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.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
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?
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?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
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?
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?
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?
Friday, January 23, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)