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?