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?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, February 20, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
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?
--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?
Friday, February 13, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)