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?