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?

Original, External Stimulus

In Howard Gardner’s “The Arts and Human Development,” he describes the roles of individuals involved in the creation and perception of an artwork. Through considering these roles, I have found what I consider to be concrete evidence that an artwork must be based upon an external, original stimulus.
The main two individuals involved in the artistic process are the artist and the observer. The artist is the person who creates the work of art. What exactly he does which distinguishes his creation as a work of art is arguable (otherwise, this class would not be necessary). However, Gardner holds that the artist is attempting to communicate an experience (this is not necessary for what I claim).
The observer is the person who perceives the artwork and is affected by it. Unlike the artist, the observer is not attempting to communicate anything.
There are also two other individuals involved. The performer is someone who, through the instruction of the artist, recreates the artwork in a way which will have the desired effect on the audience.
The critic is the last role, and their function is to interpret the artwork and create an evaluation of the original artwork.
Of the three roles not performed by the artist, the critic is the only one who creates something which is shared with the audience (the performer does not create, it imitates). My argument is claiming that the factor distinguishing art from the critic’s creation is an external, original stimulus—because the critics creation relies upon the artist’s work, it is not art.
Does this translate into the intentionality theory?

response to kait

I am responding to Kait’s question, “we know that people claim objects as art because of their expert opinion, but if something makes you feel like it’s art, is that a credible enough reason to say it is?”
I believe this question was discussed at the beginning of the semester when we were trying to categorize random sketches and doodles in relation to art. Most doodles, we determined, were not art because they lacked the intention of the artist. However, there are some intentionless sketches which have been produced and are considered art by some observers. One example would be the doodles of John Lennon. As far as we know, John Lennon never intended any of his sketches to be art. However, the artworld considers them to be art and they have been sold for exorbitant amounts of money. In these cases, art gains its status through to intention of the observer.
There are boundaries though. My laptop, although it requires much skill and knowledge to create, is not art by any standard. Even if it makes me feel like it is a piece of art because of the expert-placement of all its parts, it still is not a work of art.
QUESTION: I just stated that my laptop is not a work of art. However, if presented as a work of art or as an object symbolic of our generation, I am sure many would consider it to be. Is presentation necessary for art to be considered art?

Hume and Plato

While reading Hume, I began to wonder if Hume’s objective standards are comparable to Plato’s world of forms. Plato, as we have previously learned, proposed the existence of a world of forms beyond the reach of human concept. In the world of forms existed the forms of all objects which people build (or in this case ‘imitates’). Whenever someone creates a chair or a bed, they are trying to imitate one of these perfect, beautiful forms, but can never succeed. Plato wished to omit emotion from his ideal state so that people will be better able to become closer to this world of forms through reason. He obviously believed emotion would distort people’s perception of the worlds of forms.
Hume, similarly, believes there are objective standards which everyone is aware of, but because of defects, our perception of these standards is distorted, creating subjective opinion. According to Hume, objectivity can only be attained through “a perfect serenity of mind, a recollection of thought, a due attention to the object” (Wartenberg 44). Basically, objectivity can be attained through reason. So, both philosophers have proposes a series of—or world of—perfect, object beauty which is beyond the comprehension of humanity and can best be attained by reason.
However, further reading has shown me the two philosophies are not compatible. Plato’s world of forms exists outside of the observer, while for Hume the objective standards are still existent only in the observer’s perception.
Are Plato’s world of forms and Hume’s objective standards compatible?

Response to Nick

I am commenting on Nicks questions, “Where is my aesthetic experience? In each individual taking of a photograph? In the leaving and returning of a photo-excursion? In the printing and pasting of the photos themselves?”
Because this was posted at the time we were discussing Dewey, I will respond in the context of Dewey.
I would say that the aesthetic experience is in each individual taking of the photograph. This is the time when you are exercising your conscious intention and adding “regulation, power of selection, and redisposition” (Wartenberg 142). It is at the moment you are taking the pictures that you are experiencing so completely that your experience can be an experience, which is what makes your pictures art.
The leaving and returning of the photo-excursion certainly is not the point of your aesthetic experience—you may be conscious, but you are not intervening with your consciousness.
Although I hold that the actual taking of the picture is the moment of aesthetic experience, some difficulty arises with the printing and pasting of the photos themselves. Printing a photo still requires artisanship, and without the conscious intent required by Dewey it most certainly would not end as art. Perhaps photography requires two separate aesthetic experiences—the first where you are intervening in nature (taking the photo), and the second when you are intervening with the photograph (printing).
QUESTION: As discussed at the beginning of the semester, there are many works of art which were created without the intent of the artist (ex. John Lennon’s doodles). Do these prove Dewey’s theory wrong? And if not, then how can they be included under his theory?

Walking and Breathing

A major criticism of Dewey's account of art seems to be it's openness; one could take his definition of a art and apply it to almost anything done in life, perhaps even living itself. This recieve so much criticism because it seems ridiculous to consider wuch things as walking or sitting or breathing as 'art' merely because they were done with conscious intent. However, it has also been noted previously that people have a tendency to dismiss a peice of artwork because we feel that "even I could do that." Perhaps the idea of breathing or walking as art seems so ridiculous because we all do it, and so we degrade it. But really, what if we did include conscious intention into those activities? When do we ever become conscious of how we walk or breathe? Walking, though it seems to simple because "we can all do it" is actually an incredibly complex activity. To quote an article in National Geographic, "These biometrichal windows on walking and running illuminate just how astonishing a feat of balance, coordination, and efficiency is upright locomotion. The legs on a walking human body act not unlike inverted pendulums. Using a stiff leg as a point of support, the body swings up and over it in an arc, so that the potential energy gained in the rise roughly equals the kinetic energy gnerated in the descent. By this trick the body stores and recovers so much of the energy used with each stride that it reduces it's own workload by as much as 65 percent" (Ackerman, J. "The Downside of Upright." National Geographic July 2006: 126-145). True, complexity does not give something art-status, but it seems that we could view walking differently if we walked with conscious intent.

I have no specifc question for this entry. Instead I am interested in a response to the validity of these thoughts.

Subjectivity

We discussed in our last class whether or not it is possible to have ‘bad art.’ My answer to this question is yes, it is very possible to have bad art. The problem we have with evaluating art comes from our insufficient understanding of art’s function. Because we do not truly understand what art is we cannot evaluate it, but this does not mean it is above evaluation. For example; we understand the function of a chair, and thus we can discriminate between good chairs and bad chairs. However, we did not always know the function of a chair. As infants we were probably bewildered by the four legged objects scattered on the floor. At this point in time we were unable to distinguish good chairs from bad chairs—however, the separation did still exist.
One might argue that the function of art is much more subjective that the function of a chair. In that case, consider the function of a chair for a child compared to an adult. A typical chair would be too small for the child, and a child’s chair would be uncomfortable for an adult. In this case, the function of chairs is also subjective. Different chairs are good for different people, but bad chairs still exist. One should not make the mistake of assuming that because the subjectivity of art is emotional or psychological as opposed to physical, it’s evaluation cannot still exist.

QUESTION: Does this analogy make sense?

Response to Kaitland

This is in response to Kaitland’s question, “How does Freud justify his reasoning for his beliefs that art doesn't exist unless unconsciously done?”
Freud justifies this by stating that art is a way of relieving the tension caused by shameful unconscious wishes. Thus, art cannot exist unless unconsciously done. However, Freud’s theory does not allow for anything to be consciously done because our conscience is strongly influenced by our unconscious. As stated by Prof. Johnson, Freud over-applies his theory and so I think this may be one of the cases where his theory is too inflexible. Although Freud does justify this claim in the context of this theory I do not think the application of his theory to art is justified.

QUESTION: According to Freud, humans repress their id (the unconscious desires we are afraid of) with the superego (conscience). Artists gain their talent by coming closer to their unconscious and expresses these wishes in art. Therefore, wouldn’t animals (who have no superego to repress the id) be better suited for artistic talent?

Response to Sarah

This is in response to Sarah’s question, “is becoming an artist an acquired talent?”
In regard to technical ability, the answer is an obvious yes. Becoming skillful at shading, coloring, etc., requires practice and thus is an acquired talent. However, whether or not these skills constitute artistic ability is questionable.
For this reason I suspect that a formalist, such as Clive Bell, could argue that artistic ability is an innate ability. Bell considers technical ability as unnecessary and seems to consider the appreciation of significant form as an inborn ability. However, the viewpoint of Freud states that artistic ability arises overcoming our shame for our repressed desires, and so by learning to overcome our shame we can acquire artistic ability.
To take another approach to this question I will focus on the artistic ability of autistic children, some of whom (savants) seem to be born with an innate artistic ability. One theory of why this happens lies in a possible explanation of autism. Some people have hypothesized that autistic persons are born with an inability to mesh all the information of the sensory world into one single concept. For example, when non-autistic people look at a sphere they see the circular shape and the shading of the light When they put this information together they become aware that they are looking at the sphere—at first glance they are unaware of the shape or the shading as separate qualities, and are only aware of the two combined. An autistic person, however, would not be able to combine the two qualities and would be aware of both the shape and the shading independently of each other; this gives them a unique ability to artistically express both qualities in their purest form. In this sense, artistic ability could be innate. However, this knowledge gives us an ability to try and overcome the natural conceptualization of our senses as some artists have apparently done. In this way artistic ability can be acquired. (Fox, D. (2009) The inner savant. Discover Presents the Brain, pp.10-15.)

QUESTION: Is there a relationship between Plato’s forms and formalism?

The Principle of Isolation

In class we seem to agree that Clive Bell’s theory of significant form is inadequate to define art. Despite the problems with formalism, however, he did make some interesting statements concerning the role of exact representation in aesthetics.
Bell’s criticism of accurate representation (artwork which imitates real life exactly) actually has some scientific support. There is an article in the July 2008 edition of Scientific American Mind entitled “The Neurology of Aesthetics.” In this article, the author presents a series of principles for aesthetics, one of which is the principle of isolation.
The principle of isolation states that art tends to have more aesthetic value when certain qualities (such as shading, color, texture, etc.) are left out of the work. Bell would have described this as “absence of representation” and “absence of technical swagger” (Wartenberg 121). This happens because our brains have limited attentional resources; basically, we can only focus on so much at a time. Because of this, when certain qualities are left out, the qualities which remain in the painting are given more attention (Ramachandran, V., Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (2008). The Neurology of Aesthetics. Scientific American Mind, Vol. 18, pp. 74-77). Perhaps Bell was on to something when he criticized representation.

QUESTION: The fact that our brains can only focus on limited aspects of a painting reminds me of Jason’s entry from February 12th, entitled” An Artist’s Perception Verse That of a Psychologist’s.” I feel like there is a connection, but am having trouble making it. Can anyone help?

Response to Sarah

I am responding to Sarah’s question “why is art so important in life?”
Because my own answer to this question is not yet fully developed, I will answer this question first in reference to the definitions we have encountered so far from Tolstoy, Freud, Bell, and Plato.
According to Tolstoy, art is significant in life because it advances mankind both individually and collectively. Art serves as a form of emotional communication which unites the artist and the audience. This helps us to understand each other, thus catalyzing advancement.
Freud’s definition depends upon some of his prior theories. According to Freud, we are constantly experiencing tension between our conscious and our unconscious because we are ashamed of some of the wishes of our unconscious. To deal with these shameful wishes, we suppress them and allow them to be manifested in dreams. Artists are more in touch with their unconscious, and reveal these wishes through their art to help relieve the tension. For Freud, art is important to life because it maintains our sanity by helping us to relieve the tension.
Bell believes art is important because it enables us to experience aesthetic emotion and to transport us “from the world of man’s activity to a world of aesthetic exaltation” (Wartenberg 122). Apparently Bell believes the experience of aesthetic emotion is important to human life; however, he also recognizes that many people do not experience it and, if they do, the experiences of many are impure. This shows that however important Bell may consider art may be, unlike Freud and Tolstoy he does not consider art vital.
Plato does not consider art important—in fact, he claims that art should be omitted from an ideal state for its power to invoke emotion. (The ideal state would be dominated by reason).
If I were to offer my own opinion, I would agree most with Freud. It seems to me that art does act to relieve us from something, although I am not exactly sure what that something is.
QUESTION: If art does act to as a form of relief, does it help to relieve the audience in a way which is different from the artist?

More about Mathematics

"I wonder, sometimes, whether the appreciators of art and of mathematical solutions are not even more closely allied" (Wartenberg 122).
--Clive Bell

I mentioned in a previous post the possibility of including science and mathematics under the definition of art. Having read Clive Bell's essay on art, I have now found another assertion for the possibility.
Bell claims that true appreciation from art--experiencing 'aesthetic pleasure'--is a result of significant form. However, before we can feel aesthetic emotion from forms, we must first become aware of the "rightness and necessity" for a combination of forms (Wartenberg 122).
This exposes a similarity between art and mathematics which is admitted by Clive Bell; mathematicians also must understand the rightness and necessity of the components of an equation before they see the beauty of it. If artists and art appreciators feel aesthetic emotion from realizing the perfect beauty of the combinations, then why wouldn't mathematicians as well? After all, they must find some reward in solving and creating mathematical formula's, otherwise they would want to find another lifestyle. It seems plausible that mathematicians would feel a similar aesthetic emotion as artists.
And what about scientists? Bell never mentioned them, but he did explain the mathematicians emotion as arising from "the heart of an abstract science" (Wartenberg 122). It seems unfortunate for physicists, chemists, and biologists that they have been stuck finding joy in sciences which are not abstract, but very real and concrete. However, Bell's explanation for why mathematicians would feel aesthetic emotion should--and I think does--include these scientists; an appreciation for scientific formulas must also begin with understanding the rightness and necessity for it's components.

QUESTION: Would the joy felt by artists in recognizing perfect form be similar the the joy felt by mathemiticians when recognizing a perfect formula?

RESPONSE TO ED'S QUESTION

I am responding to Ed’s question, “Can art still be said to be a communion between the artist and individual if more than one emotion is shared?”
There are two ways which this question can be interpreted, and so I will address each one.
First; this could be asking if art can create a communion between the artist and the individual if each sees a different emotion in the art. If this is happening then the answer is no—there is no communion. The communion relies on the communication, and if the communication fails then so does the communion.
This could also be asking if the artist and observer both perceive multiple emotions in the painting. If this is the case then yes, there is still communion. In fact, the communion will probably be stronger. Tolstoy’s demand that the artist must be communicating a specific emotion was only to say that the observer must know exactly what the artist was trying to communicate, not that only one emotion can be communicated for communion to succeed.
QUESTION: Wartenberg, in the introduction, descirbes minimalist art as “representing nothing beyond itself” (Wartenberg 2). Is it possible for a work of art to truly represent nothing beyond itself?

Art Cannot Communicate a Specific Emotion

Tolstoy’s definition states that successful art communicates a specific emotion. Putting aside all other problems with this definition, I am questioning whether or not art even could be communication. Language, which is generally a successful form of communication, is successful because we are taught to associate words with specific meanings. Because the definition of a word is laid out for us in plain context, whenever the word is used we know the meaning intended with it. Art, on the other hand, relies on associations made with objects and symbols which may vary from person to person. Any individual may at some point learn to associate an object with an emotion which is not the common emotion associated with that object by everyone else (as shown by Watson’s ‘Little Albert’ experiment http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/Little%20Albert.htm). This individual will not be a possible target of communication through art.
Specificity is crucial for successful communication. Tolstoy realized this, which is why he stated that art must communicate a specific emotion. However, it would be irrational to assume that everyone who looks at a painting will have the same—or even similar—associations with the shapes, objects, or even colors which are present. So, my question for this entry is…
QUESTION: Is it possible for art to be a form of communication?

Fromm and Tolstoy

In a previous entry, I explained how art may possibly be defined using Erich Fromm’s theory of love—humans are isolated, and are trying to become attached to something outside of their selves to relieve the anxiety of separateness. One way of doing so is by creating art, and so perhaps art can be defined as the artist’s attempt to relieve isolation.
I could not help but notice similarities between this possible definition of art and Tolstoy’s definition. Tolstoy says art is a means of “human communion, necessary for life and for the movement towards the good of the individual man and of mankind, uniting them in the same feelings” (Wartenberg 108). Both of these definitions of art consider art to be a method of connecting us with each other, and by doing so art helps us to better ourselves. Although there may be problems with either definition, it certainly seems plausible to assume that art helps to unite us.
QUESTION: Would an art critic consider a three-year-old’s scribbles as art? The intention of the artist is certainly present.

Response to Sarah's Question

This is in response to Sarah’s question, “What happens when a work had been intended to possess a specific emotion but the emotion was never captured by observers?”
We have been talking about Tolstoy in class, so I will start with an answer dependant on his definition of art. According to Tolstoy, art is a way to communicate emotion. By communicating emotion, the artist connects the artist with the audience, and this unification has helped us evolve. If the emotion is not captured by the observers, the art has failed—it has not served as effective communication, and no one has been unified.
Now to think of this question without applying it to Tolstoy…
I would say that if the artist intended the emotion to be captured and it isn’t, then the art has failed. Emotion is somewhat abstract, so I will simplify the situation; if the artist painted a picture of a horse, but the audience perceived a cat, then the art has failed. In the same way, if the artist attempted to convey happiness, and the audience was either untouched or moved to a different emotion, then the art has failed. It may still be pleasurable, but not everything pleasurable it art. Thus, art intended to communicate an emotion which does not succeed is failed art.
QUESTION: Tolstoy says that beauty is “that which pleases us without awakening out lust” (Wartenberg 104). Why shouldn’t beauty awaken our lust? Can art awaken our lust?

Is Science Art?

We have determined in class that a sunset can be considered a piece of art if it is intended as such by an observer. But does this include all the factors which form the sunset? By factors I mean the various mathematics and principles which cause the substances involved to interact in specific ways to form the sunset. Can the knowledge of the chemical properties of the molecules be considered art? Can the physical formula’s which explain how the light bends and is refracted by these molecules considered art? These are all components of a phenomenon which we—as observers—consider to be artistic. So wouldn’t they too be art?
One argument against this would be to say that these factors are not art because they are not the actual art work—they are only individual components. After all, the tubes of paint used by the painter are not considered art. However, if a sunset can be considered art, it seems reasonable to assume a mathematical formula could be art as well. Although we may not see the artistic value in such things, it is very possible that others might. Physicists, for example, have been known to describe the simplicity and ingenuity of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as aesthetically perfect (Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe. New York: Vintage Books, 1999). If they, as observers, perceive a formula as art, then why would it not be considered art? It could be argued that the art critics don’t see it as art and so it isn’t, but whether or not their opinion determines the validity of art is debatable.
QUESTION: Can branches of knowledge—such as mathematics, science, etc.—be considered art?

Response to Sarah's Entry

I am responding to Sarah’s question; “Can culture alone be considered art?”
Culture does fit many of the criteria we use to consider works as ‘art’:
-If an observer intends a culture to be art, then, like a sunset, it would be art.
-Like Jurgen Habernmas stated about art, culture also “satisfies an emancipatory interest, the desire to be free of unnecessary and oppressive social constraints” (Wartenberg 11).
-Just as some art is created to reflect a time period, culture, by nature, must reflect a time period.
There are many scenarios in which culture could be considered art. However, one should take into account the ideal of cultural relativism. One of the strictest laws of anthropology is that an observer of a culture must maintain a culturally relativistic perspective ofa culture, and thus cannot consider any culture to be superior or inferior to another (This may seem strange to us—we have been trained since birth to consider our culture to be superior than that of an African Bushman’s. We must keep in mind that their culture has adapted to be the most efficient way of living in their environment. Different cultures have formed as a result of different obstacles, and none can be considered better or worse than another). As stated by Wartenberg in the introduction, any definition of art must allow for evaluation. Because culture cannot be evaluated, it cannot be art.

QUESTION: I asked in a previous blog entry if art could be defined as an expression of human creativity. Nick pointed out that, because animals are also capable of creating art, this cannot be accurate. And so I am broadening my question a bit—Could art be defined as an expression of creativity?

Response to Kait's Question

I am responding to Kait’s question, “is the idea of “beauty being in the eye of the beholder” an epistemological claim, as well as an axiological claim?”
The adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is an epistemological claim because it is attempting to explain our knowledge of art. However, it is also claims that the value of art lies in our personal taste. Because it is trying to determine the value of art, it is also an axiological claim.

QUESTION: Artist’s are constantly trying to break the boundaries of art. Does this signify that, because they are trying to break the boundaries, these boundaries must exist? Or are the artists only trying to show us that because the boundaries can be broken they never existed?

Art as a Relief Fromm Isolation

I have recently been reading a book by Erich Fromm entitled The Art of Loving. In this book, he has stated that individual humans are isolated beings who are disconnected from nature as well as each other. According to Fromm, this disconnection creates within us a feeling of anxiety. He further proposes that much of human action and interaction is an effort to relieve this anxiety by providing a connection with something outside of our self. It is one of these methods which may provide us with a definition of art.
According to Erich Fromm, one way in which human beings relieve their anxiety of isolation is through creative activity, such as art. The attempt of the artist is to connect themselves with their art in order to connect themselves with something of the outside world. Assuming Fromm is correct in these thoughts, perhaps art is what is created when an individual attempts to relieve their isolation.
This definition may help to solve some of the problems met when attempting to define art. An artist would not have to intend his or her art as art, but only be striving to relieve their anxiety. This would help explain the cultural problem with the intention definition—because the artist does not necessarily need to intend his works as art, the works of a culture without a concept of art can still be considered art. This definition would also provide a special characteristic with which to define art, it would not require the recognition of critics in the artworld to consider it as art, and it would give a definition of art which can encompass works of art throughout all points in time. The main problem which I see in this definition rests on its complete dependency on Erich Fromm’s philosophy which, like many philosophies, has many problems of it's own.


QUESTION: Wartenberg says, “on the one hand, the arts are often seen as challenging prevailing social norms: the artist is a rebel who stands apart from society to condemn it. From this point of view, art celebrates the potential of the human species and castigates society for suppressing that potential” (Wartenberg 11). Would it be too vague to define art as nothing more than an expression of human creativity?