Response to Michelle's question 12/6/09

On December 6, 2009 Michelle posed the questions; 1) Can you say that you appreciate a work of art even though it is not in your taste? and 2) What did you receive from this class? Did your notions of art remain the same or change?

To answer her first question, yes. I do appreciate works of art that are not within my taste. To appreciate something is not the same thing as liking something. Many children often complain about their home lives, but appreciate them more than the home lives of others. So, I can not like a work of art, but appreciate that it is a work of art and an important addition to the artworld.

Before entering this class I was unsure of whether or not I would like it. I love the sciences and did not know what to expect of art and philosophy. Have I become passionate for learning about the nature of art? No. However, I do appreciate the knowledge I have gained from this course. It has made me look at things in new and different ways. It forced me to think and comprehend more than I have ever had to before. The reason I chose to attend a liberal arts school is because I truly believe that it is important to know about things other than your major. It makes you more cultured. This course took me out of my comfort zone and I am glad that it did. My notions of art before were unclear to myself because I never thought about it, but I am happy I took a course that forced me to think about something that was just easier not to think about before; defining art.

A & P : Analysis of Chapter 23: Piper 12/6/09

In my research on Adrian Piper, I found out that Piper was the first tenured African American woman professor in the field of philosophy. She refused to return to the United States while listed as a Suspicious Traveler and now is no longer a philosophy professor at Wellesley College. In the reading I found it interesting that Piper only sees performance art as unique. She believes that since performance art is a discrete and organized entity that is a result of human intelligence and choice that exist within the art context. I wonder if there are any other types of art that can be considered unique. I cannot think of anything, but I do recall my grandmother telling me of this artist who came to her church. He threw paint on the wall, and used his hands to paint a spectacular portrait of Jesus. When I saw the portrait I was amazed and thought that it was very unique because it was something new to me and unusual. So, I pose the question; "Are there any other types of art that you see as unique and what about them makes them unique to you?"

Also, the historical drama, The Last Station was recently released. It is about the Russian philosopher, Leo Tolstoy. Critics have given it good reviews, but suggest that it is not film that educates you well on the man, Tolstoy.

Wartenberg's Visit 12/2/09

I had the opportunity to attend the meeting featuring Thomas Wartenberg at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts this past week. The part of the meeting I found most interesting was when a former student of the Art and Philosophy course posed the question; "Why did Warternberg not include other philosopher's views that were like Weitz's view on defining art?" Wartenberg's response was that all the other philosophers that had views similar to Weitz's, had writings that were too similar to Weitz's. I think by not including more chapters that feature ideas similar to Weitz's makes the book seem to try to make the reader think that there must be a definition to art.

Do you think that there should have been more philosophical views included in the anthology that were similar to Weitz's view on art or was just one chapter sufficient?

How much to sacrifice for art?

In recent news, it was brought up how an artist persuaded an old man to have a tattoo artist to refresh his number on his forearm. The old man was an Aushcwitz survivor. While the number is a metaphor about how we should not forget about historical catastrophes like the Holocaust, was it morally right?

For more on this story use the following link
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/arts/design/30zmijewski.html?_r=1&ref=design


How far do we push the moral boundary for art? Do you think the old man did it for a good cause or was taken advantage of?

Response to Shelby's question on Dickie 11/29/09

In her post on November 29, 2009, Shelby posed the question; "What gives any given person the authority to label art as art? Why does Dickie not mention Danto's theory about needing to know the history and theories of art?"

There is no set standard of who can label art as art because we are yet to find a definition of art. However, one could suggest the people the most qualified to label art as art are those with degrees on art. I believe that to say that the opinions of scholars who have delved into the history and concepts of art in depth do not have merit would be a mistake. Would you tell a doctor with a M.D. and a Ph.D that they do not have the authority to give diagnoses? I don't think so. So, a degree in art is what makes a person most qualified to label art as art.

Dickie does not mention a lot of other philosophers' of art opinions and theories. Danto's theory, in particular would conflict with Dickie's view on who can confer status of art on an object. If he had mentioned Danto's theory, Dickie would have to defend his theory of who can call something art. Dickie, in my opinion intended not to mention Danto's theory to make his view on art seem more valid to the reader even though it is not.

A & P : Analysis of Chapter 19: Dickie 12/1/09

It's very interesting to see an object used as a men's toilet deemed as a work of art. By simply just signing his name on it, Duchamp confers the status of art onto the toilet according to George Dickie.

Dickie attempts to define art, but fails miserably. He defines what a candidate for art is as we discussed in class. One condition within Dickie's definition of "art" is appreciation. What is appreciation anyways? Aesthetic appreciation according to Dickie is very simple to define. He calls appreciation the feeling experienced when finding the qualities of an object worthy or valuable. Many criticize Dickie's definition of appreciation. They believe that there are different kinds of appreciation, but Dickie responds that appreciation of art and non-art is all the same, it just is appreciation of different objects. I agree with Dickie's critics.

The feeling I get when viewing a beautiful work of art such as a piece by Monet is totally different from the feeling I get when I volunteered at a transitional house. Appreciation of art objects involves viewing something aesthetically pleasing. Volunteering at a transitional house made me appreciate that I lived in a safe and dependable home. To say that both of these feelings of appreciation are not different, I find to be false and I believe many others would agree.

In response to our Q&A on Dickie and who can become members in the artworld I pose the question; "What do you believe would the effect would be on art appreciation if limitations were put on who could become a member of the artworld?"

Response to Tasha's question on Danto 11/22/09

In her blog on November 22, 2009 Tasha posed the question; "What if someone concluded that vintage art/photography (or whatever you like the most) was no longer considered real art? Would that have any effect on your appreciation for it? Is such a change even possible?"

If someone concluded that my favorite form of art was no longer considered real art, I would be in denial. I do not accept the notion that anyone can close the concept of art and that is what would have to be done in order to exclude my favorite art form. However, if it did happen, I would still appreciate my favorite art form. I just would appreciate it as a separate entity instead of art. For someone to conclude such a thing would be impossible. If we cannot find a definition for art, how can we exclude certain art forms? To deem something as real or unreal art is ridiculous. The concept of art as each of us see it depends on our own taste and someone concluding that my favorite art form was no longer real art would not change my taste in art, it would only make me look at my favorite such as vintage, as a separate category.