In response to Sarah’s question, “Will the representation of the unhealthy environment through art cause a drastic turnaround for the way humans treat the environment now?”
I think that in this case our treatment of the environment is influencing art more than art is influencing our treatment of the environment. For proof of this change in mentality, look no further than the push for alternate energy (even if it is being ignored by the major automobile companies who contribute only miniscule portions of their budget towards its development) or the creation of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (even if it is an over-exaggeration). The Badlands exhibit exists because people’s attitudes and treatment of the environment is starting to change, and this change is being captured in art. However, art cannot always be defined as a reflection of the time period it was created in (on page 10 of the introduction for Wartenberg, this theory is mentioned in regard to Hegelian thought). In some instances, art does cause a drastic turnaround in the values of a culture. One example is the Beat Generation, which created very drastic turnaround in the thoughts and values of American culture. To summarize, I do not think the representation of the unhealthy environment in art will cause a drastic turnaround for how humans treat the environment; rather, I think the environment is being portrayed as unhealthy because humans are beginning to change their mentality towards the environment.
QUESTION: Was Freud drawing upon Hegelian thought when he said “We must not imagine that the various products of this impulse towards phantasy, castles in the air or day dreams, are stereotyped or unchangeable. On the contrary, they fit themselves into the changing impressions of life, alter with the vicissitudes of life; every deep new impression gives them what might be called a ‘date stamp’” (Wartenberg 113).
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Art as a Means to Attain Status
According to Dickie, status in the artworld is presented “in a way analogous to the way in which a person is certified as qualified for office, or two persons acquire the status of common-law marriage within a legal system, or a person acquires the status of wise man within a community” (Wartenberg 224). If this is true, then we may have been presented with the function of art.
In all of these examples, the status is conferred after certain actions are considered; a person is considered qualified for office if they have been properly educated and experienced; two people acquire the status of common-law marriage if they undergo the proper paperwork; a person is considered a wise man if he exhibits sufficient wisdom. In the artworld, the action which merits status is the production of art. So, according to this theory, art functions as a means to attain status in the artworld. Could this be its only function?
In all of these examples, the status is conferred after certain actions are considered; a person is considered qualified for office if they have been properly educated and experienced; two people acquire the status of common-law marriage if they undergo the proper paperwork; a person is considered a wise man if he exhibits sufficient wisdom. In the artworld, the action which merits status is the production of art. So, according to this theory, art functions as a means to attain status in the artworld. Could this be its only function?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Response to Kait
In response to Kait’s question, “is Hume being an elitest in his statement "some work is better than others, and some people are better suited to tell us so," or is he just telling the truth?”
Hume most definitely is an elitist. Despite his claim that subjectivity is always right, he still asserts that there are some objective truths which only a select few individuals are aware of. This is a classic form of elitism.
But he is also just telling the truth as he sees it in accordance with his philosophy. Hume, I believe, was not trying to raise those select few above the rest of society; he was only stating that most people’s perception is distorted to explain the cause of subjectivity. This claim inherently holds that there are some people whose perception is not as distorted and so are better suited to give opinions of art. So yes, Hume was just telling the truth—however, how truthful it actually was depends on the accuracy of his philosophy.
QUESTION: If people’s accuracy of perception (in accordance with Hume) was presented in a graph, would it fall into a normal bell curve?
Hume most definitely is an elitist. Despite his claim that subjectivity is always right, he still asserts that there are some objective truths which only a select few individuals are aware of. This is a classic form of elitism.
But he is also just telling the truth as he sees it in accordance with his philosophy. Hume, I believe, was not trying to raise those select few above the rest of society; he was only stating that most people’s perception is distorted to explain the cause of subjectivity. This claim inherently holds that there are some people whose perception is not as distorted and so are better suited to give opinions of art. So yes, Hume was just telling the truth—however, how truthful it actually was depends on the accuracy of his philosophy.
QUESTION: If people’s accuracy of perception (in accordance with Hume) was presented in a graph, would it fall into a normal bell curve?
Friday, April 3, 2009
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?
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?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
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?
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?
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?
Friday, March 13, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)