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?

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?

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?