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?