Art Debate

During art week 2.0, there was an art debate in the style of a great throw down. The focus of the main tag-team debate was the theme: "Should there be limits to art?" Those in the yes camp were Billy and Lisa, those who were a part of the no front were Joe and Colby. This debate encouraged in philosophical thinking about art, what it is, and what it means.

The main event was the elimination round. In this event, each speaker was given only two minutes to discuss the question for the round and a very official applause-o-meter was used to judge who was knocked out for that round.

The first round question was, "Who has been the most impactful artist/ piece of art in the last decade?" Billy was the lucky number one and took the stance that the Obama hope poster was the most impactful piece. It became populated by social networks and was sold in DC. Recently it was bought by a poster gallery. This piece impacted the 2008 election immensely, making te vote less about race. Lisa chose James Terrell for his reshapping of the earth. He reshaped the earth and heavens in view of the human mind. It is a timeless piece of work. Colby took the stand and chose Stephen Colbert. He argued that Colbert created  art that is political. He is capable of insinuating in the enemies clothes, and his comedy can be appreciated by both political sides by the absurdity of what he does. "Art should shed light on on something that you thought you knew." Joe determined that Chris O'Phealy's art mendona. It was a dark skinned image of the Virgin Mary, made with elephant dung and erotic images from men's magazines. It was rejected as obscene and made people defend public funding for Art. It spoke to local cultural images and challenged traditional European views.

The next question was, "can art be diverted from politics and can art be for art's sake?" Billy took the side no because even not taking a position on an issue is reaffirming the status quo. Even if the artist did not want a political view, it always did. Art is a dialogue about a view of objects. Joe took the stance at drawing a line at seeing everything as political at sensory image and pleasure. A visceral response is universal and not political, because it doesn't move through language. It enters through smell, sound, and taste.  Colby took the approach of asking a different question, "Does society deserve art? Does an artist deserve a society to respect it?" He believes that art needs to be embedded in society. That it sends mixed messages. Liberal living with nonliberal.

The final round was the question, "What is the role of intention in creating art?" Joe said that intention is an important way in understanding the work of art. Art is in a dialouge in the world once you put it out there. It depends on those who encountered it. Colby said that intention determines the context of the art. He gave the example of Jackson Pollack, a post WWII artist who did intentional acts based off of unintentionality. Once let out into nature, he could see patterns. Connecting accidents in studio to accidents in nature.

I took away from this debate that the artist's intention of their art and their meaning behind it is almost inconsequential. The public's perception of art is what defines it through history.