Critics Corner

Comment

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on May 13, 2013 at 5:37am

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/can-science-be-used-to-critique-ar...
Can Science Be Used to Critique Art?
It's an old opposition: art and science. Not opposition in the sense of conflict, necessarily, but rather in the sense of one appearing without the other. On the face of it, art should transcend the inherent boundaries of scientific validity and truth-seeking. There are rules for being a certain sort of art, but not so much for just being art itself, or for being objectively better art or carrying real meaning better or worse than other art.

So much cultural criticism is even designed to make fun of (or pick apart) the very idea that art (literature, music, etc.) can hold lasting truth. Whereas, science is only interested in things that are true, and it has designed highly rigorous ways of identifying truth in the world.

There's a very deep philosophical rabbit hole that comes along with this line of thinking, but let's just summarize the question as, Is aesthetic taste beyond the scope of science? In other words, can it be said with objectivity that the aesthetic of Celine Dion is worse than the aesthetic of, say, Beck?

Is there a fixed truth, a scientific truth, to that claim? Is that possible? In this snip of a recent Closer to Truth episode, physicist David Deutsch explains why the answer is actually yes. Philosophy, morals, art, and science are only separated from each other pragmatically. We simply haven't found the proper methods of bringing them together. Yet.
By Michael Byrne

A comment on this: Jon Goldman · Master mind at GoldmanArts/Thought Balloon Media

This is some serious philosophical navel gazing. When David Deutsch says: “we don’t know much about the laws of aesthetics” it raises a great deal of questions related to the "Deep Thoughts" in an unknown area. Proof, and the pursuit of Truth in a non-empirical sense does NOT apply to a rational discussion of Abstract Expressionist's visual worldview, for example, say in the analysis of a De Kooning painting versus a Hans Hoffman. Such an undertaking seems as ludicrous as comparing the aesthetics of "cave men [making music] banging rocks" to Mozart. TASTE whether olfactory-driven or culturally informed is in the eye of the beholder. It is a relativistic, subjective deeply human complexity which by its nature can not be empirically compared. As for science critiquing art, provocative as a headline, but asinine in reality.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on March 31, 2013 at 5:29am

http://www.fastcompany.com/3007541/mfa-new-mba?partner=newsletter&a...
Is An MFA The New MBA?
Companies all across America are starting to see a critical talent gap as older employees retire. Arts students may not have all the traditional skills, but they have the most important one: creativity.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/21/what-entrepreneurs-can...

My reply: People are confused. Creativity in various fields differ from one another. Artistic creativity differs from scientific creativity and these two in turn differ from corporate creativity! How well the artistic creativity fits into corporate creativity and how an artist can adapt into an organization's set up is the key issue here. Let us see how the artists can prove themselves as good corporate creators. I am interested to see the results. - Krishna

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on December 22, 2012 at 6:13am

Copying in art: http://hyperallergic.com/62026/when-is-appropriation-just-copying/?...

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 19, 2012 at 9:11am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/jun/18/art-...

Does art-from-science really add anything?

Art and science. CERN has quite an enthusiastic art program now (as well as a Gormley), but there is a feeling that the scientists at CERN retain a high degree of scepticism, maybe even cynicism, but probably mostly indifference to the activity. Despite having highlighted some science-related art here (for example these colourfield splash paintings) I share this attitude to varying degrees depending on mood, and I wondered why.

Science is undeniably the source of some wonderful images. But speaking generally, the art which has most impact on me usually hints at, and shows back to me, something I have some knowledge of already, and leads me into a different way of thinking about it. This happens with art which is not specifically about science. It may refer to love, distance, location, parenthood, fear... almost anything. This sets off all kinds of echoes in my thoughts and deepens the experience and understanding.

The only piece of art I can think of which ever did this for me with science is a play - Michael Frayn's Copenhagen, which I saw years ago at the South Bank and which still surfaces in my mind at random intervals, especially when I am working with or teaching quantum mechanics. Frayn brilliantly explores a meeting between Niels Bohr, his wife Margrethe, and Werner Heisenberg in Copenhagen during World War Two. Bohr and Heisenberg, giants of the development of quantum mechanics, were long-standing colleagues but on opposite sides.

I will be very grateful if artists at CERN can tell me something about my science.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 4, 2012 at 5:32am

These days artists are very critical about the art world. Read some of these Here:

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/artanddesign/2011/dec/02/char...

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&...

Why does it seem that some galleries will put any art on display when others will not. It seems of late it is who you know, not the quality of the art.?

Curators seem to be looking at the most shock value art. I have seen some great artists get overlooked due to this. When some art is basically poor in any shape or quality. What is art now?

I find the art world misleading people and telling us what we should should not like. And for some unknown reason people listen to these critics and actually buy the items. More the fool them in my mind but as it has been given the so called art nod it will hold if not double it's value in no time. I recently looked at some visually stunning art from a new artist and was amazed to see his work shunned by a critic as depressing and "not controversial". Should I now go out and use animals entrals for art.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 4, 2011 at 6:23am

Artist on artist insults - read the quotes of artists on other artists and decide for yourself how much of the criticism  is true ----

http://flavorwire.com/204165/artist-insults

Comment by Theonesoul on August 6, 2009 at 11:21am

We should never forget that we carry only what we have in us..We see in others what disturbs on us....and Before we want to throw the first stone we should know... nobody is perfect....
I would say, " members, never stone a person cuz he or she thinks different.. we are lil drops in a huge Ocean..and are all interconnected..
Try to be in his or her shoes before u point on her or him
In gratitude,
theonesoul

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on February 14, 2009 at 1:00pm

Members, please keep this in mind - while constructive criticisms are welcome, destructive criticisms & personal attacks have no place here.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page