Leah Coon

11/24/15
Extra Credit Journal 3
Art itself is difficult to define whenever I think about the definition of art, I think about
a story I heard of where a janitor at an art exhibit threw away one of the pieces, because she
mistook it for trash. Thus I think that art is incredibly subjective, and is based off perception.
What one person sees as a masterpiece, another might find meaningless. Overall though, I think
that art can be defined as anything created with the purpose of conveying a message. The
message doesnt have to be universally read or accepted, but I think that art must have
significance to someone, even if its just one other person.
In the Sturken and Cartwright readings, the concepts of ideology and context are
prevalent. I think this is an important idea especially in certain art pieces. Art is supposed to
make you feel something and often context is an important factor in doing so. If you look at
something like image 5a, this clearly has a specific place and time in mind. If someone didnt
know anything about the history of slavery and racism or the KKK, then this image would have
less meaning. However, even then some form of the idea would still come across to the viewer.
You can look at the clear expressions of determination and fear in the central figures faces, as
well as the menacing colors to get a sense of the tone of the picture. Even without context, this
still invokes a feeling of dread. With context though, I feel that this piece of art has more to say.
The connotations of the white hooded figures themselves gives a sense of revulsion and fear, and
maybe even shame. Therefore I think that while its not always necessary to understand the

artists exact intention within historical or cultural context, it does give the art piece more
meaning.
Thats not to say that, without a context in mind, art doesnt have any meaning however.
If you look at image 9a, its almost impossible for me to say exactly where it came from.
Whatever message the artist is sending is not as clear to me as in the other image, but its still
there. It was created with an intention and is still art. Even just simple lines and colors can
convey meaning. Personally, the contrast in this piece is important to me. I think that there is a
lot of emphasis on the empty white space of the canvas versus the shocks of primary colors that
draw your eye around the piece. I cant say exactly what it means, but there is still a purpose
there. I think that purpose in art can be as simple as showing the difference between color and
negative space, or even just to make you wonder about what it means. There are so many
different interpretations of this piece that it could be universally enjoyed, without a specific place
or person or culture in mind.
Altogether, I think that art is defined by how it interacts with its viewers. It has to make
you feel something, or think of something. Nothing is truly universal, but art should be able to be
appreciated by at least someone else other than the artist, even if they dont truly understand the
meaning. Additionally, I think that it must be defined by the artists reason for creating it. To put
it simply, there has to be one. Otherwise, anything could be art. I do like that idea, but I think that
practically there has to be some sort of effort put into creating a piece. Art doesnt have to be
understood by anyone but the artist, but it should be able to be enjoyed or at least identified with
by someone else.