Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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?"

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?

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?