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?"
Sunday, October 11, 2009
A Broken Record
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?
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?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Ethics and Art: The Question of Pornography
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?
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
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?
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?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)