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?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
"Rational Morality," and Art
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?"
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
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?
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?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
"Art" By Non-Human Beings
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?
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?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
"Conceptual" Art.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)