Assignment:

Message no. 10: posted by Deborah Vess (IDST_2310) on Sat Aug 19, 2000 23:57 Subject Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

Read your web chapter on Greek Aesthetics and the Acropolis. Consider the Greek notion of art and of beauty as "effectiveness for some good purpose." Now consider what sorts of things you DO consider beautiful, and explain the reasons why you think them beautiful. Would these things be considered beautiful according to the Greek notion of art? Why or why not? Does the Greek notion of art seem to capture your ideals of what art should or should not be? Why or why not? Can you think of some things which might be considered beautiful by the Greek definition of beauty which you would not consider beautiful? Is beauty related to a thing's usefulness?

Student postings:

Message no. 265: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 13 on Tue Sep 19, 2000 17:36 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

Everyone has their own perception of what beauty is. When someone says the word 'beauty', I think of flowers, particularly roses, swans, and light, soft colors, such as pinks and purples. I think of roses because the rose is just a beautiful flower. The way it unfolds as it grows is magnificent. I think of swans because they are slow and graceful creatures. The movement of their bodies is a beautiful sight. I don't think the Greeks would have thought my ideas were beautiful. They liked objects that had a purpose and worshiped a god or goddess. Neither the rose, nor the swan had a purpose in the Greeks' lives. Some of the things the Greeks thought were beautiful, I do not. The columns, though useful, were not beautiful to me. The Doric column was as plain as it could be. The statues that the Greeks made, such as of Athena, were not beautiful in my eyes. I think that the Greeks thought that beauty was related to the objects usefulness. The object had to either have a purpose in life, be sent from the gods, or be used to worship the gods. Such is the case with the Acroplis, the olive tree, and the statues.

Message no. 267: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 30 on Wed Sep 20, 2000 12:34 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

What I consider beautiful are things such as wonderful music, paintings, and sculpture. I also think that nature is beautiful. I think that these works of art and nature are beautiful because they can cause emotions to come forth. They can be pleasing to the eye or to the other senses. To the Greeks none of this would be considered beautiful. They would not agree with me because they consider beautiful to be something that serves a purpose. I do, however, think that their statues are beautiful. These were pieces of art to them because they served the purpose to honor their gods. I do not really agree with the Greek concept of art. I think that art should be something that envigorates emotions or ideas, not just because something is useful or not. The Greeks believed their columns and buildings beautiful, however I only agree with them slightly. Most of their work is plain, but yet most of it is beautiful to me too. I do not believe that something is beautiful just because it serves a purpose in life. Morgan Stallings

Message no. 268: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 16 on Wed Sep 20, 2000 12:50 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

After looking at some of the Greek and considering what the Greek definition of art is, I concluded that my definition of art might vary a little. Yes, I can see the point of judging art by its usefullness, but if it has to serve a purpose then I don't see it as art. To me that would be considered a tool, not art. I feel that art should represent something about the artist of life itself. I consider art to be something beautiful, such as landscapes or paintings expressing some sort of emotion. Something of usefullness to the Greeks that would be considered art would be statues of one of their Gods. To me that is something to worship, and although it can be beautiful I don't feel that it would be art. I look at some of the paintings that came along later, and to me those would be art.

Message no. 269: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 4 on Wed Sep 20, 2000 17:00 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

After reading the web chapter on the Acropolis and Greek Aesthetics, I have come to the conclusion that the Greeks have a pretty good idea of what beauty is, in some respects. Take Greek sculpture for example; their sculptures were used to honor and praise their gods. This serves a purpose and is very pleasing to the eye at the same time. Greek temples are used for a multitude of things and have their own architectural beauty. Their designs, concepts, and purpose give them beauty. The Greeks were masters of art. Even the dramas put on had their own beauty while also acting as a catharsis session, to purge the body of evils, giving them an important purpose. Many things the Greeks created or believed were beautiful, in fact WERE beautiful. However, some things they think are beautiful we do not consider so. Take, for example, utensils. Now while they have a purpose and can have intricate designs on them, they are not considered to be beautiful by our society today. People who make toilets, sinks or cement might be esteemed as great artisans to the Greeks because their work has some practical purpose, but we definitely do not consider these workers as artisans. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What we think is beautiful may not be the same as what others think. Personally, I agree that Greek architecture, sculpture and drama are beautiful as well as various paintings, music and other forms of art that originated later on in history. But I do not feel that ANYTHING that has a purpose should be deemed beautiful. Architecture is beautiful to me because there are so many ways you can mix and match shapes, create angles and combine these to make a complex webwork of unimaginable style. It is functional and beautiful. Sculpture and paintings are beautiful because not only do they convey what the artist is feeling but they can convey reality, impressions, and imagination, while at the same time teaching you about the person that created the art and the times they lived in. I also believe nature in general to be beautiful in the many ways that it creates life and is all around us. We capture its beauty through photography. The Greeks may not have considered paintings or nature to be beautiful, having no intrinsic value or purpose but might have seen the cave paintings as art because they told a story about that culture.

Message no. 272: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 18 on Wed Sep 20, 2000 18:50 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

When someone says the word beautiful I think of things that are pleasing to the eye. Some things that I considered beautiful would have to be the stars in the sky, a spring day, and the moon at night. I do not believe that the Greeks would consider these things beautiful because they serve no purpose. The Greeks believed that for a thing to be beautiful it had to serve a purpose and had to be considered a piece of technology or something that they could use. The things that the Greeks believed were beautiful were the acropolis, the Doric columns, and olive trees. To me this things are plain and ugly, but to the Greeks they were beautiful because the acropolis was the center of their political system and the olive tree was beautiful because it was brought to the Greek people by the gods. My definition of beautiful varys greatly from the Greeks definition of beautiful.

Message no. 277: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 28 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 15:08 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

I only agree with the Greek in some aspects about the beauty of art. I mean for me can beauty be a newborn baby, flowers, or an action even. As the greek saw the beautiful in the simple and practical I don't always see it as that. I mean I understand their thinking, and it is a straightforward and not at all bad approach. That wood could be more beautiful then gold sometimes because it serves some given purpose better. It sounds almost lyrical but I don't totally agree. I can see beauty in simple things but also in non practical and non simple things. Paintings can have beauty though they don't serve a purpose. Flowers can be beautiful though they don't serve a purpose and of course many other things. But one other thing which i give the Greeks credit for is the variety and and beauty of many of the artifacts they produced. I mean looking at a simple vase or bowl and it displays an incredible work of art and storytelling. Not like shopping a vase or bowl at Walmart for $4.99 eh ! I am glad there are enough artifacts preserved for us to behold and take joy in now, and also understand the Greek culture and spirit of that era. Very interesting indeed.

Message no. 279: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 24 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 18:39 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

i think of butterflys when i think of something beautiful. they have very vibrant colors and i love the way that they transform from something as plain as a caterpiller to something as beautiful as a butterfly. the greeks would not think that a butterfly is beautiful because it is not very useful. the greeks notion of art is not like mine because they think that art is something useful whereas i think that art could be something useful or something that's not so useful. the greeks would consider stuff beautiful that we wouldn't like a small house over a mansion. yes beauty is related to useful things the greeks thought that something could only be beautiful if it was useful.

Message no. 280: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 21 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 19:07 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics When I think of beauty, I remember times like being outside at night and looking up at the sky at the stars and hitting a homerun in the last inning to win the baseball game. The Greeks probably would not think that the things that I feel are beautiful really are. I feel that the Greeks believe that beauty is like their sculptures, columns, and anything that is useful. I feel that not only things that are beautiful are useful, but, also that things that are not useful are beautiful too. It amazes me how beauty can change over time. Something may not seem beautiful at first, but, over time it may turn out beautiful...like a butterfly. And, sometimes things may be beautiful at first and turn out not so pretty...like certain dogs. In conclusion, like the almighty quote, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Message no. 281: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 19 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 19:26 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

A heartfelt painting, an emotional piece of music - these are things I consider beautiful. If I lived in Greece, would I view these things with the same opinion? Probably not. I view these things as beautiful because of the emotions behind them; because I know that someone put a part of themselves into it. Well, the Greeks may view these things as beautiful, but for totally different reasons. The Greeks view things with regards to functionality. If it doesn't function in the purpose for which it was created, it's not beautiful. In an extreme case, let's look at nail-clippers. Yes... nail-clippers. :o) Nail-clippers serve the purpose for which they were created. They were made to clip nails, and that's what they do. Therefore, I believe that the Greeks would view these nail-clippers as beautiful. However, in no sense of the word do I see them as a beautiful object. I love that they do what they do... but geez... they're just nail-clippers... no emotion there! I believe that beauty and usefullness shouldn't be dependent on one another. Useful things can be useful, just as useful things can be beautiful. If I compose a song for no other reason than to just do it, I can still consider it a beautful song. With my mentality, I don't think that I would have made it very far in Greek Antiquity. :o)

Message no. 285: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 25 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 22:35 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

The Greeks thought that something beautiful was something that was useful. To me, the most beautiful thind there is , is not man made. It was made by the Gods and Goddesses and can be refered to as nature. The sky, the waters, and the forests are all a work of art within themselves. I think nature is beautiful because it is so peaceful and relaxing, a place where you can get in touch with yourself. It is possible that the greeks could have found nature as beautiful because it is useful. You can not live with out nature. YOu need the water the air, you need it all. However, I dont know if i would completely agree with the usefull is beautiful idea. Because if everything that is usefull is beautiful then that would mean that anything like a trashcan would be beautifull and I really do not find a trash can to be beautiful, even though it

Message no. 286: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 1 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 23:06 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

My view of art would be completely differnt from the Greeks. When I think of art I almost consider the emotions I feel, as a result of an experience, the actual art. You can take just about anything and make it look interseting to look at and call it art, but it doesn't really have much an emotional effect or feeling that would go with it. What I mean is, you would see a neat picture once and never really remeber it unless you felt a strong emotion along with it. When I see things like a a huge oak tree or a seting sun I feel strong feelings that I don't see everytime I look at famous pictures and sculptures. I am not saying they are not art to somebody, but they are not art to me. Therefore, I feel everyone has their own definition of art because everyone has different tastes and, like Socrates said, may have different definition of beauty than another person. The Romans felt that art had to have a purpose or deep meaning. I disagree with that because I think the purpose of art is it helps you feel emotions like anger, excitement, fear and happiness. That is when the art is having a purpose, at least to me.

Message no. 294: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 29 on Thu Oct 12, 2000 18:35 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

My favorate pieces of art are sculpture and drawings of the human form, this may seem somewhat trite but I find that no other thing has ever been created on earth that has such true form and function than living things. The Greeks and I do not agree entirely upon what is true art, I think art is anything that expresses not just what serves a function. I don't see the need for art to be utilitarian. I fully understand why a culture like the greeks would see art as no more than a simple craft, they were a culture of scholars and warrior, great minds, and great ideals, so it is understandable why they would feel the need to analyse art as needing to serve some function, greater than simply being prety. They prided themselves on efficiantcy and acheivement, it fits. The common ground I share with the greeks in terms of what is true beauty of form and function is the human form. Upon this design nothing is needless or excess, everything is there for a reason, everything has purpose (well except the appendix- What the hell does that do anyway?) In this I share with the Greeks in seeing true beauty.

Message no. 366: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 32 on Sun Dec 03, 2000 16:07 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics The Greek's indeas and concepts about the beauty of art would probaly appeal to most people as good works because the greeks were idealist and gived there sculptures and paintings perfect apperence.To me beauty don't always have to be perfect, don't get me wrong the actual carving of the stone are in themseves a thing of beauty and that is exactly my point beauty dosn't always have to be very precies and visually stimulating, to me a schematic of a 10GB cpu is a thing of beauty.The simple practical view of beauty the Greeks had don't always apply.I see the diagram for more than a drawing but a blueprint for computer excellence.Not to take anything away from the greeks they produced incrediable art wonders but the view of beauty to me shouldn't be as acute as the views of the greeks.

Message no. 373: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 11 on Mon Dec 11, 2000 13:52 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

The Greeks define beauty as "effectiveness for some good purpose". This means that in order for something to be considered beautiful it must fulfill a purpose. A road could be considered beautiful according to a Greek, but I would not necessarily consider it to be beautiful. If fulfills its purpose, however, so they Greeks would say a road is beautiful. They do not believe in art for the sake of art. They would say that a painting was not beautiful unless it had a purpose. If a painting was made to cover a big hole in the wall, then it could be considered beautiful. I would say that a nicely done flower arrangement was beautiful, but by Greek definition, the same flower arrangement wouldn't be considered beautiful. Some things that I think are beautiful are, by coincidence, also cinsidered beautiful by the Greeks, but I don't necessarily think that somehting has to be purposeful in order to be considered beautiful.

Message no. 412: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 20 on Thu Dec 14, 2000 15:16 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. I believe that is the case when looking at the things that I consider beautiful as compared to that of the Greeks. I consider many things beautiful. Things in nature such as flowers, birds, trees, sunsets, lakes, and so on. I also believe that dresses, people, paintings, pictures, and many more objects are beautifu. When compared to the Greek notion of beauty, my opinion of beauty would not fall under their standards. They consider things beautiful when they have a purpose. Many of the things that I named that I considered beautiful would not fall under the Greek notion of art. The Greek notion of art does not capture my ideals of what art should be. The Greeks believed that things like buildings and columns were beautiful. Those things are not considered beautiful to me. They also considered statues beautiful. The statues that they created are not beautiful to me, but I would still consider them works of art. I do not think that beauty is related to a thing's usefulness, unlike the Greeks. In my eye's, beauty is something that appeals to me, something that I could just stare at forever. I don't think that I could sit and stare at columns and contemplate about how useful they are. Maybe that's just me, but the Greeks had their own opinions as well. :)

Message no. 423: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 3 on Fri Dec 15, 2000 14:58 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

The things that I preceive as art differ from that of the Greek's definition. A Picasso or Dali painting intrigues me and find it a great example of art, but it honestly serves no hard purpose. The Greeks looked for function out of their art - a temple is not only aesthetically pleasing, but serves as a physical place of gathering. I find it to fit into my definition of art, but mine is more broad. I think that art is just about everthing, regardless of function or simplicity. The Greeks however seemed to have a more narrow definition; it had to serve a purpose.

Message no. 424: [Branch from no. 10] posted by student 3 on Fri Dec 15, 2000 15:13 Subject re: Assignment: Greek Aesthetics

Beauty is not related to the usefullness of an object.To me, the Greeks had too narrow of a definition of what art is: something that has a function. While my definition does include their palaces, columns, etc., I also find great artistic worth in Dali and Picasso paintings. 60's English rock music is beautiful to me. These are things that I enjoy but don't have concrete functions. Therefore the Greeks would not have considered my tastes as art according to their definitions.

Message no. 264: posted by student 5 on Tue Sep 19, 2000 15:04 Subject

The things I consider beautiful are the sky and its contents and the earth's vegetation. The sky is beautiful because it is infinite. One person cannot measure it. The sky holds the stars, sunsets, and sunrises. All four of these things are beautiful because they cannot work without each other. Vegetation is beautiful because of its vast variety. Vegetation also is beautiful because it has different colors, fragrances, and shapes. I think that they probably consider the sky and vegetation beautiful because they are both useful The sky helps them figure out times, dates, and constellations. The vegatation have healing herbs that can help the people when they are ill. The Greek notion does not capture my ideals on what art should be. Just because something is useful may not mean its beautiful. Take a rake, to someone that may a thing of beauty and to another person that rake may be so ugly. That alone proves that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can't really say because somethings that are useful are very beautiful. Take trees for example, they are very useful because they provide us with oxygen and yet they are so beautiful. So I can't really say that I would consider something beautiful by the Greek definition. I don't think that beauty is related to a thing's usefulness. Some people see colors as beautiful but what purpose do colors serve us. So no, beauty is not related to a thing's usefulness.

Message no. 270: posted by student 10 on Sep 20, 2000 17:05 Subject

When I think of beauty, I imagine the sun setting on the horizon of the ocean or an endless bed of various colored flowers. These things are beautiful to me. The way the sun reflects rays of light onto the waves of the ocean at sunset brings out emotions in me the same as would the flowers. My definition of beauty would be something that makes emotions stir inside your mind and body. However, the Greeks wouldn't agree with me at all. They believe for something to be beautiful it must be useful and have a purpose. The sunset and flowers wouldn't serve any purpose to them so they wouldn't consider them things of beauty. Greek art isn't that beautiful to me. Their statues, columns, and architecture was considered beautiful because they were useful in worshiping their gods and served a purpose in thier lives. Those are things not beautiful to me because when I see them nothing inside me feels touched. Therefore their beauty is based on usefullness and my beauty is based on emotions that things bring out in you. In conclusion, beauty has nothing to do with usefullness in modern day art.

Message no. 271: posted by student 14 on Wed Sep 20, 2000 18:10 Subject Carla Batchelor--Greek definition of beauty vrs. mine

he Greeks thought of art in a completely different way than I do. The Greeks defined art as techne, or "a capacity to do or make something with a correct understanding of the principle involved." They judged a work of art as to whether or not it fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended and whether that purpose was a good one. To them, beauty was "effectiveness for some good purpose." Many things that I do not consider beautiful would have been beautiful to the Greeks. Several examples that come to mind include houses, chairs, a crutch, and a spoon. All of these are things that fulfill their purpose but are not beautiful in my eyes. A house, for example, fulfills its purpose very well and also has a good purpose. Living would not be very pleasant without a place to sleep, keep you warm or cold, and to store all of your belongings. In fact, the Greeks probably would have considered a small house for a family of three to be a greater work of art than a mansion because the small house would fulfill its purpose just as well as the large one and would be much easier to take care of. Whereas, I would be in awe over a mansion but would think very little of a small house. A metal spoon that is highly decorated versus a simple wooden spoon is a similar example. I would rather have the metal spoon, but the Greeks would have thought the wooden spoon to have a greater artistic value. While both can be used to help us eat, the wooden one would be easier to cook with because it wouldn't get so hot. To me, beauty is not related to a thing's usefulness. Beauty is something that is measured by how much something appeals to my senses. Flowers, some paintings, some songs, a sunset, and a decorative wedding dress are all things that are beautiful. They all appeal to my sense of sight or sound. I enjoy looking at the various colors and kinds of flowers. They are something that is very diverse. Hardly ever does one see two flowers that are exactly alike. Most flowers also smell wonderful, and the way that they can open up so big also makes them beautiful. A sunset is beautiful also because of the colors. A sunset is relaxing. Some wedding dresses are just absolutely gorgeous, especially those with extensive bead work and patterns. I also enjoy paintings of things such as the ones mentioned above. Paintings and pictures often capture special moments or beautiful scenary like that mentioned above. A wedding dress or a painting might be considered beautiful to the Greeks because they fulfill the purpose for which they were made, but to them, a dress without beading would be just a pretty as one with it. A sunset or flower probably wouldn't be considered beautiful to the Greeks because a tree could provide oxygen just as easy as a flower. The Greek notion of art is not the same as mine. For me to consider something art, all it has to do is appeal to my sense of sight or sound. Most of society probably views art and beauty in this same way. In fact, we highly respect artists such as painters, musicians, and writers, but we don't respect those in trades such as plumbing, construction work, and electrical work. The Greeks would have respected those doing the technical work much more than those with the ability to paint beautiful pictures. I think that both our society and the Greek society value art about equally but in a different sense. They valued those that met their definition of art, and we value those that meet ours. Art today is mostly used for entertainment or decoration, whereas their art was essential things that they needed in life.

Message no. 276: posted by student 9 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 14:35 Subject Paige Segars

Beauty means so many different things to me. I find the definition of beauty to mean something very personal and unique for everyone. I truely believe in the statement that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I find many things are very beautiful. I think trees and flowers are amazingly beautiful. I think Georgia College has a beautiful front campus. I also think many people are very beautiful; not because of their outer apperance but because of their inner spirit. The Greeks had a very direct idea of beauty. They considered things to only be beautiful if they served a specific purpose. I think the Greeks would still consider some of the things that I think are beautiful to be beautiful in their standards. I think that they would consider trees to be somewhat beautiful because they do serve a purpose. They produce oxygen for us to breath. On the otherhand I'm not so sure they would consider flowers to be beautiful. In the practical sense flowers don't really serve much of a purpose yet I think if they can brighten someones day then they have served a huge purpose. The Greeks considered architecture to be very beautiful serving a big purpose. I couldn't agree more with them more. I love to look at buildings and their unique structures. I think the reason I love front campus so much is beacause of the beautiful buildings. I think it's ironic how Georgia College found that the Greek colums were so beautiful they decided to use all three designs.(ionic, corinthian, and doric) Overall, I think beauty comes back to personal preferences. The Greeks thought usefullness was beautiful and I think that the color, texture, and shape of an object can be beautiful. Beauty is something only you can distinguish.

Message no. 278: posted by student 23 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 15:58 Subject Beauty vs. usefulness

The Greeks believed that the beauty in art was it usefulness. This was very open to interputation. Why, because the explantion that Plato used was the comparison of gold spoon and a wooden spoon. This could looked at in different ways, a wooden spoon is just as useful as a gold spoon, so the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. They are both useful so they both be can considered beautiful. There are many things I beleive to be beautful. I think that some cars are very beautiful. Take the 1965 Mustang for example. It simple,fast,and has a lot of feeling in its design. I also find that food can be an art form that is very beautiful. When you are preparing a dish,you want it to look very pleasing to the person that will be eating it. It is very self-expressive. The first of these might of been beatiful according to the Greeks. Because of its simplicity. It serves the purpose that it was built for in that it gets you from point A to point B. I don't believe that the Greeks would consider food to be beautiful because it is not very useful. Food is useful but not the presentation of it because after you eaten it there is nothing left. The Greek notion of art doe not completely capture my idealsof what should or should not be. I beauty to be in many things. I believe beauty to be in many things and it does not depend on its usefulness. I believe in "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Beauty is everything around us from nature,building,food to anything you want it to be.

Message no. 282: posted by student 7 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 20:03 Subject Stevie Tabor

I think that nature is very beautiful. Whenever I drive anywhere I am always looking at how attractive the landscape is. I like the kind of nature that when I look at it a story starts to unfold in my mind. I defintley want to get married in a field or somewhere outside. I love the outdoors and the beatuy of nature. I just love how by looking at one sun set or peering into the petals of a rose that your imagination can carry you far away. The Greeks thought that things that were useful were beautiful. They thought their temples and sculptures were beautiful. The temples had a propose as a worship center and the scultures were the way that they worshiped their Greek God. Therfore they both had a useful propose. But something like nature they would not have thought of as beautiful as the temples and sculptures; because it didn't have such a useful propse as their religion did in their society. I do beleieve that their temples are very elabrate and that the sculptures are as well. But in my eyes the highest ideal of beauty in the art wolrd is nature. I just love the roll of the hills and the swaying of the tall grass on big fields. The breeze pushing my hair across my face and the overall effect from such a breath taking sight as peering off a mountain onto the wonders of the world. This to me is beauty, yes the Greeks were very well at making temples and sculptures. But that is not greta beaurty in my eyes like the awesome world of nature. So, I agree with the Greeks about that their art was useful and contained order and proportion, but not that it was beautiful. I have seen plenty of landscape that is way more breath taking then any of the Greek art in my opinion.

Message no. 283: posted by student 12 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 21:47 Subject Greek beauty vs. year 2000s beauty

Today's society is very differnt on its outlook on beauty. Art today is not what it was in the greek society. The greeks saw beauty as something that served a purpose. Today beauty is very subjective. The toilet's that are selling for thousands of dollars might have been seen as beautiful to the greeks because it serves a purpose. Gardeners would have been seen as artists because they grew plants that could be used for medicinal purposes, while someone who painted a garedn would not because his painting did not serve a purpose. Architects today are only revered as great if they build something out of the norm, back then it was the same way. They had to keep comming up with new ways to serve a purpose and make things look nice. Teachers are also held in low standings today, but in Greece they would be held very highly because they served a purpose and a function. Today things cansitered art son't really serve a function, but things that are important to us do serve a funtion. If they don't they are seen as a waste of time which is not very practical. The things in my life that I see as beautiful so serve a function. The ocean is very beautiful and it serves to help the earth. While this may not be a traditional way to think of the ocean, it serves to make me happy and that is good. I believe the Greeks would agree that it serves a purpose and it is good.

Message no. 284: posted by student 22 on Thu Sep 21, 000 22:05 Subject Kristan Jones To me the definition of art is based on completely different ideas from the Greeks' definition of beauty. I see gardens, bright paintings, and clothes as art in our society. Gardens are colorful and always changing. While sitting in a garden I feel as if I am surrounded by beauty due to the feeling of serenity and happiness that is presented by the flowers and the sounds of animals, like birds. Bright paintings are also beautiful to me because I love to see the artist's depiction of an emotion or an event. In paintings I love to see an array of colors that combine to present the artist's soul. While looking at fashion shows I see beauty in the design of clothes. Each outfit shows the personality of the person wearing it. The crazy and unique styles of an outfit proves the uniqueness of the individual. My favorite form of art through clothes is a wedding dress, because of the detail that goes into the perfect and creation only worn once on a very special day. According to the Greeks, art is made to serve a purpose. Most of the Greek art serves a function in social settings. Based on the Greeks' art gardens, paintings, and clothes do not serve as a function. My definition of art does ot match up with the Greeks' version of art. In my opinion the beauty of an object or place is geatly determined by colors, changes, and the emotions that I feel are associated with it. Greek art is totally centered around an object's function in society. To the Greeks poetry, writing, drama, and songs are beautiful. When looking at today's, world objects that serve a function are not particularly considered beautiful. Refrigerators, computers, and cars serve as a function in society by the ways that they make our lives so much easier. According to the Greeks' defintion of art, refrigerators, computers, and cars are all forms of art. They are forms of art because they serve as a function. In today's American society the usefulness of an object is not related to its beauty.

Message no. 287: posted by student 2 on Thu Sep 21, 2000 23:26 Subject

I think that sunsets are absolutely gorgeous. But do they serve a purpose? At first glance, one would not think so but actually they do. If we did not have sunsets, than the other side of the world would not have new days. Is that enough of a purpose in the Greek mind to make a sunset beautiful? In their minds, a toothpick would be considered beautiful. If you think in an abstract way, everything that is on this Earth has some sort of purpose.

Message no. 288: posted by student 31 on Fri Sep 22, 2000 13:14 Subject

To the Greeks beauty was defined by an objects ability to fulfill it's purpose. The more useful something was, the more beautiful it was considered. I find sunsets over water, the season of Fall, snow, and children beautiful. None of these things have any great purpose. Therefore they would be insignificant and not at all beautiful in Ancient Greek culture. But, these things evoke emotion in me and make me thankful for my life. That is beauty to me- anything that makes me stop and realize something new about my small, individual existance. In my way of thinking, beauty will be different to every person. Which is more beautiful an empty chair or a painting of that chair? To the Greeks the actual chair would have been more beautiful. It serves the purpose for which it was made. But, in my mind that chair is only an object- a place to rest, whereas the painting brings emotions of loneliness and loss to me. It's ability to evoke emotion is far more important to me than to actually have a place to sit. I do not believe that something is beautiful only because it can be used. That sunset has no tangible use, but it signifies and ending and a new beginning, a greater power, a reminder that I am not in control. This "use " is far more valuable and beautiful in my opinion. Dr. Vess, I realize that this assignment was posted after the due date. I have no excuse except for that I simple forgot. My hope is that you will accept it with only a penalization for tardiness. I apologize for the inconveniance.

Message no. 289: posted by student 15 on Tue Sep 26, 2000 09:33 Subject

Today many things are concidered beautiful in its own way. I feel that anything can have beauty as long as there is someone to believe it is beautiful. Take for instance a car the owner may have bought it because he thought it looked beautiful, but a person in the market for a car may think it is ugly. That's his own persona taste. But the greeks would had looked at the car in terms of how useful the car was and how good it was built. We today only look at it from a visual standpoint. In society today I find things such as well designed houses, untouched forest area, and well kept historic sites beautiful. I believe that greeks would also find these thing beautiful.

Explorations in Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Home Page