Performance art and its uniqueness

Piper believes that performance art is unique due to the fact that it gives the audience the immediate satisfaction of the art itself, and therefore giving it a power that other art forms do not possess. Performance art is very interactive and is able to change and grow after every performance. Performers as well as the art they are performing become an art form all together. She believes that art has a vast power over other art forms due to the fact that it is able to interact with its audience, and is able to touch people on a deeper level due to this interaction and potentially change their views on various topics and subjects the performance is dealing with. I agree with piper in the sense that performance art can have a greater impact on an audience then a painting could due to the fact that a performance is meant to touch people on a deeper level due to the fact that it is interacting directly with everyone who chooses to go see that performance. Also it has a greater impact because it is able to grow and change with each new performance, therefore its uniqueness varies, which enables people to relate with the art more frequently and on a deeper level.

What is a fetish?

Art Done By Robert Bishop

A fetish is defined in the dictionary as "An inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit." Many people within the world have certain types of fetishes, usually these fetishes are of a sexual nature, such as a foot fetish. Foot fetishes are the most common known in the world, Freud often viewed foot binding as a sort of foot fetish. There is no known psychological cause of fetishes, although many psychologist have done studies on why people become so obsessed with these objects and/ or body parts. Fetishes themselves have become somewhat of a new art form, "Fetish art" is a well know art form that displays people in fetishistic situations such as bondage and what not. Some of the most well know fetish artists are John Coutss, also know as John Willie and Robert Bishop. The idea of placing a specific mystical nature to an object is what Piper believes as placing fetishistic characteristics to art forms.  

Art done by John Coutts aka John Willie

the institutional theory and why it fails to define what art is

 Dickie’s trys to define art using his institutional theory, which has been greatly influenced by Danto. His theory is based around the idea that the art world in general is a social institution, much like an educational institution or something of that nature. He states that in order for something to be considered a work of art it must be viewed as one with the institution of art. He furthers his views by explaining that in order for something to become a work of art it will be judged on the matter of its “artifactuality” and its “conferred status of candidate for appreciation.” What this claim means is that the piece of art work must be intended to be art as well as it must be recognized as art within the social institution of art by one or more people within the institution. In my opinion Dickie fails at his attempt to give a definition on what art truly is due to his theory on who is within the art world and who is not. He view is based around the claim that in order for something to be considered an art work it must be viewed and treated like one within the institution of art, an institution that is loosely defined within his statements. Within his work he never really gives a set list of criteria for who is or isn’t within this art world. He just states that basically anyone who comes in contact with a work of art can recognize it an say its truly art and become part of this institution. In my opinion if he Dickie’s theory has to many loose ends and no real structure, and in order to define something I believe that it should at least have some foundation to fall back on (not that I am claiming art can truly be defined).

Who becomes a member of the Art world?

In order for one to state a piece of work as “art” one must be a part of the art world itself. According to Dickie the people within the art world are those who keep the art world in tack, such as painters, writers, museum directors, ect. Those who are directly involved with the displaying, teaching or displaying of the work of art. But he also claims that anyone who sees themselves as a member of the art world therefore becomes a member. He explains this more formally by presenting the idea of a core and a minimum core. The essential core consists of the artists who make the art, the people who display the art, and all those who go and appreciate the art. The minimum core consists of those such as art historians, philosophers, and critics. Overall Dickie believes that those who are entitled to be in the art world are those who fall within the essential core and the minimum core. 

The "is of artistic identification"

 Danto’s views were revolved around  the question on how to distinguish to objects that are identical, one being the piece of art and the other just an ordinary object, or as he says “ perceptually indistinguishable counterparts.” He views on art consist of two parts. One being art theories such as the “is” of artistic identification, the other being what he calls the “Artworld.” The “Artworld” consists of knowing the history of art as well as knowing artistic theories. He states that in order to see an art as a true piece of artwork one must have a deep understanding of the history of that art piece. The “is” of artistic Identification according to Danto is a method which one can use to tell the difference between a real object and a piece of artwork. For example; when one says “A is B” the “A”, has a certain property that object B does not possess, therefore making “A” an artwork. Danto uses the example of Warhol’s Brillo Box, it looks identical to a generic brillo box, (A is B) but the what makes Warhol’s a work of art is the fact that is was made with greater care and refined and not mass produced therefore it possesses a property that a generic brillo box does not. (A possess a property which B does not making A the work of art.) 

Does a deep knowledge of art history enable you to critique art more adequately?

I do not believe that in order to have a deep understanding of art you have to know the history of it. I think if you know to much about the history of something then you set up expectations, ones that if not met could make your emotional response to the art piece less meaningful than if you would have see it without the prior knowledge. For example when a trained dancer of 12 years goes to see a performance at the Boston Opera House. Let say the performance is the Nutcracker,one of the biggest shows of the whole year. This specific dancer has already, through training and the knowledge they have of dance, set up expectations about what the performance overall should be like. They have set standards that the performance must reach in order to be considered a "good" work of performance art.This prior knowledge inhibits the viewer form experiencing what the performance truly has to offer the audience, therefore they may have somewhat of a skewed view on what it truly is. Although this is true,  I do believe that in order to critique something then you should have some prior knowledge on the subject. 

"When is art?" a good or bad way to critique a work of art?

In my opinion Goodman’s “when is art” instead of “what is art" is a good way to view pieces of art due to the fact that he provides a set of standards in which one can see when an object becomes a piece of art. I completely agree that a work of art is seen as such when it is displayed in a certain way, for example one would not see a painting as a work of art if it were being used as a floor mat, it would most likely be seen as a work of art when it is displayed in a more formal setting such as a museum. Also I think in some sense it is true that objects are made into works of art due to the fact that we treat them in a certain way. For example if the 
Mona Lisa was not displayed in a very popular,museum surrounded by a countless number of security guards, it probably would not be seen as such a valuable art piece. I think the question when does an object become a work of art is a more easily answered question the defining what art truly is. Defining are sets a concrete definition and set of standards that a work must follow in order to be considered a work of art, unlike when one looks as when something is seen as a work of art. (it allows more room for interpretation)