Expressionism/Cognitivism

Expressionism is essentially a theory of art that tells us that an artist, who is inspired by his or her emotional experiences, uses their skill, in whatever medium they prefer, to express that emotion in such a way that it is supposed to evoke the same emotion in the viewer or viewers.

Cognitivism however, while being similar to Expressionism, creates knowledge of the things around us in ways unique to artistic expression that would otherwise be overlooked by the casual observer; essentially it is new ways of knowing the world around us. However, that form of knowing is subjective to the viewer’s experiences, and what may be seen as fresh and new to one, could easily be seen as shallow and escapist to someone else.
The difference between the two is that Expressionism uses the emotions of the artist to create a powerful and emotive artwork and Cognitivism uses emotion as simply a component in better understanding the world, events and subjects around us.

Tolstoy’s basic outlook on art was that for it to be truly expressive, it had to physically impart the emotion conveyed to the person viewing, reading or listening to it. If the piece was meant to inspire joy, the viewer should experience actual, physical Joy, and if the resulting message was one of rage, then the viewer should become enraged. Collingwood believes that artistic expression is collaboration between the artist and the viewer, the artist captures the emotions they wish to convey in a way that is able to be shared and in doing so knows themselves better, the viewer then uses their own imagination to recreate the emotions they feel are being portrayed by the artist, creating a truly cerebral and unique experience for each person that participates and in doing so come to know themselves better.

Louise Bourgois used many images to convey certain feelings and emotion, the use of red and of separating chambers to create spaces that felt like one was being voyeuristic and looking into portions of her own life experiences, and in a way they are. Her choices of image, color and how it is displayed has been seen as both insight into a trauma filled, sexually bewildering childhood and blood, sin, violence and sexuality. Although some critics have conveyed that they feel some of her imagery tells of the creative process, flesh and light and life.

Kiki Smith uses many ways to create metaphors in her work, the use of bodily fluids to impart both personal and socio-political impact within her works, and the exploration of the body as a whole to show weakness and frailty. She uses birds to represent souls, and the heavens or heavenly bodies to show interdependence between nature and man. These cover some of the areas in which both these artists play with metaphors.

After serious contemplation I settled on Nancy Blum, and while she doesn't represent the geometric elements as often, her attention to coloration, and details is something I appreciate and the flowing organic feel is something I often attribute to large portions of my own work.

Realism

In your own words define realistic art.

Realistic art is a depiction or representation of an ideal or object that is easily recognizable or translatable, despite the setting in which it may be placed.

How does Plato define good art?

Good art is that which is impersonal, belongs to the state and embodies correct moral values without any interference or alteration.

What would Plato say about Koon’s artwork?

He would have banished it from his ideal society, the works may fit into the concept of realism, but the subject matter would have been atrocious to Plato.

In your own words, how would Aristotle define good art?

It engages our attention and emotions almost as the real object or objects would, and that it makes the viewer think about the way in which it has been presented. Having function and fulfilling a purpose, in addition to possessing symmetry, proportion, harmony, size and order all contribute to this engagement of the viewer.

In your personal philosophy is “obscene art a contradiction of terms? Why or why not?

Personally, if the work was intended to make you think, it could still be seen as obscene by those who view it. My threshold for what I consider obscene and beautiful is pretty high, but I have seen some art pieces that didn't make me think, they instead made me feel a little sick or made me want to just walk away from it, holding my interest in no meaningful way. Although this was some time ago, I think that similar images might still affect me the same way. So I could not say that it is a contradiction in terms, instead, it describes accurately what some people are trying to capture or display.

Are vivid sexual images more obscene that vivid images of violence, poverty, display of extreme wealth or sickness?

I think that for me, violence and the results of violence bother me the most, including when it accompanies sexual activity, a close second would be graphic representations of illness.

Find an artist on The Drawing Center’s Viewing Program Web site that relates to your drawing for this project. How does there art relate to your concept, subject and style?

I think Steed Taylor is a good example of what I have chosen to attempt. His subject matter and style are close to what I want to try to convey so far as identity go, and I think the ideas he has for bigger pieces being used as tattoos for the city streets is interesting. The tribal or gaelic influence was part of what drew me to his work in the first place, and while he uses other materials for his larger pieces, his use of graphite is what I will likely be drawing from, though I may try some other elements to better capture my ideas.