ETM's Art and Aesthetics Blog

The Performance of Food Art

2010-05-03T20:03:00.004-04:00

I don't know if anyone still follows this blog, but I see no harm in posting as I see fit. I was browsing the New York Times today, and came across this interesting article about a piece of food "performance art."

A quick google search brought me to the artist's website, linked here:

To pull a few quotes from her bio section:

Jennifer Rubell creates participatory large-scale food projects that are a hybrid of performance art, installation art, and happenings. Often taking place inside a traditional art-world occasion -- gala dinner, opening night, gallery opening – her work deconstructs the meal or ritual, and reshapes it into a series of installations that prompt participants to partake without any instruction or guidance...

The projects fulfill the essential functions of the event itself while completely ignoring classic order, format and service. The event often unfolds in a series of spaces, through a series of installations that engage with the history of modern and contemporary art while at the same time providing food, drink, and wonder.

I can recall a time when I would scoff at such assertions and dismiss works like Rubell's as not art, but merely a stunt trying to play itself off as art, but now, I am not so sure. While I still insist that Jackson Pollack and Damien Hirst are not artists proper (rather, they are confidence artists, distorting the meaning of art for purely selfish goals), I see some merit and value in Rubell's works.

I shall leave a question for any who care to explore it: do Rubell's works, "performance pieces using food," fit into a traditional definition of art? Are works such as hers useful for exploring and understanding our natures? Or is it merely fun, a lesser sort of "decorative art," unfit to be put into the same category as the "high arts" of painting, sculpture, and classical music?

Exactly What They Deserve

2010-01-28T17:16:00.005-05:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8486359.stm?ls

Personally, I think this guy's got the right idea. And that he should add more Damien Hirst pieces. To my knowledge, a great number of Hirst's pieces involve no direct involvement from him. He is a "conceptual artist," that is, he conceives the idea, commissions real artists to make it, and takes all the credit (and reaps the obscene profits of modern "art").

Though this begs the question: is there something aesthetic in the destruction of bad art? Is this pile of destroyed art pieces a work of art, itself?

My knee jerk reaction is to say, "no, it's merely what most modern 'art' deserves." But then I come to the question of what "Art" truly is. Could it be manifest in this destruction of artworks?

As a side note, I want to keep an eye on this... I'm curious as to whether Hirst will sue this artist for destroying his work.

Carroll's Response to Gaut

2009-12-06T17:28:00.005-05:00

As you may recall from our readings on horror, one of Gaut's critiques of Carroll was that Carroll's definition discounts the existence of horror movies where the "monster" is actually human. He cited "The Silence of the Lambs" as an example of what is clearly a horror movie without a monster. He also brought up the hypothetical example of a person who comes from a horror movie, saying that it wasn't scary.

In his article "Enjoying Horror Fictions: A Response to Gaut," printed in the British Journal of Aesthetics, Carroll responds to both of these claims. (For those interested in reading the full article, it can be found by searching through Freel Library's listing of journals. I accessed the text via "Academic OneFile.")

In brief, his arguments are follows: Hannibal Lector is a monster, because he, and other psychotic killers depicted in slasher films, "constitute science fictions of the mind." They do not suffer real psychoses, but fictionally enhanced versions of psychoses, taking them from the realm of science to science fiction, and thus monsters, defending his monster hypothesis.

As for Gaut's example of Norman, the man who claims the film wasn't frightening, Carroll has this to say: "On the basis of my own -- admittedly unscientific -- sample of such pronouncements, I think that, when they are assessed contextually, these assertions (generally uttered by men, especially adolescent men) most often mean 'I'm too tough to be moved by something like that'."

He goes on to cite the commercial success of the movie (and preceding novel) Jurassic Park, and the success of the horror novels of Stephen King, to suggest that it is not an atypical person who consumes horror fiction, or a typical person in an atypical situation, but that they are, again, fascinated by monsters.

To end with a question: Do you feel that Carroll's response to Gaut adequately addresses the objections he raised? Why?

Art and Aesthetics

2009-12-06T15:16:00.002-05:00

At his talk on Wednesday, Tom Wartenberg made a very interesting point about aesthetics and art. In short: "Aesthetics is what's visually pleasing. It's how we aesthetically enjoy nature. Not everything that we appreciate aesthetically is art, and in addition, not all art is aesthetic. Some art we appreciate for what it does for us, how it makes us think, rather than how it looks." I do not purport to claim that these were his exact words, but I believe this was the gist of it, if I recall correctly (anyone who was there, feel free to correct me in a comment if I misrepresented his view).

I find this view to be quite interesting. I had started my considerations of art and aesthetics from the premise that all art objects are aesthetic objects, that art objects are a subset of the category of items that we appreciate aesthetically.

Let us take this view and play it out. Some modern art certainly seems to lack any aesthetic value. I will take as my example Jeremijenko's Tree Logic at Mass MoCA (feel free to debate me on the aesthetic value of this "piece."). There is, to my estimation, no aesthetic value in hanging trees upside down, and yet this is on display in an art museum. Indeed, it may well be considered art despite its lack of aesthetic value (I will leave the contention of good vs bad art for another time).

This, I think, might give yet more credence to Weitz's argument that we cannot define art, that we cannot identify a conclusive list of necessary AND sufficient conditions.

To end on a list of questions:
1) Is "Tree Logic" art? Why?
2) Might it be possible to coin a definition of art that has the necessary and sufficient conditions to allow such diverse pieces as, say, "The Mona Lisa," Bethoveen's symphonies, and "Tree Logic" to all fall in to the category of art?
3) What might be some qualities that would allow a work to be art if it lacks aesthetic considerations, and how might these qualities differentiate the artwork from non-art works that share those qualities?

The Importance of Art in School

2009-12-02T11:22:00.003-05:00

Tania asked: "In our country will it ever be the case that more schools rally harder to keep their art programs or will they always be the first to go?"

For the purpose of answering this question, I will assume you mean schools below the college level, and I will address my answer to elementary and middle schools in particular, and high schools to a lesser extent.

Much as I hate to say this, I think that, for the foreseeable future, the answer will be the latter. Particularly in today's economy, with budgets being slashed across the board, I sincerely doubt that many, if any, schools will fight to keep art programs at the expense of "core education" -- math, science, social studies, English. I do not like to admit this, but it's an unfortunate fact that many schools see art, and even to some extent recess, as merely frivolous, and unnecessary to the development of the child or the person.

To end with a question: Is participation in the arts from an early age beneficial to the development of a child?

Violence Depicted in Role Play

2009-12-02T11:08:00.002-05:00

Jaimie asked: "What do you make of violent role-play pornography and erotica where the participants are not actually being harmed but violent scenarios are depicted through fantasy? Is this harmful to human development?"

I do not think that this type of pornography is harmful to human development. Quite the opposite, in fact. Access to this type of material, where violent acts are carried out in a fictional setting, is, I think, beneficial to humanity.

How could this be the case? Pornography and erotica of this type, where acts like rape and sadomasochism are played out through fantasy, serve a unique role for people who might be driven towards these types of fantasies. The disturbed individual who would rape will do this no matter what. But the relatively functioning individual who just happens to want to be spanked, or whip another person, can find an outlet in this type of pornography or erotica, and thus satiate the desire without harming anyone.

I rather liken it to violent video games in this regard. The disturbed individual will commit violence whether they play them or not, but "normal" individuals can use them as an outlet for the violent tendencies that we all share (like it or not). It is certainly less harmful to society for a person to steal a car and rob a bank in the Grand Theft Auto video game than for this person to go out and commit these acts in the real world.

To end with a question: What factor do you think differentiates "pornography" and "erotica?"

Role-Playing Games

2009-11-22T12:13:00.002-05:00

Betsy asked: "Do you think that some, many, or most, of the individuals who utilize Role-Playing Games do so in a healthy or obsessive manner?"

First, we must clarify what we are talking about. Role-Playing Games can come in a variety of media. First, there is the table-top RPG, the most classic example of which being, of course, Dungeons and Dragons. Second, we have the single-player video game RPG, perhaps most famously the Final Fantasy series of games. Third, there is the more recent phenomenon of the Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, or MMORPG, perhaps most famously (or infamously) associated with the game World of Warcraft. There is also, of course, LARP, or Live Action Role Play. I will not address this final one, as it is not something I have ever participated in.

To answer the question, I will draw on my experience with the first three types of RPG's I mentioned, as well as what I know of other players of these games. I think I can safely say that most people who play these games do so in a healthy manner. Table-top RPG's in particular provide a creative outlet for the players, allowing them to assume a new identity and think as their character while playing out the story laid out by the Game Master (GM). They encourage social interaction within a setting.

Single-player video game RPG's serve as both tests of skill (these games often include puzzles that challenge problem-solving skills, and a variety of creatures to battle that require one learning different tactics for each), as well as an interactive story, which can often include shades of moral grey areas. Playing through a well-written RPG can have a similar effect to reading a good novel.

The MMORPG plays a unique role. Most are, in essence, a table-top RPG put online, with the notable difference between the first two of a lack of an overarching story. MMORPG's typically have an open world setting with quests that can be undertaken(and repeated ad infinitum) by the player, often in groups of other players. Most players, from my experience, will either play the games to pass the time when they are bored or to relax after finishing work (be it school work or an actual job). These can have a social aspect, as through interaction, players can form friendships with other players.

This is not to suggest that there are not people who play these excessively. For example, I have heard numerous anecdotes of people failing out of school or losing jobs because of a pathological obsession with playing World of Warcraft, and there are plenty of parodies of people who take D&D too seriously. However, these obsessive players are not typical of the people who play these games. The actions of these few fringe elements do not reflect accurately upon the vast majority of players of these games.

To end with a question: Trading card games, such as Magic: the Gathering, often commission artists to create original artwork for their cards. Would these pieces, commissioned specifically to appear on a trading card, be considered works of art? Would the cards on which the artwork appears be considered works of art, themselves? Or the trading card game taken as a whole?

"Negative" Emotions

2009-11-22T11:54:00.002-05:00

Having just reread Gaut's article to refresh my memory for Monday's class, I would like to take a brief moment to examine his thesis.

Gaut's argument essentially comes out to the following: the so-called "negative" emotions are only unpleasant in their typical applications. Under atypical circumstances, they are not necessarily unpleasant, and even enjoyable. Thus, for example, we may legitimately find fear unpleasant when we are being robbed at gunpoint, when our lives are in very real danger, but we may enjoy fear when watching a horror movie, which is presented in a context in which no real danger, the "typical" circumstance of the emotion being felt, exists.

I feel that this argument not only provides a very powerful response to Carroll's article, but rings true to human emotions and mentality. This thesis can clearly apply not only to horror, but to tragedy. It successfully removes the seeming paradox of the enjoyment of these "negative" emotions by a critical evaluation of the circumstances under which these emotions are felt.

To end with a question: Gaut casually throws out, on page 320, that "the majority of horror works lack any serious artistic worth. They are pure entertainment." This seems to suggest that art does not entertain, or, at the very least, that something that is meant purely to entertain cannot have any artistic merit. Is this the case? Or have I misinterpreted this passage?

The Benefits of Fiction

2009-11-15T22:54:00.003-05:00

Jacob asked: "Since we can suffer by exposure to certain fictions and non-fiction, can we equally benefit from others?"

I think the answer to this question is a resounding "yes." The Greeks performed tragedies for just this purpose. The audience would watch the play, and though they all know the story, they would feel for the characters. With this act of empathy, at the close of the play, the audience would experience a "catharsis," a cleansing of the emotions.

In my own experience, and the experiences of others I have talked to, reading fiction and watching movies does just this. They serve as outlets for us to come to grips with our emotions. Action movies appeal to the instinct for violence, and suppress it, allowing us to experience the carnage through the characters so we do not have to. Romance novels and movies stand as surrogates for passion, allowing us to experience with the characters the thrill of pursuing a lover, the bitterness of rejection, and the final sweetness of finding true love. Horror movies allow us to face our fears, give us license to be scared in a society where showing fear is seen as a sign of weakness.

These emotions that we feel are real, and the medium of fiction grants us a safe outlet through which to release our emotions so we are not overwhelmed by them. These emotions are real, and that, in part, explains why we enjoy them so much. They give us a sense of relief to have been able to express these emotions in a socially acceptable outlet.

To end with a (completely unrelated) question: Might video games be considered potential works of art?

Dawn Phillips' Article

2009-11-14T16:55:00.002-05:00

I did a bit of research this evening after I was reminded of the incredibly disappointing article by Dawn Phillips. I found this: http://www.dawnphillips.co.uk/Publications%20pdf%20files/Dawn%20M%20Phillips%20-%20The%20real%20challenge%20for%20an%20aesthetics%20of%20photography.pdf

I was rather surprised when I read this. The article included in our book is considered an "excerpt," but I do not think these two pieces are comparable. In the full version above, Phillips makes an actual (and, I think, rather good, if not complete) argument for photography actually being an art form.

Granted, the full article feels more like an outline for a potential argument than an argument in and of itself, but the full piece seems, to me, to be much stronger than the "excerpt" printed in our book (even if it is still lacking).

To end with a question: why do you suppose the authors of our textbook chose to print the version of Phillips' article that appears in our textbook, rather than the version presented above?

Photographic Representation

2009-11-02T17:15:00.003-05:00

One point I particularly took issue with from Scruton is his claim that photographs cannot represent anything. I submit, therefore, this photograph, paradigmatic of the Great Depression:

On it's face, it seems to be simply an image. But it is more than that. It is a representation of the spirit of the times. The woman's expression as she stares off into the distance, her abject depression, is representative of the feel that there was no end in sight of the hard times that had befallen America. The two children hide their heads from the camera, because there is no silver lining to the dark cloud of the depression. Their faces are hidden; they do not wish to look upon the dark prospects of the future.

This photograph, and it IS a photograph, is certainly representative. It was the photographer's intention to capture this spirit of the time. Therefore, Scruton's claim that photography "cannot represent anything" seems to fly right in the face of the truth in actual photography -- the truth that photography CAN, and DOES, represent things beyond the objects pictured, in the same way that a painting can and does represent something outside of itself.

To end with a question: Given this example against Scruton's definition of an "ideal photograph," and the fact that his argument was based entirely on his "ideal examples," does Scruton's argument still hold true?

Scruton's Definition of Photography

2009-11-02T17:02:00.002-05:00

Scruton takes a position that, I think, is self-defeating. It is such in that his definition of photography is too narrow.

Scruton claims that photography is simply the act of taking the picture. Anything that comes before or after that is the manipulation of photography, and thus not photography. The issue comes when he tries to draw his analogy to painting.

Before a painter can paint, there is some necessary prep work that MUST BE DONE. The canvas must be prepared, and perhaps primed. The paints need to be mixed while working, and even after, there is some fine editing to be done before a painting is truly complete. These, I think, would be the analogues to the preparation of a setting for a photograph and later editing on the image.

I would like to believe that Scruton does not confuse the final product of painting with the entire act of painting. If this is the case, than rejecting the analogues to the processes required to make a painting and calling this the "ideal photograph" is at best a blind mistake, and at worse manipulation of the facts, selectively ignoring facts to build a world view that is entirely independent of, and contrary to, reality.

I feel that his argument is the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges. Scruton writes off some properties of oranges, uses others to show that an orange is not an apple, and then concludes that an orange is not a fruit, but an apple is, based solely on the grounds that an orange is not an apple. This is a flawed argument to make, and discounts the properties that apples and oranges share, i.e. growing on trees, containing seeds, having an edible flesh surrounding the seeds, etc.

To end with a question: As mentioned in class, when trying to use an ideal to make a point, there is the real risk of using a wrong example and taking the essence of that as the ideal. Given this danger, is there any practical value in trying to use an ideal as the basis of an argument to discredit the real world?

"Levels" of Art

2009-11-01T20:38:00.002-05:00

Jacob asked the following: "Telfer attributed food as a minor art, and Scruton thinks that photography is a lesser art form. Are there levels of art? Are some forms inherently better than others or is all art, or rather, all artforms equal?"

The simple answer is, "no." For a longer answer... there are numerous difficulties with this idea of a "lesser" versus "greater" arts.

For one, it is presumptuous to pick out particular art forms and say that one is better than another. Each different art form has a different tradition, and look for different aspects, so in a sense, trying to categorize "lesser" and "greater" art is like comparing apples to oranges. They're both fruit, but there's no way to argue that one is "better" than another.

Another difficulty is that there is such variation within different artistic "types." For example, I would argue that John Cage's 4'33 is certainly less accomplished than, say, Vivaldi's Four Seasons. It seems ludicrous, therefore, to consider a "song" where the musician merely sits at the piano for 4 minutes and 33 seconds would necessarily be a better work of art than, say, a photograph, simply because John Cage's piece is "music," and thus a "greater" art than the "lesser art" of photography.

Given this large variation of skill, it is absurd to try to differentiate art forms as "greater" or "lesser." Rather, I would suggest that art works be judged solely on their merit, lest we mistake a poor piece of one type of art to be better than a great piece of a different type simply because of the types of art these works are examples of.

To end with a question: Is Scruton justified in his use of "Ideal examples" to build his case against photography?

NaNoWriMo

2009-11-01T20:34:00.003-05:00

This will not be one of my two posts for the week for aesthetics. I just wanted to put in a quick advertisement for National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo). Granted, it's already started, but it's not too late yet, if you can play catch up, and it's a fun experience for anyone (not just writers!).

http://www.nanowrimo.org/

The object of NaNoWriMo is to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days, just to prove you can. I highly recommend you all look in to it. It's quite fun. I won in 2008, and am participating again this year. Good luck to anyone who tries this with me!

Aesthetics of Nature

2009-11-01T19:58:00.002-05:00

I feel that Jacob's post on aesthetics and the aesthetic appreciation of nature fairly well encapsulates my own view on the aesthetic appreciation of nature, so I will not go in to detail in that here. In sum, his argument is, "aesthetic responses are emotional responses to what we see," therefore when we have an emotional response to our perception of nature, it is an aesthetic response. I would like to use this post to suggest something that Carlson found problematic: we do not know what to appreciate aesthetically in regards to nature.

I believe that this question is a very simple one to answer. It can be answered thus: whatever sense is most useful at the time. This may seem vague, but a few examples should serve to illustrate the point.

Let us take the classic example of the waterfall to begin with. Part of the aesthetic experience would certainly be seeing it. The act of watching the water rushing ever downwards can be quite an emotional ride. It is compounded by the sound, the mighty roar of the water as it cascades downward. Feel, scent, and perhaps even taste may come in to play depending on distance from the base, as a result of the mist that sometimes rises up at the base of waterfalls.

For another example, take a walk through the woods. Part of the aesthetic experience is, again, visual, in terms of the flora and fauna that one may spot on the trail. Aural comes in to play through experiences such as the rustle of leaves by a breeze, or the song of birds. The air itself can provide an aesthetic experience, if it is clean. Feel can come through touching trees along the way, or simply from the act of walking on the often soft ground of a forest.

A favorite example of mine is lying in a yard cloud-gazing. The visual experience is, of course, looking up at the sky. Aural experience can be in the same vein as the forest -- breeze and birdsong, for example. The physical experience is the feel of the grass on one's back, perhaps the feel of bugs crawling across the skin, or the warmth of the sun's light.

In all cases, it is not particularly difficult to find which sense to use. It is simply a matter of being open to receiving the stimuli that nature has to offer. There need be no "set in stone" way to aesthetically appreciate nature.

To end with a question: Do we really need to "know" how to aesthetically appreciate something?

Performing Arts and Performances

2009-10-25T13:01:00.002-04:00

Jacob asked: "is there a way to distinguish a performing art from the performance? Can a dance exist without being danced?"

This question brings up some intriguing discussion points, particularly where morality stands. As I may have made clear before, my own view on morality is that an art object is amoral, as only actions can have a moral aspect to them. This would seem to imply that there is, in fact, a way for a performance, as an action, to be moral or immoral.

I do not believe that this is the case, that a performance can be moral or immoral. After all, a performance is merely the acting out of directions given by another. The particular actions of a performer while performing may be immoral, but this does not make the performance itself immoral.

How can this distinction be made? A performance is a presentation of a work of art. In this sense, the performance itself is no different than the display of a painting or sculpture. It is a unique presentation in and of itself, and is therefore just as much an amoral object for aesthetic appreciation as the painting or sculpture.

The question of improvisation falls in to this same category. It is a display of a work of art, and is, in and of itself, amoral. I shall return to this later in regards to Jacob's second question.

However, the particular actions of a performer can be moral or immoral, just as the affects of a work on an audience can be moral or immoral while keeping the piece itself amoral. If, for example, a play calls for the rape of a character, and the actor playing the rapist, during the performance, actually rapes the actor playing the rape victim, this particular action on the part of the actor playing the rapist is immoral, but this does not make the play, or the performance, immoral.

What of improvisation in terms of Jacob's second question? "Can a dance exist without being danced," or, in a similar vein, can an improvised jazz performance exist without being performed? The simple answer to this is, "yes, it can." However, it is not a work of art until it is performed. In the same way, a painting can exist in the artist's mind, but it does not exist as a work of art until the artist actually paints it.

To end with a question: Does the intention behind a work to act as a stimulant for a particular response, i.e. emotional or physical, preclude the possibility that it has aesthetic and artistic merit?

Does Philosophy Help Us "See?"

2009-10-22T21:16:00.002-04:00

Professor Yake brought up what I found to be an interesting point in Wednesday's class: the idea that philosophy should help us "see," in a literal sense.

My initial reaction to this was, "anyone with two functioning eyes can 'see' just fine, thank you. Philosophy helps us interpret what we see, and find the meaning in and behind the visual stimuli. It helps us 'see' in the sense of understanding, as well it should."

But then I started thinking about this. Could training in perception be helpful? It is certainly a possibility. It may be quite useful to learn new ways of physically seeing things, in order to give us a new perspective from which to analyze and interpret that object. Is philosophy the subject that should concern itself with this? Perhaps. Though the question would then become, "how might we learn to 'see' differently?"

So, I beg the question: how might philosophy be able to teach us to "see?" Can it? Should it?

"Aesthetic Objects" and "Art Objects"

2009-10-20T00:10:00.002-04:00

I would like to present, for your rational evaluation, a theory I have developed concerning "art objects" and "aesthetic objects."

An "aesthetic object" is any object which elicits an aesthetic, or emotional, response from the viewer.

An "art object" is an object created by a human being with the intention to elicit an aesthetic, or emotional, response from the viewer.

Under this theory, "art objects" is a sub-category of the larger category of "aesthetic objects." The implication is that, first and foremost, for an object to be considered an "art object," it must first pass the test of "aesthetic object." If the object in question does not elicit an emotional response from the viewer, it has failed as art, and therefore IS NOT art, regardless of the intentions of the creator.

Only when an art object passes the test of being an "aesthetic object," thus showing it possesses aesthetic qualities, can we then evaluate the work's merit as an "art object," which would include such aspects as the artist's intention, the technique, the originality of the piece, authenticity, etc. Key here is that high AESTHETIC merit does not necessarily translate in to high ARTISTIC merit. Thus, under this construction, a forgery can have equal aesthetic merit to the original which was copied, but the forgery would have significantly lower artistic value.

To be explicit with my ending question: What do you think of this construction? Does it have merit?

"Rational Morality," and Art

2009-10-19T23:37:00.005-04:00

In today's class, Professor Yake brought up a very interesting point about "rational morality." I would like to comment on it here.

I like the implications behind this idea of "rational morality." It seems, to me, to speak to the idea that we should question all of our assumptions, and only keep those for which we can find a rational basis. This, to me, is a view of high merit, for anyone. There is never any harm in exploring the roots of our views and having a solid foundation for holding what values we do hold.

I think, however, that trying to then apply this "rational morality" to art gets rocky. Art, in my view, does not exist solely as an expression of morality or moral living. Rather, art can, and should, reflect the realities of our lives. This is extremely important, as often, we can be blind to the reality around us, and fail to notice the proverbial elephant in the room.

To illustrate this point of cultural blindness, I'll draw an example from a course I took over the summer. In our society today, heterosexuality is so pervasive in all strata of social functioning, that it is considered to be the "norm" by which we judge everything else. This manifests itself in many ways. A famous example are the "coming out stories" we expect of, for example, homosexuals. Heterosexuality is so prevalent that there need be no explanation for the "discovery" of one's heterosexuality, but society demands a story, a reason, for one's "homosexuality."

In the same vein of the "heterosexual invisible" would be the rituals of marriage. This concept of marriage, of the wife in a white dress, the father giving the bride to the husband, etc, is so ingrained in our cultural consciousness that many, if not most, people are unaware of the historical symbolism behind the symbolism. The white dress is a symbol of the bride's virginity (which is questionable in today's society, and almost certainly so in the case of remarriages). The father giving the bride away is representative of the social view of women as property -- a woman is her father's property until she is married, at which point she becomes her husband's property, making the entire marriage ceremony a celebration of what is, at its core, a financial transaction.

How does this all relate to art? Simple. Art can, and should, function to expose such things to our larger cultural consciousness. Art is a perfect vehicle for revealing these sorts of truths that have become lost to the culture, and thus a great potential catalyst for social change where change is needed.

Hooray for interdisciplinary analogies! :)

... and now that I've just used a smiley in a graded blog, I shall end with a question: Should art serve as a "mirror to society," revealing the flaws in our society that we are often unconscious of, or should art restrict itself to utopian depictions of "high morality?"

Art "Inducing Immorality," and Racism in Art

2009-10-19T22:57:00.003-04:00

I'm going to be blogging like crazy this week. I can already see that.

I'm going to tackle the topics in my title in reverse order. First, "racism" in art. It was brought up today that, a while back, there was a cartoon which depicted Obama as a monkey. I would like to begin by pointing out the hundreds, if not thousands, of depictions of our previous president, George W. Bush, as a monkey. The man looks like one, and he's about as civilized as one. The point here is that political cartoons, to make a point, characterize politicians as animals. This is not new, and therefore I do not consider the cartoon in question to be anything other than politics, or political cartoons, as usual.

Does this make the political cartoons somehow reprehensible? Perhaps. But I would contest that despite this, the artist has a right to produce it, just as the viewers have the right to be offended by it. Anything beyond that goes in to dangerous territory.

So, tying in to the idea of art "inducing immorality..." Professor Yake brought up a hypothetical porn movie, but I would like to take a real-world example: the film "The Triumph of the Will." "The Triumph of the Will" is arguably one of the most famous, and successful, propaganda films in history. It portrays the rise of the Nazi party as a revitalization of Germany, and casts Hitler into an almost-Messianic role for the German people. It served to solidify Hitler's popularity in Germany, and secure his position as Fuhrer of the so-called 'Third Reich.'

It is no secret that Hitler commissioned the mass slaughter of millions of innocents. The propaganda film "The Triumph of the Will" was certainly a powerful tool in building popular support for a government and ideology that is near-universally accepted today as pure evil. There is no way a rational human being can honestly legitimize the murder of millions of innocents (numbers which, incidentally, included a large number of my own relatives on my paternal side). However, despite the fact that "The Triumph of the Will" glorified this government and the man who would ultimately unleash one of the most destructive wars of the twentieth century, can we really call the film itself "immoral?" I do not think this is the case.

Why? The intentions of the film maker may have been immoral -- the glorification of Hitler. Hitler's intentions were almost certainly immoral -- "Endlösung," or the Final Solution, a policy that lead to the murder of millions of Jews. This does not, however, impose this immorality on the film. An object is inherently amoral. Morality refers to actions, to conduct, and perhaps to a lesser extent to ideas, but cannot, and should not, be afixed to objects, art objects included.

To end with a couple of questions: 1) Does a common tactic in political cartoons become racist when the politician being lampooned happens to be of an "ethnic minority?" 2) Is there any way to legitimately apply moral judgments to human creations?

"Art" By Non-Human Beings

2009-10-18T15:29:00.003-04:00

Betsy asked: Why do you think most human beings are so reluctant to consider the intentional artistic expression of mammals and birds as art?

To begin, I would consider "intentional artistic expression of non-human animals" to be a rather dubious claim. To our knowledge (or at least to mine), the one characteristic that differentiates humans from non-humans is the fact that humans are self-aware. We are aware of our own existence, and have the unique capability of projecting that awareness. This allows us to think rationally, to imagine things that are not real, to feel empathy for other beings. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of any non-human animals possessing these mental capacities, at least to the extent to which we possess them.

One of the key elements of (human) artistic expression is the intention for the art to point to something beyond itself. We can look at a painting and not see it as paint on a canvas, but as representative of something beyond itself. If the painting is a landscape, for example, we can see the landscape in it, imagine it in our mind's eye, imagine being there. This is a mental capability that non-humans lack, to the best of our knowledge.

Because other animals do not have this mental capacity, it is therefore questionable that they could thus intentionally create an artwork. Imitation is not necessarily evidence of artistic intent. My not-insignificant knowledge of animal behavior leads me to the understanding that non-human animals lack the capacity for such purely artistic intention. They are driven by instinct, by genetic programming and learned behaviors that are used exclusively for the survival and perpetuation of the species. The "architectural structures" they produce are not intended to be artistic, but to be pragmatic, to provide shelter. The bird's song is not meant to be artistic, but to attract a mate so that the bird may reproduce. Their "found art" is not intended to be viewed and appreciated artistically, but again, solely as an avenue for attracting a mate.

Whether or not this is true may yet be proved false, but this is my understanding, and I am sure it is widely shared among humans. For these reasons, aestheticians are likely reluctant to conclude that animals are even capable of intentional artistic creation, let alone if their "creations" are worthy of artistic appreciation.

To end with a question (that I intend to later blog about): What are the differences between "aesthetic objects" and "art objects?" Or do such differences exist?

"Conceptual" Art.

2009-10-17T03:10:00.003-04:00

I found an interesting op-ed on the New York Times today. You can read it here. Incidentally, it was written by Denis Dutton, whose work you may recall from our book.

I strongly recommend you read it all. It's a fascinating read. But the point I want to draw out of it is thus: this idea of "conceptual" art.

To put it in brief, paraphrasing Dutton, "conceptual" art seems to be a new trend in art. In "conceptual" art, the artist does not do any of the actual work in creating the piece. The artist merely comes up with the idea, and commissions someone else to do it, and then sells it for obscene profits.

The example Dutton cites is a new "work" by the artist Damien Hirst. It is merely a medicine cabinet stocked with the same sort of drugs anyone may have in their medicine cabinet. It is not something he made, like Warhol's Brillo boxes. It is merely an idea he conceptualized, had someone else assemble, and is attempting to sell for over $200,000.

This seems to me to be a betrayal of what "art" really means. As Dutton says in his article, "There is no place on earth where superlative technique in music and dance is not regarded as beautiful," and yet these "artists" use no skill at all in the creation of their works besides coming up with the idea.

This all leads to my question: is "conceptual" art "true" art, or is it a corruption of art?

Can an "authentic" musical performance be a forgery?

2009-10-11T14:08:00.002-04:00

Jaimie asked "When discussing music, sticking as close to the original work as possible is key to an "authentic" performance, where as with more "physical" art (painting, sculpture, etc.) this can be considered a forgery. Does this mean that authentic performances could be forgeries?"

Before I address this question, I would like to once again bring in the distinction of the creative and performance arts. With the creative arts, it is not the process itself that is art, but the final product. With a performance, the process is just as much part of the art as the finished piece. I would go so far to argue that the score of a piece of music, the script for a play, etc, is an entirely separate piece of art from the actual performance of the song or play, as the musicians and actors bring as much vitality and creativity to the performance as the composers and playwrights brought to the production of the score or script.

Next, the question of a forgery must be addressed. By definition, a forgery is an object, a copy of another object produced with intent to deceive, to pass off the forgery as one's own, or as something genuine, as with money or art.

Given this definition, a performance cannot be a forgery. A performance is not an object -- it is an interpretation of the object. The score from which a piece of music is played could certainly be a forgery, but the performance itself would not be, even if the musician claimed to have written the piece. The score would certainly be a forgery, but the performance would not be.

To end with a question: Is there any link between music and morality, as Scruton suggested in "The Decline of Musical Culture?"

A Broken Record

2009-10-11T05:22:00.002-04:00

Thinking back to class the other day, I apparently kept repeating Lessing's argument over and over in response to Dutton's. I realize this was unintentional, but I feel it is worth exploring.

Why would I, in responding to one argument, more or less cite the other? The answer is simple, really: the former argument failed, in my view, to adequately address the points of the other.

Dutton's argument, from what I got from it, amounted to little more than "the artist is important because it always has been, and that's how it should be." He explains WHY, but he never provides an adequate defense for why it SHOULD be the case, for why it SHOULD matter for our aesthetic appreciation. This is where I think his argument fails, and why Lessing's ultimately makes much more sense.

To end with a question: SHOULD the artist of a work affect our aesthetic judgment of a piece? Why or why not?

Ethics and Art: The Question of Pornography

2009-10-04T16:22:00.002-04:00

The question of forgeries is undoubtedly a question of morals over merit. It does a disservice to the work to claim that a work is any less accomplished just because of its origins, or of the intent of the artist. But the question of morals is not unique to forgeries.

Many of the arguments pertaining to pornography do not even begin to consider any of the merits of the work. Pornography is written off as art not for any intrinsic value it has, but because of a moral judgment that pornography results in evil, i.e. lust, objectification of the person (particularly of women), or instigating sexual crimes. The arguments ignore any value that these works may have.

To show how ridiculous this is, allow me to take a couple of examples. James Joyce's novel, "Ulysses," was banned for a while in the United States because it was labeled pornography. It was banned despite its clear literary merit, and today it is considered a fine example of literature.

Another example of this is "The Story of O" (which was, incidentally, written by an upper class French woman). This, too, was banned for a time because of its fairly explicit descriptions of sadomasochism. It is now considered to have literary, and thus artistic, value, despite the heavy eroticism in the book.

The label itself of "pornography" becomes suspect, as it makes a judgment based on shifting moral values in society. One generations smut is the next generation's literature. It is therefore rather obvious that making such moral judgments about a work disregards any value the work may have. This is not to say that all such pieces are unjustly belittled, but that there are some for which the hasty denouncement causes we, the art-viewing public, to miss out on quality pieces of art.

For a closing question, I pose this: should any art be censored? Are there any qualities of a piece of art for which the piece can legitimately be censored?

Is Philosophy an Art? A Response to Betsy's Response

2009-10-04T12:03:00.004-04:00

Philosophy is NOT a medium. To call philosophy a medium is akin to calling a hammer and chisel a sculpture. These are NOT the final product, but tools with which the final product is produced.

Furthermore, philosophy was not created as an art form. It was created as a particular method by which humans can discover some truth. To play with your quote from wikipedia, mythology purports to reveal the truth through stories about gods and heroes. Mysticism purports to reveal the truth by ritual and meditation. Philosophy uses logic and reason. They are different, distinct methods. Plus, some of the early Western philosophers would not take kindly the accusation of their discipline being an art. Plato in particular thought that art was inferior, a useless "copy of a copy," and that it had little, if anything, to offer humanity.

Where does art come in? Art and philosophy both seek to reveal some truth, in my view. However, they do so in different ways. Philosophy uses the pure mental faculties -- logic and reason. Art does not. Art uses symbolism and emotion to reach that truth. They are two separate, distinct disciplines, and while some philosophy can be considered art, that is not to say that philosophy itself IS an art.

Question: What elements distinguish art from every other thing in existence? What makes "art" art?

I now present, for your consideration...

2009-10-02T00:54:00.001-04:00

... This.

And I shall beg the question: Is this art?

Defining "Art," and Is Philosophy Art?

2009-09-25T14:03:00.006-04:00

In his blog, Jacob Wheeler asked the excellent question, "How do you define art?" I spent a good portion of Art & Philosophy trying to figure out how I would answer this question (as my posts for that class attest), but I will restate it here: Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought Expressing some Idea or Emotion in some Medium.

Intention indicates that there is an active, conscious effort by the artist to create a work of art. It doesn't "just happen."

Original, Creative thought indicates that the piece is unique. There is nothing else quite like it, and it is purely the product of the artist's imagination.

Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself (hence my hatred of some "modern art," "art" undertaken for "art's sake"), but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea.

The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. It can be the written word, marble, paint and canvas, or sound, but whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art.

Now that I have defined "art," I will address the question Betsy posed: "Is philosophy an art?"

I will not argue that philosophical works could certainly be works of art. There is no reason that a work filled with philosophical undertones could not be a grand work of art. But is the subject itself art? I do not believe so. Philosophy can certainly be expressed in art, but I would not call the subject itself art. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the CONSCIOUS INTENTION of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art. Lacking this intention, a philosophical work is not also a work of art.

To end with a question: What value, if any, is there in an "authentic" musical performance, or is it merely a matter of differing tastes?

Oh, Aesthetics Class... You Amuse Me.

2009-09-21T19:57:00.006-04:00

I know not how many of you bloggers are blogging for credit, but I would like to point out something I find rather humorous: there appear to have been more responses to my questions than to any questions posed by anyone else, a tad absurd when you take into account the fact that I do this for my own intellectual exercise rather than for a grade.

Since, as previously stated, this blog is ungraded, I shall turn my attention to a less tasteful topic: the topic of pornography. Yes, pornography. Given that I have virtually no social life, I have begun to do research relating to the thesis of my research paper -- that thesis being that pornography is art.

This is doubtless going to be a contentious issue. I will readily admit that some pornography, particularly that which is so widely available on the internet, is distasteful, vulgar, unpleasant to look at. In my own travels across the internet, I have come across things that cannot be unseen, however much I desire to unsee these awful... things. Does this discount it as art? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

It would, of course, be quite difficult to have a discussion about pornography without at least touching upon the sensitive moral issues surrounding it. There are myriad arguments surrounding the ethical issues that pornography presents us with, but I will, to the best of my ability attempt to steer clear of these in order to focus in on the aesthetic value of pornography. We shall soon see if this is even possible.

I will, of course, refrain from posting links to pornography within my blog as I delve in to this question. It is far from my intention to offend anyone. I will, however, trace the course of my thesis here as I explore the topic, and quite possibly pose questions that I come across in an attempt to get a wide variety of perspectives on the issue and thus assist in the writing of my paper.

To end, I shall leave a discussion question related to class today: What is the practical value in distinguishing "major" art forms from "minor" art forms, if there is one?

My Thoughts on Sections to Read or Skip from the Book

2009-09-19T15:40:00.003-04:00

As I do not maintain this blog for credit, I will editorialize and input my thoughts on which sections we should read from the book, as Professor Johnson did note that he was uncertain about the readings we would undertake for this course.

To begin, I would like to propose skipping the Rock Music section, and possibly the section on the "Authentic" Performance of Music. This in no way reflects disdain for music (I am a musician myself). It is merely a reflection of the fact that the philosophy department does, at times, offer a course specifically on the Philosophy of Music, which could, in theory, address the question of music much more in-depth than this general course could.

I feel that the Fakes and Forgeries section is a must for this course. Just thinking back to a few discussion in Art & Philosophy, the idea of forgeries is indeed quite contentious, and we would be remiss to skip out on discussing this particular aspect of aesthetics.

Appreciation, Understanding, and Nature, I believe, would address another contentious aspect of aesthetics, specifically, the role of nature as art, or if indeed nature is art.

I feel that we should skip the sections on photography and horror. While these could most certainly be interesting areas to explore, they feel to me too specific for a more general course like this one, particularly with the limited amount of time we have (one semester is quite short).

A discussion of art is nothing without emotion. Thus, the sections on Feelings and Fictions and Sentimentality seem to be vital to our discussions of art, for how can one discuss art while overlooking the emotional impact of a piece, particularly those that are meant to specifically draw out certain emotions from the viewer?

The pornography and erotica section strikes me as, again, one of those too specialized fields to explore in this short, more general course. As it would be impossible to explore this topic without getting in to the muddy waters of ethics and morality (or, as some claim, the innate immorality of the production and consumption of pornography), it could derail the discussion of the purely aesthetic properties of the work with an unrelated (and likely hotly contentious) discussion of morals and ethics that would be quite separate from any value such works may have.

The last two sections give me some pause. They both seem equally valid, considering such topics as the public endowment for the arts, and debates over whether, for example, tribal masks could count as art when that tribe has no concept of art. Time constraints lead me to believe that one or the other should not be included, though I am unsure which. As there are more articles in Public Art, I would suggest waiting to see how much time we have once we finish with the above sections, and depending on time constraints, select a last section then.

Of course, a simple fix to the question of which chapters to address could be the creation of PHIL 385, Aesthetics II, in the same vein as PHIL 385, Logic and Critical Reasoning II, and procede through the chapters as the book lays them out (or perhaps using the other section for the sections skipped from this course as I have laid out above).

All of the above is merely my suggestion for an equitable distribution of sections discussed to maximize the depth we can achieve in this course over the semester. This is solely my opinion.

To end off with a discussion question (in light of the lack of bloggers who appear to be active): What sections do you believe we should cover in this course and why?

Telfer's description of the art of food as "simple" and "minor"

2009-09-14T17:40:00.004-04:00

I feel as though a lot was said today in class on the subject, but I did not have the opportunity to express any of my own opinions on what we were presented with. I shall attempt to rectify that situation here.

I felt that Telfer's argument for the "less refined" nature of smell and taste was rather weak, at least in biological terms. She seems to discount, and indeed forward, the common misconception that smell and taste and weaker, inferior senses to vision and hearing. This is not the case. Indeed, our senses of smell and taste are capable of many fine distinctions. Some could argue that the art of food is to combine flavors to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

We did not yet mention memory. One argument brought up in Telfer's article was that the memory of smell and taste is weaker than that of vision or hearing. This is false. It is a biological fact that smell is a powerful sense linked to memory, due perhaps in part to it having the shortest pathway to our brains. Smell may not be useful for remembering facts from a book, but it is undeniably linked, quite powerfully, to our memories.

As a final note, as this blog is not being kept for credit, I will take a moment to editorialize. I was always under the impression that in a discussion-based college seminar, there would be a tad more civility in the classroom, particularly in regards to making comments. I do not appreciate raising my hand, making eye contact with the professor, and then having someone else start talking before I get the chance to open my mouth. It is rude, disrespectful, and to be frank, I find it quite frustrating. I hate to be the one to harken back to high school, but it is extremely rare for me to find something that frustrates me this much this early in a class. (This last paragraph may later be removed, at Professor Johnson's request.)

I shall close with a discussion question: in the section "Works of Art," Telfer describes the two different ways in which the term "work of art" is commonly used, specifically, as a classifying or evaluative term. Should the term be used in both senses, or is it more appropriate to use one sense over the other exclusively?

Greetings to my classmates in Aesthetics

2009-09-12T19:45:00.004-04:00

Greetings, all! As is likely apparently, this is a revival of my Art & Philosophy blog. All previous posts are from that class. Feel free to browse them if you have time or interest, but otherwise they are of little use to you, or to this class.

I feel it is only fair to point out that I will not be keeping my blog updated regularly. I have opted to write a paper, and will only be actually posting on this blog when it strikes my fancy. I will be reading your blogs, however (and possibly commenting), and feel more than free to comment on, or respond to, any posts I may make during the term.

Best of luck to the bloggers!

Final Thoughts

2008-12-10T19:01:00.003-05:00

As the term comes to a close, I would like to give some final reflections on this class.

Freud is still a Fraud, and still failed to contribute meaningfully to this course.

Nelson Goodman's "Ways of Worldmaking" will keep my thoughts occupied for the next twenty years.

I still need to finish Plato's Republic.

I must pick up and read some more Weitz, and some Wittgenstein while I'm at it.

And lastly... what is Art? (I know I have offered my own definition, but the question still stands, and probably will for as long as conscious thought prevails).

Approaching the Finale: My Definition of Art

2008-12-09T14:38:00.006-05:00

First, I would like to revise the definition of Art I gave in my previous post. Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought to Express an Emotion and/or an Idea through some medium, be it language and the written word, music, performance, paint and canvas, ink, sculpture, architecture, or some other means I may have neglected to mention or some other medium yet to be conceived, presented in an aesthetically gratifying way.

Given this revised and updated definition, I shall clarify a few points within it. The Original Creative clause may seem at first glance to be synonymous. How can something be Creative and not Original, or Original without being Creative? Allow me to use an example to illustrate. Suppose an art student wants to create a copy of the Mona Lisa. To do so, the student develops a special way of painting in which to produce an exact copy of the painting. It certainly has an element of Creativity - this student developed a new style of painting to copy the original. However, because it is a copy, it lacks Originality. Therefore, specifying Original Creative endeavor limits the definition to new works rather than including Creative copies of other works.

Aesthetically gratifying may seem a bit rocky. At first glance, it may feel like a throw-back to Formalism and the Aesthetic Emotion summoned by Significant Form. However, this is not the case. I do not argue, indeed do not believe, the Artwork summons any "peculiar feeling" that only Art can summon. Rather, it summons the everyday emotions. It summons the familiar feelings of joy, sadness, anger, love, loss, and the myriad of other emotions. While an artwork may certainly communicate an idea within its context, it must by necessity convey emotion, so that the idea, the message of the piece, is not lost. It must be something the public will WANT to view and consider, and for this to happen, it must convey emotion, not a peculiar emotion, but one, or perhaps the full range, of emotions that humans are capable of feeling. In a sense, this may be beauty, but beauty in not merely was is aesthetically pleasing, but what might be ugly, as well, so long as it triggers an emotional response. If an Artwork does not trigger an emotional response, it has failed as a piece, and cannot be considered art.

This definition is by no means universal. Indeed, no definition of Art CAN be universal. But it provides a framework from which to judge Art, or whether something is indeed Art. If it fits the criteria given above, it is, in my humble opinion, Art.

On Appropriateness of Creativity

2008-12-08T19:38:00.002-05:00

There is one point that I feel we did not get enough time to discuss in class, indeed could not have discussed to the length which I would have preferred, and that is the definition of "appropriateness" of Creativity.

What is "appropriate" practice of Creativity? Clearly, definitions of what is "appropriate" or "proper" will vary from culture to culture, and indeed even from person to person within a culture. And of course, as we touched upon in class, what is appropriate is constantly in flux, evolving with time just as culture does.

If it is necessary for "Art" and the Creativity requisite for it to be "appropriate," and there can be no universal definition for what is proper, how, then, can we formulate a universal definition of Art? We cannot. But does that mean that Art is therefore indefinable? Was Weitz correct in saying that Art defies definition?

I do not believe that this is the case. The idea that Creativity must be applied appropriately to be Art is, in my humble opinion, absurd. It is by defying what is expected or appropriate that Art evolves, that it expresses ideas, pushes boundaries, communicates whatever it seeks to communicate. "Art" does not need to be "appropriate" by any means.

And so, I shall attempt to offer my own definition of Art. Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought to Express an Emotion and/or an Idea through some medium, be it language and the written word, music, performance, paint and canvas, ink, sculpture, architecture, or some other means I may have neglected to mention or some other medium yet to be conceived.

On Innovation

2008-12-05T13:43:00.003-05:00

I feel it is necessary to clarify my definition of Innovation to contribute to our on-going discussion of the three concepts of Imagination, Creativity, and Innovation.

First, in addressing the complaint of my mass marketing mentality. It is necessary to expound on what I refer to as "Mass Marketing." The object in question is produced on some large scale for which it can be used daily.

This is not to imply that it is readily available to anyone. To address the concern of missiles, of course you or I won't be able to go down to our local Wal-Mart and purchase a missile (yet). But the government produces more of them every day. It uses some (do not forget that the US is technically fighting two wars, perhaps a third if you count the new US action against pirates off the coast of Somalia), and some it sells to other countries. It may not be something the average person can use, but it is produced on a large scale. It is an innovation.

On a more practical scale, an airplane is also an Innovation. Many of us don't fly or travel in a plane every day, but the fact is that every day, planes are being used all over the world, and they're being produced and sold to commercial airlines, militaries, and a few private individuals who can afford the luxury of a plane. Just because most people don't use these every day or purchase them for use like they would a car does not diminish the fact that they are an Innovation.

In other words, an Innovation is something that is manufactured and reproduced for some sort of practical use, be it as a weapon of war or mass transit. This also explains why Art is not Innovation, as Art's function is purely for a mental capacity, to satiate the mind rather than to aid in a task. Innovations do things. Art is an outlet for human emotion.

Imagination is NOT Creativity

2008-12-05T13:02:00.004-05:00

Today, someone suggested that Imagination is equal to Creativity. This is not the case.

Imagination is, by its very nature, free and unstructured. Imagination damns the constraints of the real world and simply wanders, it thinks without boundary, creates without creating. This is not to be confused with Creativity.

Creativity is the act of bringing structure to Imagination. Creativity tames Imagination and manifests the ideas generated by Imagination into an object in the real world. Creativity restricts Imagination to the limitations of reality (such as gravity) and produces an object within that world.

To call Imagination the equivalent of Creativity is to overlook the fundamental difference in the two: Imagination is unbounded. Creativity expands reality by taming Imagination to fit the constraints of the real world.

Simply put, Creativity is Imagination, but Imagination is NOT Creativity.

On the Nature of Beauty

2008-12-04T18:58:00.005-05:00

Well, here it is. The long awaited post on Beauty, and my thoughts on the subject. But where to begin this discussion?

The dictionary shall be my starting point. Dictionary.com's definition of beauty reads the following: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

This definition gives a good starting point, but it leaves open the question of what exactly that quality is that creates that feeling of pleasure.

I shall postulate here that the qualities of beauty are a combination of nurture and nature. From nature, some reactions must necessarily arise. Such emotions as fear, anger, love, and compassion come directly from nature in order to contribute towards the survival of the species. These primal emotions are triggered by certain characteristics. It is because of this nature that a sad song indeed sounds sad, that a carefully selected color scheme and texture in a painting can draw out our deepest emotions, or, on a human level, that the face of a baby can draw out the parental instinct of (especially female) older humans (which I shall casually refer to as the "awwwww! factor").

Nurture is a much tougher nut to crack. Environment will have an impact on what a person finds aesthetically pleasing. To an older person, the Beatles may have sounded like useless noise as their children wore out records listening to their favorite songs, and we (by which I refer to people of my generation) listen to and enjoy music that our parents may not be able to stomach. In this example, the music we grow up with affects our taste.

How, then, does this relate to Art? Art tries to capture these aspects. Through various means, be it the written word, colors, shapes, hues, tones, chords, etc, Art seeks to capture this spirit of Beauty. I am afraid to call it a mysterious force, but I must, because its ultimate source, the human, is a mysterious being. Is Art Human? No. But it is an extension of humanity, one of the many ways by which we exercise our humanity, our capacities to think, our emotions, and the full range of aspects that set humanity apart from other animals.

Art Is NOT Innovation

2008-12-03T13:29:00.003-05:00

Creativity, Innovation, and Imagination. Each of these concepts are intimately related, with Imagination at the very core. But where does Creativity become Innovation, and how does this relate to our overarching discussion of the nature of Art?

Creativity and Innovation require Imagination. Without Imagination, the other two cannot possibly exist. Creativity flows from Imagination, and Innovation from Creativity. And Art, of course, requires, first and foremost, Imagination.

Of course, Imagination does not Art make. Imagination must be tamed and captured, expressed, brought into the world by Creativity. And this is where Art ends. Art is Creative; it is not Innovative.

Why? Because of the nature of what Innovation is. Innovation involves taking a creation and mass marketing it, making it readily available for practical, everyday use. To draw an analogy, the cotton gin was first a creation. When it went into production and became widely used in growing cotton, it loses the status of "Creation" and instead gains "Innovation." It is no longer unique.

To draw another analogy, apple pie. The first apple pie was a creation of some imaginitive baker. To make an apple pie NOW is not an act of Creativity unless you are making a new recipe, and even then, it will lose that status of being "Creative" as soon as you copy it and make it a second time, or someone else copies it. Then it is "Innovation." "Creativity" produces a unique, one of a kind object that can never be reproduced. "Innovation" by its very nature is reproducable and reproduced.

Art cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be reduced to the mass-market, watered down status of Innovation. It must by necessity end at Creativity.

On Creativity and Art

2008-12-01T21:04:00.003-05:00

Forgery. It is generally frowned upon by artists and the general public. Even if someone composes an exact copy of a painting, a perfect replica, a perfect forgery, it lacks the same impact of the original. Why is this? Why should this perceptually indistinguishable entity be any less powerful than the original?

Simple. The copy, the forgery, lacks one crucial element that only the original has: creativity. It takes no creativity, only patience and skill to produce a copy of a work already produced; to produce something new requires creativity.

So, then, how does one determine the level of creativity in an object, and what differentiates the art object from the mundane, everyday object that clearly required some creativity at its conception to produce the concept for?

The wikipedia article on creativity gives a good answer to this question in differentiating between "creativity" and "innovation." To paraphrase, creativity is the birth of the idea; innovation is to take the idea and turn it into something practical, usable. This is not to imply that artwork, which is inherently creative, is useless. But innovation generally connotes an object meant for everyday use in everyday tasks; the use of art is in its aesthetic as well as creative value.

Creativity and aesthetic value must go hand in hand to create art. That is not to imply, however, that a high degree of creativity will translate into equal or greater aesthetic value. A very creative person will not always create an aesthetically pleasing piece. This is human nature - imperfection. This does not imply that artwork must be perfect; it merely implies that some work is simply better than others.

How, then, can we determine whether a work is sufficiently creative and aesthetically valuable to earn the honor of recognition as a work of "Art?" I shall leave that to you, my readers, to speculate while I contemplate the question, myself.

Membership in the Artworld

2008-11-19T21:49:00.003-05:00

Dickie attempts to counter Weitz's argument of Art as indefinable by providing a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for art. He provides two: artifactuality, and conferred status. Artifactuality is obvious. But who confers the status of artwork? Why, the artworld, of course.

So what the heck is the "artworld," and who are it's members? Dickie gives us a comprehensive list: "artists, producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others." Wow. Quite the list there.

The better question might be "who ISN'T in the artworld?" Dickie's definition seems to be so ridiculously inclusive that we can ALL be members of the artworld merely by saying that we are thus. Given such a broad definition, whose definition can we possibly trust?

Well, we need not trust any. For the artworld does not confer the status of "Art," but merely "CANDIDATE for appreciation." Dickie goes on to say that "much great art goes unappreciated."

SO WHAT THE HECK DOESN'T QUALIFY AS ART?!?!? Under this definition, a person could take a trash can, overturn it, call it "Art," and that would not only make it a candidate for Art, but to actually BE Art, regardless of whether or not it is appreciated or has any aesthetic value whatsoever. This is not flexibility and openness while giving a closed definition. This is just ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Weitz (uh... Dickie), for giving us a definition of Art that doesn't define anything at all.

On the Artifactuality of Humanity

2008-11-19T21:27:00.002-05:00

While perhaps not directly related to art, I feel a need to explore this question: are humans artifacts?

A quick look in the dictionary will yield several definitions of the term "artifact," but all have a common theme: the idea of being "made by humans." How can humans, therefore, be artifacts?

In some part, humans are made by other humans in that it requires two humans to have sexual relations to create a new human. However, nature is also a large player in this process, and the humans who participated in the sexual act have very little influence on the being that is created (except possibly in the option of aborting the fetus).

For the spiritual, there would certainly be the argument that humans, and indeed all life, are the artifacts of the divine, be it one god or many gods, or merely a guiding divine force.

For the less spiritual, such an idea may well be absurd. Perhaps nature, then, is the creator, and we humans the artifacts of nature? That would, of course, require some anthropomorphisation of nature. But where is the harm in that? Worse metaphors have been spoken.

Could humans be artifacts in some other sense? Or is it absurd to think that something as complex as life could possibly be an artifact?

Whose Theory Is It, Anyway?

2008-11-16T00:49:00.003-05:00

Danto appears to argue that Art only exists if there is a theory behind it. A person who lacks a theory of art will never look upon Art. However, he leaves one crucial question unanswered: whose theory of Art do we take?

My own thoughts would be thus: each individual should choose that theory of Art that seems correct to them, that theory which agrees with their own knowledge and reasoning. Absent any other indication by Danto, can we assume otherwise?

Of course, a theory need not be set in stone. Danto does point out towards the end of the article that the definition of Art can expand, that is, there can be applied a new predicate to what follows Art. "X is Art because F," or G, or H. And the abilty to add new letters to that, new identifiers of Art (and, by extension, the opposite of such, that is, F and Not F, G and Not G) is what allows the creation of new Art quite unlike anything that has been seen before. This would logically lead to a constantly expanding, evolving theory of Art. But, of course, we are still left with the question of what theory is the proper one.

What say you, my friends? Should we choose that definition, that theory of Art, that most makes sense to us? Or should it be something else, something Danto did not tell us, but may have believed in?

Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts

2008-11-12T23:44:00.002-05:00

Danto confronts the problem of Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts. The strongest example of such, I think, was his reference to the "artwork" Rauschenberg's Bed, a work of art which is, quite literally, a bed spattered with paint.

At first glance, the work appears to merely be a bed that was mutilated in a tragic paint accident. But someone in the artworld, whatever that may be, identified it as a work of art. (Having viewed it myself, I cannot consider it a work of art; but that is another debate. For now, I shall operate under the assumption that it is, indeed, a work of "art.")

How are we to distinguish an average bed from Rauschenberg's Bed? Simply put: it is in the theory of art. Under some working definition of what "Art" is, Rauschenberg's Bed is included in the category of Art, separate and distinct from the general category of "beds."

In other words, these Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts are NOT CONCEPTUALLY Indistinguishable Counterparts. It is in the CONCEPTION or THEORY of Art that Art is separated from not Art.

I must admit: this concept makes sense. Having a conception or theory of art that distinguishes Art works from things that are not Art. So the question then becomes: What concept or theory of art should we use? Or must be grapple with that question on our own?

Art And Symbolism

2008-11-04T13:07:00.002-05:00

In his essay "When Is Art?" Nelson Goodman provides a definitive treatise against the formalist ideal - that of Art without symbolism, Art merely a reflection of itself. In place of this theory, he offers up his theory of exemplification: that all Art is symbolic of something, that it always represents something beyond itself, providing an example of something extrinsic to the work.

As I reflected on this idea, I recalled a poem my class had read in AP English. My classmates and I analysed the given poem looking for some deeper meaning, some symbolism in the poem. After twenty minutes of putting forth theories, our teacher said, "You're all wrong. The point of this poem is this: the author saw a pretty horse and wrote about how it made him feel - what he saw and what he felt."

It made me realize something: not all Art needs to be representative of some larger truth. It can be simply representative merely of thoughts and feelings experienced from seeing a horse on the side of the road, or as complex as a sweeping commentary on the state of society.

And this brings me to the question of symbolism in modern "Art." Can this modern "Art," that tries so hard not to represent anything, really represent nothing? And if it has no representation... can it still be considered "Art?" I think I know how to answer this question... but I will save my own thoughts for a later post. For now, my dear readers, I invite you to provide your own insights on this conundrum.

Can There Be Objective Assessment of Taste?

2008-10-25T12:00:00.004-04:00

Hume presents an interesting antimoney in his essay. Art is determined largely by taste, and yet most people can agree that some art is clearly better than other (da Vinci being greater than Norman Rockwell, or Shakespeare being greater than Stephen King). How, then, are we to determine what is right, or if indeed Shakespeare is a better author than Stephen King?

The answer is simple. Some artists and art are just better. Taste may be subjective, but there are still some guiding principles that can be used to differentiate good art from bad art.

Rockwell could never copy the tedious care that artists such as da Vinci had to put into each work, carefully blending dyes and hues to create the colors used in their works. Likewise, an author like Stephen King could never measure up to the mastery of language and human nature in a Shakespearean play. But technical mastery is only one element of good art. It must be judiciously applied.

How do you apply technical mastery to thus create good art? Long, hard work, and vision. Rockwell created work to please the masses. King prefers quantity to quality in his work. But the great artists take their time. They work their art to a degree of perfection that most of us can only dream of. To do this takes time and dedication, and produces a work of such quality that it stands the test of time.

This does not mean that some people won't think that Stephen King is a better writer than Shakespeare. It just means that they're wrong. Hume more or less puts out the idea that, just as some art is clearly better than others, some OPINIONS about art are better. I couldn't agree more.

Why Define "Art?"

2008-10-16T20:59:00.002-04:00

Before I begin, I must apologize for being lax about my blog as of late. I've come down with the plague (or the common cold, whichever you prefer to call it), and it has made it quite difficult to breathe and continue to attend classes, let alone try to compose thoughts for my blog.

Excuses aside... why define Art? What is it about Art that compels us to compose a definition to encompass it? While I have no reasonable answer for the second, the first question deserves exploration.

On the most practical level, a definition of "Art" is necessary to legitimize the existence of art schools. If we lack a definition of Art, how can we possibly devote entire institutions of learning to it? Simply put, we cannot.

However, there is a much deeper need for a definition of art. Most people probably have some idea of what "Art" is. They can look at something and know if it is "Art" or not. Why, then, can we not agree on what "Art" truly is?

The answer is simple: there is no universal definition of Art, and on this point, Weitz is correct - we will NEVER compose a definition of Art that EVERYONE can agree with. However, that does not preclude the search for a definition. Rather than defining Art in a universal sense, we must endeavor to define Art in a personal sense. What is Art to ME? Why do I feel that this is Art?

We will never have a universal definition of Art. However, we SHOULD continue to define Art, not for Art's sake, not for humanity's sake, but for our own. Understand why we feel as we do about Art, understand ourselves.

Art: Is it definable?

2008-10-11T17:20:00.002-04:00

What is Art? That is the question. We seek to understand, to know. But can a solid definition of Art ever be arrived at?

Weitz would argue not. Just as there can be no solid definition for what is a "game," the concept of Art is open, constantly evolving, and thus a universal definition would be, by necessity, impossible.

Is this really true? Does Art truly escape definition? There is certainly some validity to this claim. Let us explore it.

Reflecting back on every definition of Art we have looked at previously, each adds a dimension to this concept of Art. (As Freud did not contribute anything to the definition, he is irrelevant to the current discussion.) Plato and his copies of copies, Dewey and intentionality and nature, Tolstoy and communication of feelings - all of these certainly add to the discussion of what Art is, but none can really be exactly placed on Art.

Art can be said to fit every definition. And of course, as new types of Art are created, some critic somewhere will doubtless write a new definition of Art to fit in the new style.

Thus, Art is - gasp! - like a living thing, constantly evolving with the intellects of its creators, and constantly eluding a solid definition. Should we thus stop trying to define it? Absolutely not. It is this constant defining and re-defining that gives Art its nature. And while we will never have a truly solid definition for it... we can certainly try.

On "Formalism"

2008-10-07T23:44:00.003-04:00

Clive Bell believes in Significant Form. This much is clear from his writing. And of course, in his mystical elitism, he sets it up so we can't argue with him. Which won't stop me.

Let us begin by dissecting his argument. "All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art." I'll skip past the fallacy of making such a blanket statement and argue with the concept that all sensitive people would agree. First of all... it's a major attack against anyone who might not feel this "peculiar emotion." Does that mean that you're not sensitive, you Philistine? Clive Bell would probably say so. After all, he is among the "elite few," those "sensitive people." Arrogant p...erson.

"The best opinion is on my side." Because, of course, if YOU say your opinion is best, that must make it a fact. Rather than show WHY your opinion is best, you just say that it is. Great way to win an argument, Mr. Bell. Now please stop throwing up these straw men as the foundation of your entire line of philosophical thought.

"This emotion is not disputed by anyone capable of feeling it." Because of course, it's so easy to match a feeling exactly, and it's so DISTINCT from the emotions of life. If this is some secret sort of emotion, summoned up by "mystical, unknown" qualities... how can you be certain that it truly IS separate from the emotions of life?

"A painter too feeble to create forms that provoke more than a little aesthetic emotion will try to eke that little out by suggesting the emotions of life." And what harm, pray tell, is there in suggesting the emotions of life? I always thought of art as something that should help us to EXPLORE those emotions, not ESCAPE them, as Bell suggests "Significant Form" does.

The idea of a completely separate set of emotions, this "aesthetic emotion," is frankly absurd. Why would it only be summoned forth by this "Significant Form," under these whacky "mystical, unknown" forces? Artists are not unique among the species in that they have this sort of hidden talent to tap into this unknown force. Rather, they capture the emotions of life. The idea that FORM comes before EMOTION is as ridiculous as Bell's argument. What, now, arrogant dead guy? What NOW?

Nature and Art

2008-10-02T20:17:00.004-04:00

I am quite sure that many of you, my dear readers, have on at least one occasion ventured outside and had your auditory senses greeted by an orchestra of bird song. Perhaps some of you even thought it to be pretty. But did you ever consider that this may be Art?

Dewey would, and the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, may well believe it, too, given his extensive work tracing emotions and mental faculties within the animal kingdom. Art. It's in nature, and it's in OUR nature.

If we work from the assumption that Art is in our nature... why, then, would Dewey boldly declare it to be "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity?" Under that assumption, wouldn't art merely be an expression of our nature, our link to the animal kingdom, far removed from the intellectual capacity that sets us apart from apes or pigs or dogs?

Art may be in our nature. We may see it in the songs of birds, the dams of beavers, the dens of foxes. But in nature, art appears only in forms that are already inherent to the creature in question. With humans, Art manifests itself in new and unexpected ways. Humans use their mental capacities to create new Art, new worlds, new experiences. They form Art in a way a bird never could. Coupled with the conscious self-reflection that is inherent only to humans (at least to our limited yet ever-expanding knowledge), the limits that Art can achieve... do not exist.

And therein lies the hidden nature of Art. It is unconfined, free, ever-expanding. Thus, Art truly is "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity."

Pragmatism and Art

2008-09-30T17:27:00.003-04:00

Art is anything the artist intends to be Art.

I have just stated what John Dewey may have been trying to say in 10 pages of flowery prose. Reminds me a bit of H. D. Thoreau and his work of several hundred pages expounding on the idea of simplicity, beating it to a blood pulp in an disgustingly elaborate series of analogies of varying degrees of complexity...

Swipes at "Walden" aside, what value might there be in this thought? Can Art really be anything that the "artist" makes with the intention of being "Art?"

At present... I'm suspicious of the idea. Just because the "artist" intends for a work to be "Art" does not necessarily make it "Art."

I could draw a picture with the intention of being an artistic representation of the struggles of man. If the picture amounts to nothing more than a few stick figures and I declare my "Artistic" work complete, does that make it "Art?" Or does "Art" need something more, some additional element to transform the INTENTION into ART?

Wait... isn't that the whole point of this course? Thanks a lot, Mr. Dewey. You've lead me back to the same question we started this course with, and successfully did so without adding anything to it. Unless I just haven't discovered it yet. I'll withhold judgment for the time being. There are too many questions yet to explore.

As a small aside, Freud. Perhaps his views aren't COMPLETELY worthless, but after reading "Civilization and Its Discontents," I do not find much that DOES have value. And I insist that Freud contributes nothing to the discussion of "What is Art?"

If Freud Was An Animal, He'd Be A Duck

2008-09-26T20:42:00.004-04:00

As I reflect on class, one question raised keeps coming to the forefront of my thoughts: is it fair to judge a person's views based on our modern values rather than the values of the writer's time?

Answer: no. But I'm going to do it, anyway. Why? Because we're looking for something universal, something that can apply to any time period and EVERY time period. And Freud... was dead wrong.

Perhaps it was "brilliant" psychology in his time. But the man was a quack. Just from the short reading, it is painfully apparent that under Freud's definitions, EVERYONE HAS A MENTAL ILLNESS, thus ensuring he always has work. It's utter garbage.

There is absolutely nothing of value in Freud. Look at all of the "pop psychology" of dream interpretation he's inspired! "Pop psychology" is to Psychology what "pop music" is to music: a shallow performance meant to make the listener feel good without imparting any positive value. I prefer to think of both as poison for the mind.

Perhaps Freud's biggest crime is the plague he has unleashed upon our society? His crackpot "theories" based on a complete misunderstanding of the psyche. Either way, he contributes no meaningful definition of Art to our discussion, and all I can say is "Thank goodness we're moving on from 'Fraud!'"

On Dreams

2008-09-24T22:30:00.004-04:00

What is a dream? Is it merely the wanderings of the mind while asleep (or perhaps even awake)? Is it a wish? Is it anything at all?

Freud claims that dreams represent "unfulfilled wishes." Going along with his theme of "wishes are for the unhappy," the logical conclusion would be that happy people never dream (or never remember their dreams). I feel this is not the case.

First of all, to call a dream an unfulfilled wish is to imply that one would WANT the events in the dream to happen, on some level. Talking solely from my personal experience, I had a dream once in middle school in which I received a detention for an unmentioned offense. Am I HONESTLY supposed to believe that unconsciously, I WANTED to be in trouble? That I DESIRED a detention? If that is the case, I would concede a certain masochism on my part.

However, I would argue that such is far from the truth. I am opposed to inflicting harm on others, SERIOUS harm, in all but the most extreme circumstances, and would NEVER desire to inflict anything upon myself. From other dreams, the details of which I will not divulge here, Freud would likely diagnose me with sado-masochistic tendencies, I charge I insist is balderdash.

His claim to "universal symbols" in dreams is equally dubious. Any given event, object, color, ANYTHING, in the context of a dream, could not POSSIBLY have a universal meaning. Why? Humanity. For each individual, any given object has a unique meaning that is distinct, personal, perhaps completely opposed to what another individual would see in the same object.

Now that I have laid my case against Freud's preposterous ideas of dreams... how does this relate to art? As Freud argues that art is merely the projection of these dreams and fantasies... it has everything to do with Art. And since Freud's "interpretation" of dreams is worth little more than a lump of cat poo... how am I to take his views on Art seriously? Answer: I do not. Freud is nothing but a Fraud.

On Art, Ideas, and Emotion

2008-09-23T20:15:00.001-04:00

Tolstoy states that art, in its most basic form, is the communication of feelings, in contrast to the communication of ideas. But are the two necessarily separate?

In a theoretical sense, it is perfectly logical to say that the communication of emotion is separate from the communication of ideas. Put it in to practice, however, and the distinction becomes MUCH harder to maintain.

Many of the tools at our disposal - language, color, actions - can serve both purposes. In practice, it is often extremely difficult to differentiate what is merely "thought" versus was is "emotion." Indeed, much artwork shows not only "emotion," as Tolstoy states, but it communicates IDEAS.

This is not to say that ALL art communicates ideas. A painting of a sunset may not communicate any sort of specific IDEA, but it potentially evokes EMOTION.

By contrast, some "Art" may be all about the idea and devoid of emotion. Much of the artwork produced in the Soviet Union under the Communist regime did not communicate emotion so much as the IDEA of the united worker.

Some "art" may even lack both emotion and idea. The white canvas is something I must return to for this. It conveys no emotion, no real idea, and yet, someone considers it "art." Whether this is a valid claim is something I will not explore... yet.

So, my dear readers, I ask you to ponder this: Is Art Emotion, Idea, both, or neither? Or can it be all of the above? I believe that the fifth option is most correct: Art is Emotion, Idea, Both, AND Neither.

"Freud" Is One Letter Away From "Fraud"

2008-09-21T23:54:00.003-04:00

It took me 7 hours to force myself to read 5 pages of Freud. Why?

The man is absolutely insane. To say that only "unhappy" people have fantasies shows an awful misunderstanding of the human mind. To say that fantasies are the root of psychosis is a crime against humanity.

Day-dreams are not merely, as "Fraud" suggests, "merely an extension of childhood play." They are a vital part of the human life. We MUST have day dreams. They inspire us to work harder. They give us solace. And they are most certainly NOT the root of mental illness.

A dream is harmless. A fantasy is harmless. Acting on said dreams and fantasies may not be, granted, but who was ever harmed merely by thought? When was the last time you, my dear readers, killed or raped or maimed someone merely by thought, by fantasizing about it? If any of you can answer "yes..." seek professional help.

I shall assume that most of you have answered "no" to my question, and pose this question: is day dreaming bad? Indeed, is "play" necessarily a bad thing for an adult?

My answer? No, it is not. Play is a vital component to the human condition. It is through play that we learn, and without it, we are little more than drones. Perhaps "Fraud" saw it as a sign of mental illness; I see it as a sign of mental health.

Perhaps "Fraud's" problem was merely that HE wanted to kill his father and have sex with his mother, and merely reflected that on to his "victims?" You decide.

On Beauty and Art

2008-09-19T22:18:00.002-04:00

Beauty. So many people look for it in Art. A work must have this "beauty," this aesthetic value that make people want to view the work.

But should Beauty be central to Art? Can we define Beauty? Should we even try?

Beauty is a muddy subject. It is far too subjective to ever craft a meaningful definition. Two people can watch a lion kill a gazelle, and while one can call it beautiful, another may call it horrifying, appalling. How can beauty be defined when a single object can elicit such diametrically opposed reactions in the viewer?

The simple answer is that it cannot be defined, this it should NOT be central to Art. Just as a person who eats only for pleasure cannot grasp the true meaning of eating, so can a person miss the meaning of Art if they search only for Beauty.

Art is anything, ANYTHING, that conveys a feeling, a message. How that message is interpreted may vary from person to person. But if it communicates a feeling, any feeling, be it love, lust, depression, disgust, or anything in between - THAT is Art.

Art: Should It Be Defined?

2008-09-17T22:07:00.002-04:00

Imagine a Venn diagram. A large box to represent the universe, and a circle to represent Art. Barring inquiries as to what lies outside of the universe... what should be included in that circle that is Art?

Tolstoy would argue that Art is a human activity that is meant to convey emotion in such a way that the viewer/observer shares in the emotion and feels it, too. Under this definition, not only would Art include what we traditionally think of Art - paintings, novels, etc - but also those activities that are a part of our everyday lives - telling a joke, home decoration, etc.

So my question: why DON'T we consider telling a joke, or home decoration, or what have you, "Art?" Should we consider these everyday things Art? And if we do, what then do we exclude from the circle in the aforementioned Venn diagram?

My answer is simple: erase the circle. Let the universe equal Art. Art is all around us. To me, to try to separate Art from the rest of the Universe... is a mere exercise in futility. Life is Art. Art is Life. The two are inseparable.

Reason, or Emotion?

2008-09-15T21:16:00.002-04:00

Plato believed in the dichotomy of the mind. That reason and emotion occupy two separate portions of the mind, and are always at odds.

I find this idea frankly absurd. Reason and emotion cannot, and perhaps should not, be separated. It is true that humans are rational creatures, but if we were meant to use only reason, and not emotion, why do we have feelings? There MUST be some utility in emotion. But what?

I see it as keeping reason check. Anything taken to an extreme is usually a bad thing. Reason without emotion separates humanity from what its core, its essence. Humans are not only rational beings - they are also emotional ones. These emotions cannot and should not be separated from reason. Take, for example, the novel "We." Zamyatin paints a picture of a "perfect" society. Everyone has their place, and emotion is almost totally eliminated from humanity. But does this society truly function? No. There is clear dissent, and the reader finds it much easier to relate, as it were, to D-503, and his struggles with his emotions. It takes an extraordinary act, lobotomy, to separate emotion. The fact that a part of the brain must be removed to illustrate emotion shows that clearly, emotion must be important for humanity, if it can be hardwired into the brain as such.

Of course, rampant emotion is hardly a preferable alternative. For contrast, take "Brave New World." Huxley's "utopia" is a world of uninhibited pleasure. Reason is eschewed in favor of pleasure in the here and now, and the people live in a constant stupor of soma. John, the "Savage," the one character most like our society, shows us that this focus on emotion (or in this case, a particular emotion) is no utopia. Emotions must be felt, and need the complement of reason to understand and live a full life.

Perhaps I have become too long-winded again, and I pray my readers will forgive me, but my point stands firm. Reason and emotion are inseparable. They must complement and balance each other to create a true human.

Plato: Right or Wrong?

2008-09-10T18:27:00.001-04:00

Plato looked down on art as mere imitation, not even useful imitation, but as a copy of a copy. It is merely something that is meant to have an emotional impact, and emotions are things looked down upon. As Plato states, "We pride ourselves if we are able to keep quiet and master our grief, for we think that this is the manly thing to do and that the behavior we praised before (i.e. the loud lamentations of characters in poetry and plays) is womanish."

Here is where Plato goes wrong. It is quite clear that Plato views men as "strong," in complete control of their emotions, and never letting them show, for to show emotion is a "womanish" thing to do. Inherent sexism aside, I beg the question: if "men" are not supposed to show their emotions... why do they have them in the first place?

The answer is simple: men, as well as women, are meant to SHOW their emotions. If we FEEL this emotion, it necessarily comes with the obligation to let the emotion show. Art's power comes from that it is the essence of emotion, captured in time. It may be a "mere imitation of an imitation of the true form," but it is no less valuable. If the bed is an imitation that is praised for its utility, then a painting of a bed must be praised for it's representation, for capturing the bed, and the emotions that are inextricably linked to it.

Is Plato right to call Art "mere imitation?" I believe so. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not.

who stares at cat poop while having a conversation?

2008-09-08T18:15:00.000-04:00

Before I begin, I must say this: I really need to get over my shyness and start contributing to discussion in class.

Now, on to the blog.

As I left Mark Hopkins Hall, I reflected on the discussion we'd just had in class. One thing stuck out from the explaination behind the painting "Junk." That thought: "Who stares at cat poop while having a conversation? Especially if it's supposedly 'the most profound conversation of your life?'"

I voiced this opinion to a classmate, whose name I dare not try to spell for fear of awful misspelling. His point made me ponder... that "staring off in to space" some people may adopt while having profound conversations. I realized in that moment that I do the same. I avert my eyes and turn an ear to the speaker, and thus I absorb the conversation. While I can't say I've ever found a piece of cat poop on the ground to study while having this conversation, the idea of staring off is something to which I can relate.

Oddly enough, cat poop can be quite the conversation starter. At least in this particular instance. We found agreement in liking the painting (though I don't recall if I voiced it... curse my inability to get my tongue to move!), for the reason of the impact it made.

This lead us to this point: Art is in the impact. If a piece makes an impact on the viewer, regardless of whether it was the artist's intention... does that thus make it "art?" Can art be so simply put down to the mere emotional impact elicited when human eyes lay upon it, if for only a moment?

Thinking back, I recall Professor Johnson mentioning perception. How a person (for purpose of example, I shall name my hypothetical person "Bobert.") can look at something, like a tree, and sees it as only Bobert can, and that by seeing it, it permanently alters Bobert. That the arrangement of neurons in Bobert's brain is permanently altered in the mere act of seeing the tree.

If this holds true, Art must be the same way. Art must make this permanent change, this alteration of the viewer. But Art makes its impact in the way a tree perhaps never could. By viewing the tree, Bobert sees the world through his own lens, makes his own judgments. By looking at, say, a painting, Bobert still uses his own judgment. But he sees through a different lens. He sees as the Artist sees. This is not to mean that he sees what the artist INTENDED. Rather, he takes that little part of the artist into himself, and thus, a little part of himself is permanently linked to the Art, and by extension, the artist.

I feel I am starting to become longwinded, and shall thus end my post, and attempt to leave a philosophical challenge for you, my dear readers, to ponder: have you ever linked an object (like cat poop) with something completely unrelated (say, the most profound conversation of your life... SO FAR)? If so, what, and why? How has that altered your perception of the world?