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?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)