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.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
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.
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?
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?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
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?
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.
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?"
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?"
Saturday, November 28, 2009
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.
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.
A & P : Analysis of Chapter 18: Danto 11/22/09
In Chapter 18, Wartenberg brings up Danto's view on art.
In our class discussion,the imitation theory and the realist theory were discussed. I find it hard to distinguish what is the art work. Is it the painting of the Brillo Box or the physical Brillo Box itself?
This reminds me of when someone asks you to describe a friend to them. For example, you can say someone is good friend because he/she has qualities such as trustworthiness, a sense of humor, and generosity. You could then elaborate and recount stories of when your friend acted in such a manner to exemplify those qualities. By doing this, you give a portrait of your friend. So, what really makes them a good friend, the qualities they have or how they exemplify those qualities? I believe it is how they are exemplified. That is when you see that they are a good friend.
Therefore, I believe the painting of the Brillo Box to be the work of art. The physical Brillo Box is a model, but what truly showcases the properties of the Brillo Box and makes it appealing to the viewer is the painting.
Danto defines the "is" of artistic identification by using it in sentences such as "That a is b." The letter a is some specific physical property or part of an object that is necessary for the subject b to be considered an art work. The "is" predicates this. He also attempts to explain the "is" using an example where paintings are representational.
This leads me back to my question; "Which is the work of art; the original object or an imitation that may be representational?"
In our class discussion,the imitation theory and the realist theory were discussed. I find it hard to distinguish what is the art work. Is it the painting of the Brillo Box or the physical Brillo Box itself?
This reminds me of when someone asks you to describe a friend to them. For example, you can say someone is good friend because he/she has qualities such as trustworthiness, a sense of humor, and generosity. You could then elaborate and recount stories of when your friend acted in such a manner to exemplify those qualities. By doing this, you give a portrait of your friend. So, what really makes them a good friend, the qualities they have or how they exemplify those qualities? I believe it is how they are exemplified. That is when you see that they are a good friend.
Therefore, I believe the painting of the Brillo Box to be the work of art. The physical Brillo Box is a model, but what truly showcases the properties of the Brillo Box and makes it appealing to the viewer is the painting.
Danto defines the "is" of artistic identification by using it in sentences such as "That a is b." The letter a is some specific physical property or part of an object that is necessary for the subject b to be considered an art work. The "is" predicates this. He also attempts to explain the "is" using an example where paintings are representational.
This leads me back to my question; "Which is the work of art; the original object or an imitation that may be representational?"
Response to Tasha's question on MOBA 11/15/09
In her blog on November 15, 2009 Tasha posed the question; "What do you think of the Museum of Bad Art (MOBA)? Does it serve a useful purpose?"
The Museum of Bad Art is the world's only museum dedicated to the collection, preservation, exhibition and celebration of all bad art in all its forms. I feel that MOBA is great for artists that attempt to produce an amazing work of art, but falls below the standards of art museums containing "good" art. It gives them an opportunity to display their artwork. However, I feel MOBA has the potential to go in the wrong direction.
What happens if people start to intentionally create art to a lesser standard because MOBA will accept it? I feel that although MOBA at the moment gives credit to those who try to create great art, but how far do they lower the bar for art. I fear that soon it will encourage the formation of similar organizations. For example, what happens if someone starts to publish bad literature. Putting poorly written literature on display does not seem right to me, so I do not know if I fully agree with putting bad art on display is right.
MOBA is serving a useful purpose right now, but the ways in which it purpose can evolve help MOBA to continue serving a useful purpose or will it become a joke?
The Museum of Bad Art is the world's only museum dedicated to the collection, preservation, exhibition and celebration of all bad art in all its forms. I feel that MOBA is great for artists that attempt to produce an amazing work of art, but falls below the standards of art museums containing "good" art. It gives them an opportunity to display their artwork. However, I feel MOBA has the potential to go in the wrong direction.
What happens if people start to intentionally create art to a lesser standard because MOBA will accept it? I feel that although MOBA at the moment gives credit to those who try to create great art, but how far do they lower the bar for art. I fear that soon it will encourage the formation of similar organizations. For example, what happens if someone starts to publish bad literature. Putting poorly written literature on display does not seem right to me, so I do not know if I fully agree with putting bad art on display is right.
MOBA is serving a useful purpose right now, but the ways in which it purpose can evolve help MOBA to continue serving a useful purpose or will it become a joke?
A & P : Analysis of Chapter 17: Goodman 11/15/09
In Chapter 17, Wartenberg informs us of Goodman's question "when is art?" as a substitute for the traditional question "what is art?"
During my research on Goodman, I found Goodman's theory of symbols to be very interesting. Through his theory of symbols, Goodman attempts to analyze various art forms according to their symbolic features. He views the nature of art as cognitive. In order to truly understand, Goodman emphasizes that art must be partnered with science. Could it be that we are looking for answer for the definition of art, but only looking within the field of art?
Goodman believes all art does not share some special quality. He instead advocates when art is because how we use art is how its properties are exemplified. He says art must function as a symbol. To find art without representation, Goodman says is impossible. I do not believe that all art is meant to represent something. Artists can intend for art to be representative and symbolic. So, why can't they intend for art to represent nothing? Many works of art are not intended to represent anything. The artist simply makes them for showcase and to be displayed are their only function.
To go back to what I said earlier; "Are we looking for a definiton of art by only looking within the field of art? Where else can we look?"
During my research on Goodman, I found Goodman's theory of symbols to be very interesting. Through his theory of symbols, Goodman attempts to analyze various art forms according to their symbolic features. He views the nature of art as cognitive. In order to truly understand, Goodman emphasizes that art must be partnered with science. Could it be that we are looking for answer for the definition of art, but only looking within the field of art?
Goodman believes all art does not share some special quality. He instead advocates when art is because how we use art is how its properties are exemplified. He says art must function as a symbol. To find art without representation, Goodman says is impossible. I do not believe that all art is meant to represent something. Artists can intend for art to be representative and symbolic. So, why can't they intend for art to represent nothing? Many works of art are not intended to represent anything. The artist simply makes them for showcase and to be displayed are their only function.
To go back to what I said earlier; "Are we looking for a definiton of art by only looking within the field of art? Where else can we look?"
Response to Will's question on Hume 11/7/09
In his blog on November 7, 2009 Will posed the question: "When it comes to the judgement of an art object, who has the correct answer or incorrect answer? Is there any rubric to distinguish?"
The judgement of art objects is open to everyone. Some say the only person who knows the true meaning of an artwork is the creator. Others may say the observer may have the correct answer. I believe the judgement of an art object has no correct answer or incorrect answer. Art is open to interpretation by all and that leaves no room for a right answer.
In the chapter on Hume, the thing brought up as the rubric to distinguish is the standard of taste. However, there is no set standard of taste. Therefore the rubric to help us distinguish the correct interpretation of art cannot be effectively used. So, it is impossible to know for sure who has the correct answer or incorrect answer.
The judgement of art objects is open to everyone. Some say the only person who knows the true meaning of an artwork is the creator. Others may say the observer may have the correct answer. I believe the judgement of an art object has no correct answer or incorrect answer. Art is open to interpretation by all and that leaves no room for a right answer.
In the chapter on Hume, the thing brought up as the rubric to distinguish is the standard of taste. However, there is no set standard of taste. Therefore the rubric to help us distinguish the correct interpretation of art cannot be effectively used. So, it is impossible to know for sure who has the correct answer or incorrect answer.
A & P : Analysis of Chapter 3: Hume 11/7/09
In Chapter 3 of our book, Hume's antinomy is posed to us. Hume's antinomy is the pair of ideas that is possible for us to make critical judgements about works of art and that taste is the grounds for making those critical judgements.
Hume attempts to solve this antinomy by searching for a standard of taste. He describes taste as the sentiments of men with regard to beauty and deformity of all kinds even while their general discourse is the same. Hume is unable to solve the antinomy because he cannot seem to find a set standard of taste.
Is there a set standard of taste? Not that anyone knows of right now. Is it possible to set a definition of taste? The general principles of taste may be uniform, but making for rules for taste just like making rules for art seems impossible. Taste differs from individual to individual. A common rule cannot be found for taste, so how are we supposed to find a definition of art.
When we judge art, our personal taste is a very important factor. If we cannot define the factors that help us constitute how we judge art, is it even possible to define art?
Hume attempts to solve this antinomy by searching for a standard of taste. He describes taste as the sentiments of men with regard to beauty and deformity of all kinds even while their general discourse is the same. Hume is unable to solve the antinomy because he cannot seem to find a set standard of taste.
Is there a set standard of taste? Not that anyone knows of right now. Is it possible to set a definition of taste? The general principles of taste may be uniform, but making for rules for taste just like making rules for art seems impossible. Taste differs from individual to individual. A common rule cannot be found for taste, so how are we supposed to find a definition of art.
When we judge art, our personal taste is a very important factor. If we cannot define the factors that help us constitute how we judge art, is it even possible to define art?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Response to Tasha's question on Weitz 11/1/09
On November 1, 2009 Tasha posed the question; "Can anyone but artists themselves define art? Would they even be able to convey their thoughts on the matter? How can these theorists give true insight on art if they are not artists?"
I feel that we all have the potential to make art. Some of us just create art more aesthetically pleasing than others and some of us choose not to create art at all. Therefore, I believe we all have are "potential" artists and are capable of defining art. But the defining part is the problem. I believe most of us attempt to define art, but really what we are doing in the process is judging art.
To say that all of us are capable of being artists is bold, but I believe holds truth. The second part of Tasha's question may hold a different answer though. I think anyone can convey their thoughts on art, but how much merit we give to their thoughts may differ. For example, the thoughts of a professional artist with a degree in art may hold a lot more merit than the thoughts of a person that is a mere amateur that sketches during their spare time and calls themselves an artist.
These theorists cannot give true insight on art if they are not artists. They only can tell us their thesis's, which they deduced from their deep knowledge on art. True insight on something must be experienced. For example, it is hard to be comforted by a person who has never experienced the loss of loved one when you lose a loved one. The other person can attempt to comfort you all they want, but they do not know truly how you are feeling because they have never experienced that feeling and therefore cannot give true insight.
I feel that we all have the potential to make art. Some of us just create art more aesthetically pleasing than others and some of us choose not to create art at all. Therefore, I believe we all have are "potential" artists and are capable of defining art. But the defining part is the problem. I believe most of us attempt to define art, but really what we are doing in the process is judging art.
To say that all of us are capable of being artists is bold, but I believe holds truth. The second part of Tasha's question may hold a different answer though. I think anyone can convey their thoughts on art, but how much merit we give to their thoughts may differ. For example, the thoughts of a professional artist with a degree in art may hold a lot more merit than the thoughts of a person that is a mere amateur that sketches during their spare time and calls themselves an artist.
These theorists cannot give true insight on art if they are not artists. They only can tell us their thesis's, which they deduced from their deep knowledge on art. True insight on something must be experienced. For example, it is hard to be comforted by a person who has never experienced the loss of loved one when you lose a loved one. The other person can attempt to comfort you all they want, but they do not know truly how you are feeling because they have never experienced that feeling and therefore cannot give true insight.
A & P : Analysis of Chapter 16: Weitz 11/1/09
In Chapter 16 of our book, Wartenberg informs us of Weitz's claim that there is no set definition of art because art is an open concept and depends on the viewer's "criteria of evaluation." Weitz goes on to claim that all art does not have common properties, which is quite an exaggeration.
The following quote I found in my research that relates to Weitz's point of view;
"The idea that in order to get clear about the meaning of a general term one had to find the common element in all its applications has shackled philosophical investigation."
-Ludwig Wittegenstein
Finding a precise definition of art may be impossible. There is no known common element found in every single work of art. There are only common properties shared among select work of arts. Weitz, as well as Wittegenstein make this very clear. But does this mean we cannot use the concept of art?
Weitz continues to compare the concept of art to the concept of games. Just because we cannot define these concepts precisely does not mean that we cannot put them to use. We employ the concept of art as well as games to a certain function at a given time and by doing so we do not close the concept, but set some sort of a boundary. So, even with open concepts we can set limits in order to use the concepts.
While reading Chapter 16 about Weitz's view on art I wondered what Weitz's take on the intentionality thesis would be.
What do you think Weitz would say of the intentionality thesis?
The following quote I found in my research that relates to Weitz's point of view;
"The idea that in order to get clear about the meaning of a general term one had to find the common element in all its applications has shackled philosophical investigation."
-Ludwig Wittegenstein
Finding a precise definition of art may be impossible. There is no known common element found in every single work of art. There are only common properties shared among select work of arts. Weitz, as well as Wittegenstein make this very clear. But does this mean we cannot use the concept of art?
Weitz continues to compare the concept of art to the concept of games. Just because we cannot define these concepts precisely does not mean that we cannot put them to use. We employ the concept of art as well as games to a certain function at a given time and by doing so we do not close the concept, but set some sort of a boundary. So, even with open concepts we can set limits in order to use the concepts.
While reading Chapter 16 about Weitz's view on art I wondered what Weitz's take on the intentionality thesis would be.
What do you think Weitz would say of the intentionality thesis?
Response to Tasha's question on Dewey 10/25/09
In her blog on 10/25/09 Tasha says that our societies' obsession with time and immediate gratification hinders us from taking it all in. She then poses the question: "How can we change? If art truly is prefigured into human nature, why can't we see that everyone has the potential to actualize that artistic ability?"
We can't see what we do not want to see. I think if everyone recognized that they have the potential to actualize that artistic ability, they would be afraid of the judgment that comes after. Art is indeed part of our human nature. We are so quick to judge artworks and sometimes we are very harsh in our judgements. It is also part of our human nature to be afraid of putting hard work into something and have it be criticized. It reminds me of when you're young and you are finding your talents for the first time. You may really enjoy playing soccer or painting, but when someone criticizes how you play soccer or your painting, you are immediately prone to convince yourself that you do not have the potential. So, if we all did realize and accepted that we have artistic ability, we would be scared of our artwork getting criticized. Therefore, change will only come when we stop criticizing so harshly and deeming things not art. Only then will everyone get the courage to explore their artistic abilities.
We can't see what we do not want to see. I think if everyone recognized that they have the potential to actualize that artistic ability, they would be afraid of the judgment that comes after. Art is indeed part of our human nature. We are so quick to judge artworks and sometimes we are very harsh in our judgements. It is also part of our human nature to be afraid of putting hard work into something and have it be criticized. It reminds me of when you're young and you are finding your talents for the first time. You may really enjoy playing soccer or painting, but when someone criticizes how you play soccer or your painting, you are immediately prone to convince yourself that you do not have the potential. So, if we all did realize and accepted that we have artistic ability, we would be scared of our artwork getting criticized. Therefore, change will only come when we stop criticizing so harshly and deeming things not art. Only then will everyone get the courage to explore their artistic abilities.
A & P : Analysis of Chapter 12: Dewey 10/25/09
In Chapter 12, Wartenberg informs the reader of Dewey's belief that art is embedded in the experiences of nature. Humans create art intentionally, while nature is not intentional. For example, a human builds a house because they need shelter. A bird builds a nest instinctively. The discussion in class reminded me of a quote I heard a few years ago.
"To the artist, there is never anything ugly in nature." - Auguste Rodin
I disagree with that quote. We deem things pretty and ugly every day. Ugly is a lesser degree of prettiness. To say nothing in nature is ugly is illogical. How else would we distinguish one aspect of nature from another without the varying degrees of prettiness, including ugliness? To say that all artists see nothing ugly in nature is false because many artists replicate things in nature in paintings, etc. and make them beautiful. If they intend to make something beautiful, doesn't it make the original ugly to some degree?
We experience statements like that quote in everyday life. We try to make things such as nature sound beautiful and ideal because it is so closely related to art. However, in order to differentiate we must use words such as ugly to describe things, even nature.
To conclude, I pose the question; "What other things can provide aesthetic experience besides nature that are often described as if they are always beautiful?"
"To the artist, there is never anything ugly in nature." - Auguste Rodin
I disagree with that quote. We deem things pretty and ugly every day. Ugly is a lesser degree of prettiness. To say nothing in nature is ugly is illogical. How else would we distinguish one aspect of nature from another without the varying degrees of prettiness, including ugliness? To say that all artists see nothing ugly in nature is false because many artists replicate things in nature in paintings, etc. and make them beautiful. If they intend to make something beautiful, doesn't it make the original ugly to some degree?
We experience statements like that quote in everyday life. We try to make things such as nature sound beautiful and ideal because it is so closely related to art. However, in order to differentiate we must use words such as ugly to describe things, even nature.
To conclude, I pose the question; "What other things can provide aesthetic experience besides nature that are often described as if they are always beautiful?"
Response to Gloria's Question on Bell 10/23/09
In her blog on Bell, Gloria posed the question; "Does the aesthetic emotion Bell attempts to describe actually exist? Why or why not?"
Yes, I believe the aesthetic emotion Bell attempts to describe actually exists. There may not be a definition for it yet, but it is definitely there. If there was no such aesthetic emotion, why would our society continue to go to the movies? There has to be something, some characteristic embedded in a film or in any artwork for that matter that makes it of interest to us. Why else would we occupy our free time with such things? The point is that when looking at an artwork you feel something even if that something is "nothing." Therefore, aesthetic emotion is existential just as art is existential. There just is no clear definition that everyis of general acceptance yet.
Yes, I believe the aesthetic emotion Bell attempts to describe actually exists. There may not be a definition for it yet, but it is definitely there. If there was no such aesthetic emotion, why would our society continue to go to the movies? There has to be something, some characteristic embedded in a film or in any artwork for that matter that makes it of interest to us. Why else would we occupy our free time with such things? The point is that when looking at an artwork you feel something even if that something is "nothing." Therefore, aesthetic emotion is existential just as art is existential. There just is no clear definition that everyis of general acceptance yet.
A & P : Analysis of Chapter 10: Bell 10/23/09
In Chapter 10, Bell relates "significant form" to "aesthetic emotion." According to Bell, significant form is the quality shared by all objects that provoke our aesthetic emotions. In our class discussions on Bell, we discussed the vicious circularity of Bell's claim. That is the flaw in Bell's claim. The genuine method of reasoning is to go from something known to something unknown. Significant form and aesthetic emotion are of equal "knownness." This is what causes the vicious circle and violates the genuine method of reasoning. The claim brings forth nothing new, it doesn't advance learning, and it doesn't add to knowledge. Therefore, I believe Bell's claim is unacceptable.
It reminds me of when you are trying to get answer out of a little kid and they give you one answer and then you ask another question and they give an answer that is basically the first question you asked and the process ensues. It is pointless because it goes in a circle. Bell goes in a circle with his claim like a child and it is frustrating.
However, Bell does pose some relevant questions regarding art. He believes representation to be not as important as significant form.
This made me think; "When we get preoccupied with representation do we lose the main idea of significant form?"
It reminds me of when you are trying to get answer out of a little kid and they give you one answer and then you ask another question and they give an answer that is basically the first question you asked and the process ensues. It is pointless because it goes in a circle. Bell goes in a circle with his claim like a child and it is frustrating.
However, Bell does pose some relevant questions regarding art. He believes representation to be not as important as significant form.
This made me think; "When we get preoccupied with representation do we lose the main idea of significant form?"
Response to Gloria's Question on Freud 10/15/09
In her blog on 10/15/09, Gloria speaks of F. Scott's Fitzgerald and "The Great Gatsby." She poses the question; "How do you think Freud would explain the example of "The Great Gatsby" because the main character modeled after Fitzgerald dies becoming a failure instead of a success?"
I think Freud would defend his view that art has to be influenced by a recollection of some previous memory. He would say that Fitzgerald created Gatsby to show some of his own hidden desires. The fact that in the end Gatsby dies, Freud I believe would say is Fitzgerald's symbolic way of showing that his hidden dream is too unrealistic. The death of Gatsby is what brings Fitzgerald back to reality after writing the book. The whole story could have symbolized an enjoyable time from Fitzgerald's childhood that came to an end and left room for change. Death gave Gatsby a new opportunity for whatever is beyond life.
While most believe that the story of Gatsby is portraying Fitzgerald's desire for wealth and power, Fitzgerald realized it was all just a dream. He knew in the end he could never have that and probably did not want to let himself believe that he could so to bring himself back to reality, he concludes the book with Gatsby's death. Therefore, "The Great Gatsby" could be viewed as a success according to Freud's beliefs because it does put the observer in a position to view the hidden desires of the artist. Just because the ending of the novel is not happy doesn't mean the novel as an entity is not a success and therefore a work of art.
I think Freud would defend his view that art has to be influenced by a recollection of some previous memory. He would say that Fitzgerald created Gatsby to show some of his own hidden desires. The fact that in the end Gatsby dies, Freud I believe would say is Fitzgerald's symbolic way of showing that his hidden dream is too unrealistic. The death of Gatsby is what brings Fitzgerald back to reality after writing the book. The whole story could have symbolized an enjoyable time from Fitzgerald's childhood that came to an end and left room for change. Death gave Gatsby a new opportunity for whatever is beyond life.
While most believe that the story of Gatsby is portraying Fitzgerald's desire for wealth and power, Fitzgerald realized it was all just a dream. He knew in the end he could never have that and probably did not want to let himself believe that he could so to bring himself back to reality, he concludes the book with Gatsby's death. Therefore, "The Great Gatsby" could be viewed as a success according to Freud's beliefs because it does put the observer in a position to view the hidden desires of the artist. Just because the ending of the novel is not happy doesn't mean the novel as an entity is not a success and therefore a work of art.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A & P : Analysis of Chapter 9-Freud 10/7/09
I am also taking an introduction to psychology class this semester along with art and philosophy. I thought it a strange coincidence that both courses arrived upon the topics of Freud at the same time. Freud believes that at an artist re-presents a situation from his/her childhood as a reconfiguration in his/her art work. DJK posed the question; why are we more likely to accept gullibility when we are young? This question reminded me of a concept I had recently learned in my psychology class, object permanence. Remember back to the time when you were young. At a very young age if your parent put a blanket over a toy you were just playing with you would simply accept that the object is no longer there because you cannot see it. However, as you get older your brain recognizes that the object is still there. As our brain progresses, I believe our conceptual ideas and dreams gain more substance. Through psychoanalysis the hidden truths of the brain are brought about. Artists disguise a childhood wish within their art works to fulfill a hidden desire. This may be why audiences find art so gratifying. The hidden desires that we are all too scared to openly share are given an opportunity for exposure through art work. This gives Freud's theory on art meaning and importance to both artists and audiences.
As I discussed object permanence above, a question arose in my mind. If at a young age, our brains are in capable of comprehending things; should the age of an artist matter to determining whether the artist is fully capable of producing a work of art?
As I discussed object permanence above, a question arose in my mind. If at a young age, our brains are in capable of comprehending things; should the age of an artist matter to determining whether the artist is fully capable of producing a work of art?
Response to Fay's question on Tolstoy 10/6/09
Fay posed the question; is it necessary for one to understand the message of an artwork?
Yes, I believe it is necessary to understand the message of an artwork. An artwork would simply just be something to look at if you don't understand the message. There would be no substance to the artwork to the observer, no emotion evoked. The lack of communication would lead to puzzlement and make an art work have no relevance to the observer. It would be like watching a funny movie without understanding any of the jokes. If you don't understand the jokes, obviously you're not going to think it was a funny movie as the producer had intended it to be. So, shouldn't it be the same for art. The message behind an art work is the key to the artist's intentions. Therefore, in order it is necessary for one to understand the message of an art work.
Yes, I believe it is necessary to understand the message of an artwork. An artwork would simply just be something to look at if you don't understand the message. There would be no substance to the artwork to the observer, no emotion evoked. The lack of communication would lead to puzzlement and make an art work have no relevance to the observer. It would be like watching a funny movie without understanding any of the jokes. If you don't understand the jokes, obviously you're not going to think it was a funny movie as the producer had intended it to be. So, shouldn't it be the same for art. The message behind an art work is the key to the artist's intentions. Therefore, in order it is necessary for one to understand the message of an art work.
Monday, October 12, 2009
A & P: Analysis of Chapter 8-Tolstoy- Art as Communication of Feeling 10/2/09
I always wondered what to call art that no one ever observes. In class, the perfect term for it was brought up. Expression. A work of art is just an expression of the emotions of the artist if no one ever observes it. The lack of observance is a failure of communication. In order for a work of art to truly be a work of art it must convey an emotion to the observer that the observer can understand and relate to. For example, a work of art that intends to communicate fear must have an observer that has experienced fear in order to make the work, art and not just expression. Tolstoy stresses the ability of art to communicate emotion over the form and beauty of the work of art. I believe that both of are equal importance to determining a work of art. Yes, a work of art does have to communicate and emotion to the observer, but the beauty and form of the work of art is what appeals to the observer. If I were to see an ugly work of art, I wouldn't even regard it or even attempt to see the emotion that the artist is trying to communicate. Therefore, an artist needs to emphasize equal importance on beauty and the emotion that he/she is trying to communicate when creating a work of art. Otherwise their attempt at creating an artwork could just be expression.
Tolstoy believes that art must be strictly aesthetic. So, I pose the question; should moral and social values also play a role in defining art?
Tolstoy believes that art must be strictly aesthetic. So, I pose the question; should moral and social values also play a role in defining art?
Response to Fay's question on Plato 9/25/09
In response to Fay's question; could the artist possibly be more virtuous than the craftsman? I have to say that I agree. The craftsman intends to build an object for practical usage. However, the craftsman often does not intend the object to aesthetically appeal to the observer. That leaves the object as simply just an object. The object turns into a work of art when it evokes some emotion within the viewer. That most often happens in the case of the artist and not the craftsman. Therefore, the artist can very well be more virtuous than the craftsman. For example, when people go shopping for something they will most likely buy an object for its aesthetic qualities in addition to its craftsmanship. An antique desk with no intricate carvings is less appealing than an antique desk with intricate carvings. Craftsmen give artists the blank canvases to use to create art. Until the artist makes an object evoke emotion, the object is not a work of art. A work of art may be imitative of an original form, but the emotion behind it is totally different from the original. This makes the imitation a completely different thing within itself. The raw emotion behind a work of art is due to the artist, therefore the majority of virtue lies with the artist and not the craftsman.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A & P: Analysis of Chapter 1- Plato- Art as Imitation 9/25/09
In class we discussed Plato's claim that art is an "imitation of an imitation." In Chapter 1, Plato claims art is an imitation of an imitation due to its ability to misrepresent the truth of things. Plato refers to a painter as an imitator of an imitator because the painter did not originally create the bed. In the Plato discussion in class a thought provoking question was brought up; how is architecture an imitation? I liken this question to a question that originated in my thoughts when first reading chapter 1. I pondered on how Plato's theory would apply to music. One could assume that Plato would argue that the sounds within music originally came from something else such as a songbird, which in turn was created by a god-like figure. That argument would be rather weak though. No matter what form of art, Plato would always break the art down and trace it back to being originally created by some god-like figure. This makes Plato's theory too exclusive.
Have you ever sat down and doodled and produced a picture that others called art? I have and at the time I had created it, I didn't intend for it to represent anything. Yet, others saw my picture as representative of something, but to me it represented nothing. So, I pose this question; is all art meant to represent something and if not, can it be imitative if it represents nothing anyways?
Have you ever sat down and doodled and produced a picture that others called art? I have and at the time I had created it, I didn't intend for it to represent anything. Yet, others saw my picture as representative of something, but to me it represented nothing. So, I pose this question; is all art meant to represent something and if not, can it be imitative if it represents nothing anyways?
A & P: Response to Shelby's Post on the Intro 9/18/09
In response to the introduction, Shelby posed the question; does representation, like the intentionality thesis, play a role in defining art as art and is it necessary for a work of art to represent something?
Representation and the intentionality thesis go hand in hand when attempting to define art. If an artist is intending to make an artwork, the artwork must represent something. When I think of this question I think of what "nothing" would be. Have you ever tried to think of nothing? It is hard to do because like art the concept of nothingness has yet to be defined. By our nature, we seek to see representation of something in everything so, I would assume that if and when we are intending to make art we would also intend to have it represent something. However, depending on the artist and/or observer, an artwork can be said to represent nothing according to the intentionality thesis. Hence, the intentionality thesis and representation determine each other's role in defining art and that sets us back from truly defining art.
Representation and the intentionality thesis go hand in hand when attempting to define art. If an artist is intending to make an artwork, the artwork must represent something. When I think of this question I think of what "nothing" would be. Have you ever tried to think of nothing? It is hard to do because like art the concept of nothingness has yet to be defined. By our nature, we seek to see representation of something in everything so, I would assume that if and when we are intending to make art we would also intend to have it represent something. However, depending on the artist and/or observer, an artwork can be said to represent nothing according to the intentionality thesis. Hence, the intentionality thesis and representation determine each other's role in defining art and that sets us back from truly defining art.
A & P : Analysis of the Introduction 9/18/09
Wartenberg's introduction discusses many issues that thwart art from having a clear and precise definition. Is art a product of accident? Does art have to be treated as such by the art world to be considered art? The infinite possibilities of criteria for something to be art or not be art make it impossible to truly define art. As we discussed in class, the intentionality thesis intends to identify a work of art as something that an artist or an observer intends to be a work of art. This theory however is way too inclusive. A five-year old according to the intentionality theory could point to spilled juice on the floor and call it art and therefore it would be art. That is ridiculous. Although the intentionality thesis is way too inclusive, I believe it shows us the significance of an artist's intentions. Intentions shine through and are a vital part of what aesthetic properties such as contrast, brightness, and texture that an artwork exhibits. So, the questions, what is art? , and how to define art? are unanswerable. Art represents something entirely different to each individual. To try and confine art to one definition is impossible. That leaves us only to seek to define what art is to a certain individual.
Also, in the introduction Wartenberg brings up the question of whether or not to consider a picture of the Mona Lisa viewed via the internet art. Did Da Vinci intend for the Mona Lisa to be a work of art viewed by any means or just by seeing the original in person? So, this left me with a question. Should art viewed by technological means still be considered art?
Also, in the introduction Wartenberg brings up the question of whether or not to consider a picture of the Mona Lisa viewed via the internet art. Did Da Vinci intend for the Mona Lisa to be a work of art viewed by any means or just by seeing the original in person? So, this left me with a question. Should art viewed by technological means still be considered art?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)