Class Discussion on the 29th

I read the articles for class on the 29th and I have to admit that I didn't understand them completely. Our class discussion went a long way to clarifying the ideas of beauty, aesthetics and criticism for me. I have never really thought too hard about the art I see in museums. I think that I have been operating on a "beauty for beauty's sake" basis. Of course, my connection with the gospel helped me to appreciate religious works of art more fully, but other than that I have found it easier to simply look at a peice of art and enjoy its color or its content without real thought. Sometimes I read the plaques beside the art, but I'm not sure whether they come from the critic or the artist, and are thus less useful. I do think that beauty is a very important part of the world, because without it, everything would be more sterile. As we looked at the pictures of the churches in class and the immense detail each of them possessed I thought, 'If beauty weren't important, there is no way people would spend this much time on things. We must be innately driven to beautify the world around us.' I could really see from the two pictures of the church interiors that they played different roles in the communion with God of the saints attending them. Though I thought each of them were exquisitely beautiful, the more enclosed one brought to my mind secret passages while the white open one looked like it could have been the set for the wedding scene in the Sound of Music.

Another part of the lesson that helped to change my perspective was about critics. I've always thought of them as high-falutin' posh folks who loved to put down other people's work. I never thought of the fact that their job is actually quite hard and carries a lot of responsibility. Not all works of art can be super, or none of them would be - as paraphrased from the movie The Incredibles. At the same time, not everything can be bad. Critics have to give their opinions without allowing personal prejudices to color them. They have a job of unifying different artworks, of giving them a common bond just through the fact that they have viewed them and expressed judgement. Another purpose of the critic is to make artists think twice before they casually create something. Artists know that someone qualified is going to view their art and that ups the ante. Critics force art to keep evolving and become better. I don't know if I could be a critic because I would have a hard time not saying everything is good, even if it wasn't, if merely to spare the artist's feelings. I don't know much about how to criticise art, but I am looking foreward to learning.