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.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)