Response to Nick

I am responding to Nick’s post,
“What do you think of my analysis? What do I do with Dickie? What do I do with Weitz?”
First off, I think your analysis is very accurate; there do seem to be two categories of art-philosophers and I think you defined those categories very well. However, I do disagree with your placement of Goodman. Goodman should be in the human category because his definition depends upon the social/historical context which depends upon society as a whole, and thus depends on other people. I am also unsure of Plato’s placement, because art does not involve the influence of other people; rather, other people are involved in Plato’s theory by being influenced by art.
In order to place Dickie in only one category, I think your categories simply need further clarification. Does the human category require the influence of other’s? or does it merely leave open the possibility of the influence of others? If you clarify by using the latter, then Dickie would belong solely in the human category because, although art status can be conferred by only the individual artist, the possibility of another’s influence is still present.
As for Weitz—Morris Weitz never actually gave a definition of art, and so he does not belong in any category.
How would Dickie be categorized if the human category required the influence of others? Where should Plato be placed?

Response to Nick

I am responding to Nick, who asked “is artistic value based on the individual's opinion, on the majority's opinion, or on the transfer of information/communication between the individual and the group?”
This question has been asked in every chapter we have read, so the answer depends on who you agree with.
Hume would say that the human perception of artistic value is based on the individual’s opinion and the majority’s opinion. The actual value for Hume lies in certain objective truths which are known to everyone but are distorted by perceptual defects in the individual viewers.
Danto would support the view that value arises from the opinion of the majority—specifically, the opinion of the artworld.
Tolstoy disagrees with both of these claims and states that artistic value is based on the ability to communicate an emotion. He defines art as “a means of communion among people” (Wartenberg 107). (Adrian Piper may also support this opinion, as I mentioned in the most recent post).
So, the answer to your question depends on which philosopher you support. As we have seen throughout the semester, none of these theories are entirely sufficient. Hume’s philosophy is circular, Danto never defines art (he only defines candidates for art), and Tolstoy’s definition is too narrow.
QUESTION
-It was mentioned today that very few of the philosophers we have read have also been artists. However, of the three who were (Plato, Tolstoy and Piper), two consider art to be communicative. Does this support the communicative theory in any way? Do their opinions mean more as artist/philosophers?

Piper and Tolstoy

A passage from Adrian Piper’s chapter displays similarities to Tolstoy’s theory of art as communication. Piper says, “the aesthetic value of an art object should include recognition of its necessarily functional character as a catalyst of human interaction; as an instrument for achieving human plans; and as a communicator of human ideas, intelligence, and choices” (Wartenberg 269). She further claims we should “think instead much more about whether the object is sparking in us the kind of response we think it ought to” (Wartenberg 269). The first quote clearly states that art functions as a means of communication. The second elaborates on the first, and describes how the audience should observe art carefully to ensure that we are receiving the correct message which the artist is trying to communicate.
Leo Tolstoy considered art to be a means of communicating a specific emotion, and placed all responsibility for successful communication on the artist. Piper differs in this regard, and urges the audience make sure they are receiving the correct message.
Can Piper’s theory therefore be subjected to the same criticism placed on Tolstoy?

Rauschenberg's Bed

“As beds, these sell at singularly inflated prices, but one could sleep in either of them: Rauschenberg has expressed the fear that someone might just climb into his bed and fall asleep” (Wartenberg 210).
This quote, from the Danto chapter, seems to me to be a direct reference to Goodman’s emphasis on the question ‘what is art’? I would further say that this quote supports Goodman. Rauschenberg’s fear can only be based on the knowledge that if anyone decided to use his bed as a bed it would no longer function as art. It would then be a bed, and its function would be as an object to be slept in. As the bed cannot function as both at the same time, Rauschenberg should be afraid.
However, Goodman states at the end of his chapter that “the Rembrandt painting remains a work of art, as it remains a painting, while functioning only as a blanket” (Wartenberg 203). There seems to be a distinction between a Rembrandt painting—which can function as art and as a blanket simultaneously—and Rauschenberg’s bed—which can only be one or the other. So, perhaps Rauschenberg’s bed is not art and a requisite of art should be that it can function as art and as something else simultaneously. Could this be?

Art's Influence or Influence on Art?

In response to Sarah’s question, “Will the representation of the unhealthy environment through art cause a drastic turnaround for the way humans treat the environment now?”
I think that in this case our treatment of the environment is influencing art more than art is influencing our treatment of the environment. For proof of this change in mentality, look no further than the push for alternate energy (even if it is being ignored by the major automobile companies who contribute only miniscule portions of their budget towards its development) or the creation of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (even if it is an over-exaggeration). The Badlands exhibit exists because people’s attitudes and treatment of the environment is starting to change, and this change is being captured in art. However, art cannot always be defined as a reflection of the time period it was created in (on page 10 of the introduction for Wartenberg, this theory is mentioned in regard to Hegelian thought). In some instances, art does cause a drastic turnaround in the values of a culture. One example is the Beat Generation, which created very drastic turnaround in the thoughts and values of American culture. To summarize, I do not think the representation of the unhealthy environment in art will cause a drastic turnaround for how humans treat the environment; rather, I think the environment is being portrayed as unhealthy because humans are beginning to change their mentality towards the environment.
QUESTION: Was Freud drawing upon Hegelian thought when he said “We must not imagine that the various products of this impulse towards phantasy, castles in the air or day dreams, are stereotyped or unchangeable. On the contrary, they fit themselves into the changing impressions of life, alter with the vicissitudes of life; every deep new impression gives them what might be called a ‘date stamp’” (Wartenberg 113).

Art as a Means to Attain Status

According to Dickie, status in the artworld is presented “in a way analogous to the way in which a person is certified as qualified for office, or two persons acquire the status of common-law marriage within a legal system, or a person acquires the status of wise man within a community” (Wartenberg 224). If this is true, then we may have been presented with the function of art.
In all of these examples, the status is conferred after certain actions are considered; a person is considered qualified for office if they have been properly educated and experienced; two people acquire the status of common-law marriage if they undergo the proper paperwork; a person is considered a wise man if he exhibits sufficient wisdom. In the artworld, the action which merits status is the production of art. So, according to this theory, art functions as a means to attain status in the artworld. Could this be its only function?

Response to Kait

In response to Kait’s question, “is Hume being an elitest in his statement "some work is better than others, and some people are better suited to tell us so," or is he just telling the truth?”
Hume most definitely is an elitist. Despite his claim that subjectivity is always right, he still asserts that there are some objective truths which only a select few individuals are aware of. This is a classic form of elitism.
But he is also just telling the truth as he sees it in accordance with his philosophy. Hume, I believe, was not trying to raise those select few above the rest of society; he was only stating that most people’s perception is distorted to explain the cause of subjectivity. This claim inherently holds that there are some people whose perception is not as distorted and so are better suited to give opinions of art. So yes, Hume was just telling the truth—however, how truthful it actually was depends on the accuracy of his philosophy.
QUESTION: If people’s accuracy of perception (in accordance with Hume) was presented in a graph, would it fall into a normal bell curve?