Defining "Art," and Is Philosophy Art?

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.

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

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"

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

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!