Art is a culmination of what we, as humans and as individuals, believe art to be. My third grade class took a bus into the inner city of Detroit to view the Heidelberg Project. I would later realize that this short-lived fieldtrip provided me with my most memorable experience with an artwork. This incredibly creative political protest is a series of houses painted with bright colors and covered in recycled garbage. Although, I was only able to spend about an hour, on a bus, viewing these incredible works of art, I have since gone back and spent more time analyzing and contemplating the genius of gluing trash on an abandoned house and turning it into art. I would describe these houses as brightly colored, extremely out of place and wonderfully different. Even in third grade, I knew these houses profoundly affected me. I could not take my eyes off of them and each time I’ve been back since, I continue to spot new and creative aspects of the houses. I tried to penetrate the artists mind and have constantly asked myself what would motivate someone to turn abandoned homes into artwork using garbage? My best guess is that the artist, Tyree Guyton, was looking for something beautiful and different, in an area that had been deteriorating since the Detroit Riots of 1967. I also believe that Guyton desired a reaction that would force people travel out of their comfort zones, into his neighborhood and show the vast economic problems that plague Detroit. I believe that Guyton’s work was successful in producing a huge following and reaction. On two occasions, aspects of Guyton’s work were torn down. After much uproar from Heidelberg Project admirers, and much to the disappointment of political leaders, a court ruled that Guyton’s work is protected by the First Amendment and is no longer allowed to be destroyed or demolished.
Although I found de Duve’s essay to be extremely long and somewhat repetitive, I agree with a lot of his points. I believe that his essay could have been much more succinct by simply stating, art is too difficult and ambiguous to define. As humans, we vary immensely, from our various professions, to what foods we like and dislike. Art is very similar to humans, in that it is too vast to explain using one definition. One may profess to be an art historian, but that does not need to limit one’s taste to that of artworks from the past. Personally, I cannot define my taste in art. Sure, my most memorable art experience was that of the avant-garde, but I also enjoy historically famous artists, such as, Monet and De Vince. I cannot categorize myself as liking only a certain type of art. By becoming an extraterrestrial trying to understand art, Duve proves that art is too complex to define.
3 comments:
Lauren,
Your example of the Heidelberg Project is an interesting one. And although it is considered avant-garde now, pause to consider that Monet and da Vinci were considered to be radical in their time as well.
I also urge you to return to the essay, despite its length. In fact, de Duve uses the repetition to make subtle adjustments, to evolve his point over the course of the essay. I think your response could also use a few quotes that refer back to the original text. de Duve does acknowledge the difficulty in naming art, but there are several passages that say: "Art is ..."
You write:
"Duve proves that art is too complex to define." If you return to the text you will find that it is just this task that he takes great pleasure in trying to do by attempting different strategies and looking at an evolving array of perspectives.
Hello Lauren,
Thanks for your email. I did not mean to imply that you did not do the reading, but rather, that the essay might answer questions upon a second or third reading.
You are right, it is a headache-inducing question. This is where art and philosophy collide, and sometimes it's very messy. I thought your description of the Heidelberg Project was quite good, but then it seemed like you got a little weary and wanted to wrap it up with a succinct summary of de Duve. And as you've pointed out, this is not an easy man to pin down.
One way you could use de Duve is to tie his argument about everything we call art IS art to the Heidelberg project. We can refer to a time when that would not have been called art, or perhaps even consider a group of people who would not understand Guyton's efforts as art. Is it important to be labeled art? Why is this project considered art, when a century ago, it would not have been? This is the central question to the course this semester! So let's keep that conversation going.
FHT
Post a Comment