In regard to the study, Gartus and Leder issued two questionaries to their test subjects to determine their artistic preferences, and included those responses in their evaluation, along with their information and variables involving contextual factors concerning aesthetic processing. The authors believe that when “ concerning contextual influences on art appreciation, the initial classification of an object as an object of aesthetic interest is often a necessary precondition for the aesthetic processes. When this reclassification, which is facilitated by contextual factors, is missing, the object might not be fully aesthetically processed and experienced” (Leder and Gartus Pg 312).
In order to define the aspects of an artwork that make it aesthetically pleasing, Gartus and Leder attempted to control the variables of these contextual factors in their experiment. The thesis presented by Gartus and Leder in their experiment is that the context in which one views a piece of art work changes the attractiveness of the piece. To test their thesis, the authors took forty images of modern art typically found in a museum type setting and relocated the work to an urban type setting typically where one would find graffiti. Vice versa, street art pieces were relocated into museums where they could be viewed as modern art.
Different artworks were rated on a nine point scale. Forty art images and forty scene images were used in the study and shown to two different experimental groups that were formed based on their answers to the questionnaires. The art images were artworks that one would typically see in a museum. These classical artworks are the pieces that are commonly referred to as beautiful, or aesthetically pleasing. The scene images were photos taken of street art, and urban graffiti. The results of the study found that different experimental groups both “ had a higher positive influence on the ratings of modern art than it had on the ratings of graffiti art”(Gartus and Leder pg 316).
I do not agree with Gartus and Leder concerning their thesis and basis for experimenting and evaluation. First off, I feel that while the results were interesting and an idea to ponder, the control groups used to evaluate the artworks were skewed because of the inaccuracy of the questionnaires. The questions for both the modern art category and the urban street art category were not the same. When creating the questionnaires it seems as if Gartus and Leder had a bias towards the modern museum art. This was relevant throughout the experiment and i feel it greatly altered the results.
So even though i feel that the experiment itself needed some modification in regard to test subject and control groups, I still do not concur with the idea that a general aesthetic of an artwork can be determined. While Gartus and Leder were testing to see if location and the general context of the art work made a difference in a persons opinion on the beauty and attractiveness of the art, it was also a test that would reinforce their original thesis that art is defined by basic concepts of art and of personal aesthetic preference in regard to color and style.
I do not agree with this. First, I do not believe that the location or general context surrounding the art changes the aesthetic in a negative way. Graffiti, for example is typically located in an urban setting. While it is located under bridges and on the side of buildings, I find it to be beautiful because it represents a culture and an ideal of the area that has been tagged. When one takes a piece of modern art and places it outside in an urban setting, I feel that the location only enhances the beauty of the modern art. Same goes for street art. When it is placed in a museum setting I think it takes away much of the beauty, emotional valence and captivation that it demands from the public on the side of a building. This is in part because street art is a response to the urban life surrounding the artist. it is often an emotional release that responds to the intense nature of street life. it is an aspect of culture that is very undervalued. Now, when one ponders the aesthetics of modern museum art, it is true that these paintings and works of art demonstrate incredible skill and exemplify beauty. However, when taken out of a museum and placed in a urban setting, these pieces come to life in a way that creates a new basis for thought and emotional evaluation by the viewer.
However, another idea presented in the study, was the idea of Graffiti vs Modern Art and wether or not Graffiti and street art could be considered art. Basically it came down to wether or not the art was aesthetically pleasing. I agree with the authors that the aesthetic experience is the most important part of art. However, I disagree with them concerning the aesthetic experience of graffiti. I think graffiti is beautiful and I find it aesthetically pleasing contrary to the opinion of the authors.
In regard to defining personal preference in art aesthetic, I refute the thesis by Gartus and Leder because I believe that art preference is not something that can be defined. They say, “ Our findings suggest that an appropriate context can indeed be important for the evaluation of different styles of art, at least in interaction with the specific interests of the viewers”. This is a complicated topic because I do not think that the specific interests of viewers is something that can be studied. Since every person has a very different interpretation of what they consider to be art and of what they desire in a piece of art, I do not think it is humanly possible to conduct a study wide enough to touch on every opinion and type artistic preference.
Gartus and Leder had an interesting idea to see if context altered the aesthetics of a work of art. However, I think they conducted the experiment based on bias and less on facts. I feel that their bias towards modern art was evident in their tone and data in evaluating the responses of the test subjects. In addition, I do not think that their original thesis describing that an art work’s aesthetic comes from the basic visual characteristics of art is one that can be studied or valued because it is hard to define what art is supposed to be on a general level. Art can be more than just drawing and painting, and I feel like throughout the context of the essay and experiment, these ideas were not well represented by Gartus and Leder. Like I previously stated, It was as intriguing idea, but it should be redone in a way that involves more controllable variables and tests both sets of art work inside museums and in an urban setting. In addition the experiment should be redone without bias. I feel that if another person completed the same experiment, they would not get the same results as Gartus and Leder.
No comments:
Post a Comment