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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?