of free speech. Doesn't the right of free speech give you the right to speak in any arena at any time? Are there restraints on that as well? Are there things that I don't know about our "right of free speech?" Is it really a right or just a clause of what you could potentially be allowed to do if given the right "zone or area," to speak within?!

Korsmeyer pp 155-170 (Brand); and Becker, “Herbert Marcuse and the Subversive Potential of Art;” Rich, “Dissed and Disconneted: Notes on Present Ills

Because of today's society and how we as humans interact with not only each other but also with our surroundings that when we view something like a piece of art we develop our own opinions and views. Our personal feelings and past experiences get wrapped up into our perceptions of things. Brand believed that some people should view art with an attitude of disinterest and a more masculine and unemotional approach. All these approaches Brand says are all right in their ideas. Being disinterested allows us to understand and view pieces of art. So is it better to go into a piece of work with no ideas or expliantions about the work, and come to your own conclusions? I think yes, this is a good idea, but only to a certain extent. If you view a piece about politics and you have no idea what the reasoning or even the slightest idea of how to come to a valid conclusion of the piece. There have been pieces I have been offended by it only until I understand and know the artist's statement and own idea behind the piece do I appreciate it. So if we are suposed to view art with a "disinterested, masculine, unemotional state, how can we truely appreciate it or understand it without knowing it's real meaning and message?

Steiner, Chapter 2; Readings on 2007 Congressional hearings on rap/hip-hop

While reading these passages, I found myself a little angery as well as confused as to why the government is so envolved with art in society. How are two very different things being grouped together? When we think of art now, why do we wonder what the government is doing about it and so on?
The feminist and pornography issues, contest that pornography somehow physically harms women. Just watching porn is physically harmful to women? I think if anything it would be on a more emotional and phsycological level than "physical." Can this form of "art" really cause harm? If someone to just view it I don't think that it can cause physical harm, how can something cause you harm when nothing is? Viewing something cannot create physical harm. Yes I am sure that there are violent images and videos out that that don't seem pleasurable but yet they are considered porn, and yes to the actual person, it may be harmful, but to the viewer? I don't think it can do the same. Just as there are those violent images out there, what about the images that are not violent, like just two people acting in a sexual manner, or even the "role playing" porn out there. You can't say these things are what is causing rape and derogatory actions towards women. I found it interesting that Steiner said that pornography is often protected by the first amendment. So, our government is protecting porn?
"Hip Hop is sick because America is sick," what an interesting way to put it. I find that true. If the lyrics to a rap song, are sick it is because of the artist who chose those words, or the society who thinks that is acceptable that is the reason why "hip hop is sick." It is not the music form or actual music that is "sick." Not all hip hop and rap is "sick" though, and not saying that is generalizing the term too much. There are Christian rappers, believe it or not, that convey very different messages in the same way the "sick" rapper do.

Nick Hornby, “NippleJesus;” Mulholland, Cosentino, and newspaper clippings on Sensatin from Art in America;

Hornby
"NippleJesus," brought mixed feelings to Hornby, first he liked it, then he didn't, then he did again. This piece of art, then served it's purpose. It evoked questions and upsets in the eyes of it's viewers. This also brings up the issue of disclaimers for art works that are potentially offensive or disturbing. Should art, that is found in this way, have a warning sign or disclaimer that you must read before viewing the art? Would a disclaimer stray more viewers to not view the work or would it make them want to know why this was done the way it was? Some people are very sensitive and find things very offensive, therefore I think disclaimers and warnings for work that is put in this category should have those. What good does a piece of art do if it completely brings the public up in an up-roar? Unless that is it's soul purpose.

Mulholland
Mulholland brings up his issues with the exhibit, "Sensation." He talks about the private funding needed, and the disclaimers that should be used as well in the exhibit. Those controversial pieces were addressed before the public was allowed to view the pieces.

Consentino
Chris Ofili's works that were constructed with elephant dung, stirred the public when the exhibit took place in the Brooklyn Museum. "The Holy Virgin Mary," was among a few that were particually provoking to the viewers. Something that people found so upsetting is the fact that he used dung, or poop on an image of the Virgin Mary, a holy figure. These two things completely contradict themselves, and represent very opposite things. Ofili is even Catholic himself, which is a religion that values the Virgin Mary very highly. Why did he feel the need to express himself though dung? what provoked him to use that media? Also one who was raised in the Catholic church, unless he has fully denounced the religion, why whould he use dung on the Virgin Mary, and pornographic images in his works?

Sensation Reviews
The art in this exhibit got the attention of the public and these articles go on to talk about it. The artists in this exhibits already seem to be established and well known in England, where they find London reviews focusing on the controversial pieces. The Reviews from New York featured politicians and religious figures viewing and critiquing the art.