Ethics in Art

My personal opinion on Gaut’s theory is in disagreement. I disagree with Gaut’s theory because I support the notion that the ethics behind the art work is irrelevant to the aesthetic evaluation of the piece itself. There are several possible scenarios where an incredibly detailed painting could be construed based off of a morally flawed character while a less well executed piece could be created based off of a well known moral character and the evaluation of the works would become problematic under the ethicism theory. For example, if a painting is created based off of an image of Hitler, Gaut would claim that it is ethically flawed because the subject of the painting is not a morally good person. In comparison to a painted created based off of an image of Jesus, the image of Hitler would clearly be identified as ethically flawed. A problem arises when the painting of Hitler is created by a famous artist who is clearly talented by means of the way that the painting of Hitler comes out to be very realistic, almost as though it were a photograph. If the image of Jesus was painted by a seven year old, who is clearly not as talented in art if only by means of lack of experience, it would be difficult to judge the image of the more moral figure (Jesus) as a better aesthetic piece than that of the unmoral figure (Hitler) because of the clear difference in aesthetic detail. Judgments on how an art work is evaluated should be divorced from ethics in order to reveal the true value of aesthetics. To what degree would Gaut argue the importance of ethicism in aesthetic value?

Contradictions

Gaut’s idea behind the importance of ethics in evaluating aesthetics is subjective. Gaut seemingly seems to contradict himself multiple times in his essay where he argues ethical importance. Although Gaut believes that the morality of a work of art is an important component in how it is evaluated, he remains open to the idea that great works of art exist which are ethically flawed. Gaut’s ethicism theory on aesthetics maintains the idea that “if a work manifests morally bad attitudes it is to that extent aesthetically flawed,” (page 590). Here he seems to be interchanging the ideas that those art works which are ethically flawed are also aesthetically flawed even though he previously clarifies that his ethicism theory does not imply that “manifesting ethically good attitudes is a sufficient condition for a work to be aesthetically good,” (page 589). Gaut’s multiple statements are in contrast with one another here by saying that it is not necessary for a work to be ethically good in order to be aesthetically good but great works of art exist which are aesthetically flawed but that if a work displays a morally bad attitude it is then aesthetically flawed. How would Gaut justify this apparent contradiction? Is there another way of interpreting these statements which would give Gaut’s ethicism theory more or less validity?

In Response to Katie's Question

Yes, I think that knowledge of a subject helps to increase the appreciation of the subject because I do not think that someone can honestly appreciate something without having a solid knowledge about what it is that he or she is trying to appreciate. When a person goes into an art gallery, he or she has a general expectation about what he or she is bound to view. Upon entrance to the gallery, the more that the individual knows about the art pieces at hand, the more likely he or she is to appreciate it for what it is worth. By having a wide range of knowledge on a particular subject matter, it can aid in appreciation in several ways. For example, if a work of art in the form of a play is taken into consideration, the play may be a comedy, consisting of many jokes which the viewers will only be able to appreciate for its comedic value if they have a general understanding of the subject matter discussed in the jokes. This is not to say that an individual must have an intense knowledge base in the subject matter because even if a viewer does not know how to interpret a particular art piece such as a painting he or she may still be capable of appreciating the work for other characteristics which it possesses, such as the medium used or the color patterns that are present. Do you think that it is possible to appreciate something without having any understanding of what it is or what it is supposed to be?

In Response to Jacob's Second Question (Week 11)

I do not think that Walton’s pretend theory is pejorative to artists because it is reasonable that when a person views a work of art and experiences an emotion, he or she is only experiencing a quasi-emotion granted that it is only something that evokes the emotion by being relatable rather than actually arousing the emotion by its own merits. If an artist is not capable of generating the intended emotion in the observer it does not make viewers disapprove of art in general because only a select handful of art works are unable to do so. If all art was unable to generate emotions in onlookers, it would be understandable to argue that disapproval should be made contingent on the concept of art functioning to elicit emotions, but art is still able to hold other functions apart from conveying a particular emotion or emotions. When a work of art does not generate the intended emotion it usually does not do so in all viewers, but rather some are able to grasp the emotions while others are not. Do you think there is a work of art which is incapable of being understood by everyone? Do you think that if this work of art which people do not understand was interpreted in a different way by the majority of the population it would still be considered successful art because it was able to convey an emotion strongly, just not the correct emotion?

In Response to Jacob's First Question (Week 11)

When observing fictional entities, many observers do tend to accept the principal of make-believe. Accepting this principle may be a deliberate act if, for example, a viewer goes into the movie theatre to view a movie clearly marked as fictional with that knowledge in mind. The viewer may then still be frightened by what is on the screen but may be repeating to him or her self “this is just make believe” just as one might explain to a child woken in a state of fright from a nightmare “it was just a dream”. Accepting this principle may not be so much of a deliberate act as an unconscious one though. Many people have the general understanding that the people seen on television or movie screens are just actors playing a character and that the character demonstrated on television does not truly exist. Through common knowledge this notion could be expanded upon to generalize the unrealistic nature of the actors playing a character to creatures present on screens not being real as well. The example of a person passing through a room with a movie playing and experiencing fear at the sight of the content would most likely be explained by Walton as still having been unconsciously understood that the content is make-believe because it was present on a screen, a clear indicator that it was separated from reality. Here, the observer who is effected by accident still accepts the principle even though he or she was not intending to watch the movie and therefore still engages in the fictional world. Do you think movies such as “The Ring” where the villain suggests the breaking of the safety of the screen by coming through the television makes any more of an impression than other horror movies even though the viewer is still clearly protected from the content of the movie by means of it still occurring on a screen and only a screen?

In Response to Brandon's Question

I think that there are several paintings or movie scenes that could be argued as considered better than those which exist in the natural world. Artists may be inspired by the natural world, but chose to alter it in a way in which their painting adds something to the natural world which does not exist in reality. Paintings or movie scenes based off of the natural world but altered to add something that does not exist can add an element of mystery or wonder which is enjoyed by the viewer. Many artists take into consideration what is appealing to the majority of the audience when beginning their creations. In the world of dance, dances are often created on the basis of what the audience has best responded to in the past and based off of this knowledge new dances can be created theorizing about what the audience would like to see because of their reactive history. Painters could easily do the same with their paintings by seeing which of their past pieces created received the most enjoyment and taking that into consideration when creating a new painting (one which may even be considered to be an improvement of their previous works). Here, imitation is not a bad thing because it could help with improvement. Should painters keep their viewers perspective in mind when creating a new painting, or does this hinder the possibilities that could arise if the painter paints without thinking of the viewer’s reactions to the work?

Art and Location

In his essay, Carlson makes the statement in reference to art pieces (in particular, paintings) stating that “its colors are aesthetically important, but where it hangs is not,” (page 538). This statement implies that no matter where an art piece is presented, it will always be considered art. I disagree with this idea because I believe that for some, but not all, works of art the location of its presentation is necessary for its consideration as art. When a painting is presented in a well known art museum which has good standing, it is less likely that a viewer would look at the work and think “I do not know whether or not I would consider this to be art”. Works hung in art museums are less likely to be debated about as falling under the category of “art” because it has seemingly already been decided as so granted that it is hung in a location that centers itself around art. The most prevalent example of this occurring is with many works of modern art. Take a modern art work which consists of just a splash of color as if flicked off from an artist’s paintbrush. Here the artist intended to flick his brush off and let the color splash onto a canvas and then the work was framed and put into a highly recognized art museum. The same artist could do the same thing but to a different location, and have it debatable as to whether or not it should be considered as art. For example, the artist could flick the paintbrush so that some paint landed in a trash can instead of on a nicely presented canvas. Here the artist’s intent was the same, but from an on lookers perspective, the paint flicked onto the canvas which was hung in the art museum would be more likely to be accepted as art than the paint flicked into the trashcan even though intent was the same. Although the argument still exists as to the paint flicked into the trash can as being art, it could be assumed that the paint in the trash can is more debatable as art than the same work being hung in a well known art museum. What is your opinion on this subject matter? Is location important to some art pieces?

In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 10)

Carlson’s theory on how to appreciate art in comparison to how to appreciate nature is distinctly different. Carlson discusses the variety of means to appreciate art which include behaviors exhibited such as contemplation, scanning, studying, observing, surveying, inspecting, and examining. He theorizes that humans instinctually know which aspects of works of art are significant and how to appreciate them because they are manmade creations. On the contrary, nature cannot be appreciated in the same way because it is not manmade, a central qualification to Carlson’s theory on art appreciation. From Carlson’s perspective, nature is appreciated by means of distinguishing specific features of the environment which deserve attention and appreciation. Often the focus of nature revolves around the colors or designs that nature provides for us. In his essay, Carlson also places emphasis on the ability to divide the existing environment into scenes so the scenes can be looked at from a particular perspective, instead of taking in all that the environment has to offer at once. Just as Carlson argues that we instinctually know how to appreciate manmade art, Carlson argues a similar perspective about how to appreciate nature by stating that we know a lot about nature via common sense and scientific knowledge. Through this common sense and scientific knowledge we can gauge what aspects of nature there are to appreciate and how to appreciate them. Although Carlson’s theories on art appreciation versus nature appreciation are similar, the two are distinctly different. Carlson places great emphasis on the idea that as humans we cannot appreciate everything because without limiting our appreciation we would only experience “a meld of physical sensations”. Do you agree with this idea? Why or why not?

In Response to Brandon's Question

Brandon’s question “What do you think about the significance of lyrics and songs?” is subjective granted that each listener has a different opinion on the significance of lyrics. Personally, I believe that song lyrics can be very helpful in interpretation to individuals who are not as educated in music and what it represents, means, or is intended to be used for. Lyrics are capable of adding a direct meaning to a song. The intended meaning of the song or emotion that the artist was attempting to evoke in the listener is often stated in lyrics themselves so listeners do not have to search for the meaning or make wrong assumptions about what the song could mean and what emotions it could be trying to convey granted that it is stated directly in the lyrics instead of being open to interpretation. Often times it is difficult to know what emotion an artist is trying to convey via instrumentals unless personal interviews with the artist are conducted, but with songs with lyrics the clarity of the emotion or meaning allows for less incorrect assumptions. It could understandably be argued by those who are well educated in the philosophy of music that lyrics do not provide anything additional to a musical work granted that most theories of music focus solely around instrumental works. Do you think it is possible for lyrics to take away from a work of music (i.e. hinder the listener’s ability to hear, comprehend, and interpret the instrumental component of the work)?

In Response to Stephen's Question

Stephen’s question “Do musical-emotional associations vary across cultures?” is difficult to address. As discussed in class, there are six distinct universal emotions. These emotions are happiness, sadness, surprise, fear, disgust, and anger. Each of these universal emotions are expressed in the same way physically by each individual experiencing it. For example, happiness is usually expressed by means of a smile and sadness is usually expressed by means of a frown. Seeing these expressions on people’s faces is universally understood regardless of culture and language which tend to be barriers for some understandings. Taking on Stephen’s question about musical-emotional associations from Kivy’s perspective, I believe that the answer would be no, musical-emotional associations do not vary across cultures because every culture physically manifests the emotions in the same way. Kivy’s main argument in the essay we read most recently in class addressed the ability for music to portray specific emotions by possessing qualities which are similar to those that humans possess when they are experience the particular emotion. From this perspective, the emotional music comparison is based solely off of observable characteristics such as body language. Body language of individuals expressing a particular emotion tends to be the same for all cultures because the emotions themselves are universal. What are some arguments for the opposing perspective where musical-emotional associations do vary across cultures? Also, how would emotions which are not considered to be universal be expressed differently from culture to culture?

In Response to Jacob's Second Question (Week 9)

In my opinion, I do not believe that it is true that because music lacks any visual or verbal component it cannot represent something. Music is capable of having both a visual and verbal component, although it is not always evident in certain at first glance to many musical works (i.e. arguably, classical music). Music is capable of having a visual component by means of the written music. Written music provides a ways in which a musician is able to glance at the notes written on the page and play the music properly according to the notes he or she has read. Here the musician does not need to have any prior knowledge to the musical work. He or she may have not even heard the piece before but is still perfectly capable of executing the exact notes as intended by interpreting the written work of a musical piece. All music can be transformed into notes on paper so it does not seem plausible that music cannot be visually representative. I also disagree with the notion that music lacks a verbal component. In today’s society a lot of the popularly know music has lyrics which often clearly indicated a specific intended emotion or content from which the listener is able to hear, comprehend, and make inferences off of. Even for music which does not contain a direct verbal component such as lyrics, it is unreasonable to deny the possibility that it does have a verbal component. Interviews conducted with the composer of the music should be considered to satisfy that component because the composer could clearly state the content or emotion that he or she was intended to convey in the creation of the musical piece. How do you think Hanslick would argue his theory that music speaks only through sound from the perspective of written music, music with lyrics, and interviews with composers where content and/or emotion is made clearly evident?

In Response to Jacob's First Question (Week 9)

The Contour Theory as expressed by Kivy is extremely reasonable. From my perspective, it is very sensible and his comparisons which back up the validity of his theory are strong enough to be easily construed to an individual having little prior knowledge to the topic. Kivy argues that a musical piece possess and portrays specific emotions by means of being comparable to the observable characteristics of individuals who are in the state of the specific emotion. For example, Kivy compares the qualities of a sad piece of music to an individual who self-reports him/her self as being sad. The sad musical piece has a slow dragging tempo, while a sad person may walk or speak slowly. Sad music is usually quiet, while individuals who are sad tend to speak quietly. On the contrary, cheery music tends to be fast and loud just as cheery individuals tend to be fast, active, and loud. While the theory is not flawless as Kivy himself chooses to indulge in, his criticisms are subjective and could easily be argued as unimportant to the overall theory. His notion of there being “no better explanation” is not a solid argument as to why skeptics should put faith into his theory, but rather the many examples of when his theory does hold true give the theory a grounded basis for arguments from both those who support and those who criticize his theory. How would Kivy justify music’s ability to possess more complex emotions which are not always clearly observable, or at least vary in their overt characteristics (i.e. jealousy)?

The Function of Art

After reading several philosophers’ theories on the definition of art, one thing I have taken notice of is there lack of mentioning an important element which makes art definable as art. This important element which philosophers have seemingly failed to mention in any of their numerous theories is the primary function of the object or form. From my perspective, the primary function of art is to please the viewer. Pleasure, in this case, does not particularly mean enjoyment but rather to bring about emotions or thoughts in such a way that it is admirable. Many great art works have been produced that would be described as gruesome or disturbing, which one would not always consider to be pleasurable, but it is still considered art because it arouses this intense emotion of disgust or is admirable for its detail and ability to convey a certain content. In earlier class periods we discussed how objects made in the image of daily things not considered to be art are considered art. For example, a spoon is not usually considered a work of art, but when a life size sculpture of a spoon is molded and painted in a very realistic way, it is unarguably considered to be art. The primary function of the original spoon is not for aestetically pleasing purposes, but for eating purposes, while the primary function of the sculpted spoon is depicting details and is clearly designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Why do you think philosophers have failed to mention this seemingly important element in their attempts to define art? Do you think that it was purposely left of the definition because it was assumed to be understood or is there another reason which philosophers would intentionally leave it out of their attempted definitions?

Appreciation

Although it was not the main focus of the essay, George Dickie posed an interesting question in his essay What is art? An Institutional Analysis that I thought deserved some attention. Dickie asks on page 433 of the text “is there anything which it is impossible to appreciate?” This philosophical question can be interpreted in many ways, but the way in which I believe Dickie meant to ask the question would be “is there any physical object or other art form which is impossible to appreciate.” I think this interpretation of the question makes most sense because it is best in keeping with the rest of the article. I am sure that Dickie would agree that a punch to the face by your best friend could easily be argued as unappreciated, but from the point of view of interpreting the question in terms of physical objects and art forms I believe that the answer is no, there is nothing that is impossible to appreciate. Although, not every art object or work is appreciated by everyone, the likelihood of finding an artwork which is impossible to appreciate altogether (i.e. no one, including the artist, appreciates the work) seems incredibly unlikely. What are other’s opinions on this question posed by Dickie in the essay? Are there examples of objects or art forms that go unappreciated altogether or do you disagree with my opinion and believe that it is very fathomable that the lack of appreciation of art forms and objects in its entirety is common?

In Response to Brandon's Question

Brandon poses an interesting question as to who or what should be to blame when an artwork is not conveyed in the intentional manner to the viewer. From one perspective it is easily argued that the person who is most at fault for the lack of understanding of the piece would be the creator of the piece him/her self, the artist. If the artist creates an artwork with a specific intention of an emotion to be conveyed or a specific content to be seen he/she must fashion the piece in such a manner that it portrays this intended idea to the viewer. If the viewer does not understand what the artist is trying to convey by looking at the piece, it is then a failure of the artist. On the other hand, it could easily be argued that if a viewer does not understand the artwork it is not the fault of the artist, but rather the viewer is at most blame. Here the assumption is that the artist put his/her all into the work in attempt to convey a specific emotion or content and that other viewers are able to make this recognition when looking at the piece. If one particular viewer looks at the piece but does not understand what the artist was attempting to convey through the piece, it is his/her own fault because the viewer is not educated enough in the world of art to understand the meaning behind the piece and all that the artist was trying to convey. In order to truly understand why an artwork is not successful in conveying what it was intending to, both perspectives need to be taken into consideration. Usually when an artwork is not understood it is a combination of the artist not being able to properly convey his/her intent and the viewer not having a strong background on the subject at hand. Could there be a case where a particular artwork is not understood by anyone? Or would it be argued that so long as the artist him/her self understood the piece, it is still capable of conveying the intended emotion or content?  

In Response to Katie's Question

Katie’s question “What if the painting of an object was created before the actual object then the painting would the painting be the imitation of the significant form and the object is an imitation of the imitation?” puts an interesting spin on the earlier topic of discussion in class, imitations of imitations. In the case Katie presented, I believe that even Plato would argue that the painting of an object would be the imitation of the original significant form and that the object (if based off of the painting) would be considered the imitation of the imitation. Multiple perspectives seem to argue on this topic expressing the idea that the further away from the original significant form one gets, the less valuable the imitation becomes, but I do not tend to agree with this idea. If a beautiful vase is sculpted, and a painter comes along and paints that very vase many people would still appreciate and place great value on the painting just as much or if not more than on the original vase. Many could argue that the painting might capture specific details that the vase itself did not solely express (i.e. the painting could show shadows or the way that light reflects off of the vase) which would be a unique property to just the painting and not particularly a property of the vase itself because although the shadows are caused by the vase, the vase moved to a different location would produce different shadows unlike the painting which will always reflect the same shadows from that one specific location. Do certain characteristics captured by paintings not present in the original object make it more valuable to the viewer?

In Response to Jacob's Question #2 (Week 7)

The concept of an artworld having to exist in order for there to be art seems contradictory because without art there would be no artworld. This having been said, it seems impossible for an artworld to exist without art, but from Danto’s perspective an artworld must be in place in order to have an appreciation and classification of something that we consider to be art. Danto’s claim of an artworld having to exist in order for there to be art and art creating the artworld reminds me of the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question. Artists are needed to create art. The artworld according to Danto is a combination of artistic theory and art history. Personally, I do not see how Danto could justify the case that there must be an artistic theory before there is art unless he was saying so from a contemporary perspective. This would mean that art did exist prior to any artistic theory and that artistic theory developed from the first art pieces ever created. With theories developed from the very first artworks and the knowledge of the history of those artworks, an artworld was created which has served as a basis from there on out. In modern days, we adjust our ideas on artistic theories and art history based on all of the art which has come before the present day. This seems to be the most logical explanation as to why Danto makes the claim about the existence of an artworld to be a necessity in the creation of art. How do you think Danto would justify this apparent contradiction if he were asked this question directly?

In Response to Jacob's Question #1 (Week 7)

Art conferring theories occur because it is human nature to seek out answers to vague topics. This same nature is a theory behind most science and religions. As humans, we want to explain the unexplainable. The concept of art is unexplainable due to the wide variability in art forms, mediums, etc. Since there are no rules in creating art or general conditions an artwork must adhere to, artistic theory has become inevitable. Although our human nature of seeking truth in unknown topics has been beneficial, it has also become problematic in certain circumstances. Curiosity has lead to several scientific discoveries without which the world today would be radically different. People have sought to give meaning to the abnormal and unexplainable through religion providing individuals with a sounder mind granted that they have seemingly discovered a way to explain things. Religious theory is not very different from artistic theory in this sense. Although many individuals have found a religion (or lack of religion) which works for them in their particular lifestyles, there is a great amount of disagreement between different religious groups on their theories. This is similar to art because in seeking to give art meaning, several philosophers have developed their own personal theories which usually do not coincide with other philosophers (either previously or contemporaries). Because there is no set or correct idea as to what art is, it seems that almost anyone can develop an artistic theory and give artistic meaning to whatever art object they please so long as they are able to justify it with their theory. What kind of societal problems could potentially arise from not having a unified artistic theory?

In Response to Brandon's Question

The medium of art that has had the strongest emotional impact on me would be music. I think that music is able to convey stories and emotions much more easily than other art mediums such as paintings or sculptures. A wide variety of emotions can be conveyed through music. I think that the majority of people would agree that music is the most emotionally powerful medium of art because music can be easy to understand (although still very complex in its entirety) which helps people identify with it the most. It can easily be argued that people with a greater knowledge of art in its many forms may find that a different medium of art is more emotional for them personally, but for the average individual who has not studied art in depth, music is easy to pick up on and understand from an onlooker’s perspective. Individuals often comment on how they are able to identify with specific lyrics in some songs, but even music which is just an instrumental can still easily convey emotions through the instruments used (violins vs. trumpets) or through the tempo (fast vs. slow). The easy to understand nature of music has inspired many to participate in the creation of art because art via music is so powerful to some that it speaks to them to the point where they wish to express themselves in the same manner which was able to touch them so personally. What is the art medium that people least identify with or enjoy?

Games

The word “game” holds many implications. Usually when a person hears the word “game” they have an automatic understanding of the general ideas that are behind the concept. Because games are so widely known and understood, rarely is a person put into the position where he or she is asked to define the concept. The dictionary defines a game as “a form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rule and decided by skill, strength, or luck.” As we discussed in class there are many different components to the concept of a game such as it must have at least one player, there needs to be rules, there is a general goal of having fun, etc. The definition found in the dictionary fails to mention a lot of these components that are common threads to most games, but instead mentions other components which could be questionable. The dictionary’s definition focuses on the assumption that a game is something which can be played. The specific word of “play” is not a very reliable component to the concept of games because although games are something to be played, there are other things which can be played which are not considered to be games. For example, musicians play instruments all of the time. When a person goes to a piano recital it is not perceived as a game even though there is playing involved. The dictionary’s definition also focuses on the idea of competition but many games played (such as the class example of house) do not have any form of competitive features to it. What is the most important component to games?

In Response to Brian's Question

It is not possible for a viewer to deny the content of art pieces granted that the brain automatically processes the content. Regardless of whether or not the viewer chooses to acknowledge the content of the art piece, the brain does have such a choice because simply by viewing the piece for a single moment the brain automatically goes through the process of giving it a title (i.e. seeing a picture of a tree and knowing that the picture fits in with other sights that have been labeled as trees) and categorizes it to be stored as information in the brain. Even when the content of the art piece is unclear, the brain will automatically attempt to go through this process. This same statement holds true to a viewer who looks at only part of an art piece. The brain will automatically attempt to fill in the missing pieces. Because of this process that the brain automatically undergoes when presented with a stimulus, it is not possible for a viewer to deny the content of the art piece. A viewer can attempt to divorce him- or herself from the content by means of not acknowledging the content, but the brain is still aware of the content on a subconscious level, making it difficult for the viewer to view the work apart from its content. Does the fact that human brains automatically categorize stimuli hinder our ability to judge art?

In Response to Katie's Question

Art serves a variety of functions. It helps people to communicate with one another, is a form of self-expression, and can help individuals learn more about themselves, others, or the topic at hand. Personally, I believe the primary function of art is self-expression. Although it is evidently clear that art can function as much more than being just a form of self-expression, self-expression tends to be a large component of all art even when other art functions are present. Art as a means of communication is seen mainly through the expressions of emotions. An artist who is feeling a certain emotion such as depression may paint a dark, sad, and lonely piece that when an onlooker views it, he or she is able to understand this emotion. Here the artist has successfully communicated his or her feelings. Not all art is created with intent to be shown though. Many individuals may select to create art such as writing a poem, never intending it to be read by another or published. Reading one’s own writings can aid in learning more about oneself. Art can also function as an educational material where an onlooker could look at a drawing or painting and gain a better understanding of the content of the piece than he or she had before. Although all of these functions of art are extremely common, self-expression via art is the greatest reason behind why we create art. What are some other functions of art?

In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 6)

From what I understand of Dewey’s artistic theory, I believe that he would say that non-human art is a possibility. In the essay, Dewey makes his idea abundantly clear that art is both viewed and created in the everyday processes of living. This is true in both human and animal environments. Animals have often showed a preference to aesthetically pleasing stimuli in certain situations (i.e. the peacock having bright and colorful feathers used to attract a mate) meaning that there is a possibility that this appeal to aesthetically appealing stimuli could extend beyond the spectrum of usefulness. Since the fact that animals take an interest in aesthetics for a variety of reasons is well known, I do not believe that Dewey would rule out the possibility of animal art altogether. At the same time, it seems unreasonable to say that one is certain that animal art exists since there is no definite proof of such thing occurring. Although non-human art is a definite possibility, verifying this hypothesis could never take place because there is no known way to discover whether or not the animal creating the work a person may perceive as art was creating it for its aesthetic appeal versus a more common explanation of the creation, such as to serve a specific purpose. It is unlikely that the discovery of whether a bird places a leaf in a certain part of its nest was conducted for an aesthetic use or as a constructive tool, but the possibility of animals creating art on some level is definite. Do you think that some animals are more likely to have an appeal to aesthetics than others?

Descriptive Paintings

Bell describes a descriptive painting as a “…painting in which forms are used not as objects of emotion, but as means of suggesting emotion or conveying information,” (page 264). An example of a descriptive painting would be a topographical work such as a map of a particular area. Most maps are designed as a tool for individuals curious about the area to use for guidance. According to Bell’s theory of which objects should fall under the category of art, maps would not qualify because they do not arouse an aesthetic emotion. It is possible to a map to do so though. For example, what if a parent drew a map of the town he or she was living in to help educate his or her child about the surrounding area. Here, the only intent of the map is to convey information which is the definition of a descriptive painting. If the parent chooses to get creative with the map drawing in hopes of making the learning process more fun for the child he or she may add in some drawings to represent certain areas. For example, the parent could draw a fish to represent a lake or he or she may drawn a house to represent his or her home. If the child sees this map and the images on the map arouse an aesthetic emotion, it should be considered art in Bell’s point of view. Would this scenario imply that some descriptive paintings can be considered art as well or should intention play a role in its categorization?

In Response to Katie's Question

It is often the case that a person experiences something they consider to be extremely beautiful or awe-inspiring in nature to the point in which he or she wishes to capture the moment’s beauty in nature in some manner. People choose to capture nature’s beauty in different ways depending on the unique characteristics of the individual. A photographer may want to take a photograph, while a painter may choose to paint the image, or a sculptor may choose to create a sculpture. When the desire sets in to capture nature’s beauty in more than just a memory, people tend to take pictures. Cameras, despite all of their technological improvements over the years, can only capture so much in a photograph. Personally, I have had an experience where I attempted to make a duplicate through photography of the night sky one night where the moon happened to be extremely visible and beautiful, but the camera was not able to capture the light, shadows, and colors the way that was so clearly seen in person. Due to this inability to capture nature in an artistic way that is an exact replica of the natural seen, humans have developed a different type of appreciation for nature in comparison to art objects attempting to depict it. Do people place more value on photography of nature because it is a truer representation of the original or does the opposite hold true where individuals place more value on a drawing, painting, or sculpture because it is more difficult to create?

In Response to Jacob's Second Question (Week 5)

Bell’s formalism does seem to suggest that we ought to divorce ourselves from content during appreciation. From Bell’s perspective, the main reason that individuals find an appeal to an art piece is because of its significant form (the placement of lines and colors). Significant form does not relate to the specific content in the artwork, but rather focuses on the parts which make up the whole instead of the whole itself. By divorcing oneself from the content, the viewer may be able to gather a greater insight as to how the work was created by seeing things such as the individual brush strokes created by a painter. It is not possible to completely divorce oneself from all content in an art work. Although one can make a serious effort to disregard the content of the art piece and focus solely on its significant form, after viewing the art piece for the first time the individual is already aware of what the work is intended to be (i.e. a waterfall). Trying to appreciate the work based solely off of its significant form after already knowing what the work is intended to represent would be extremely difficult because it would always be present in the viewer’s mind, even if only on a subconscious level. Formalists are not “correct” to deny content, but their denial of content does not make their theories less valid. Would you consider a person to be already divorced from content if the content of the artwork is unclear (i.e. the image we looked at in class that was simply lines and other unidentified shapes overlapping)?

In Response to Jacob's First Question (Week 5)

I do not think that Bell is an elitist because although he made strong implications that those who are more knowledgeable about aesthetics (the process of creating it, intended meanings and emotions from the artist, history, etc.) are able to make more accurate judgments about the value of the work, he also makes implications that any individual who is interested enough in the subject is able to reach this level of superiority in reference to aesthetic judgment simply through the processes of taking the time to increase his or her knowledge in this specific topic. Elitism can be a great fault in a theory especially in theories having to do with something so subjective such aesthetics because the concept of subjectivity revolves around the idea that the object at hand is going to hold a different meaning and value to every viewer. Two individuals could be highly educated of an art piece in the same manner but still have two distinctly different views on the work despite their expertise. With this concept in mind, I do not think that an aesthetic theory can be both elitist and correct simply due to the variability in opinions that most works of art produce (although this may not hold true to theories on other topics). A theory may become viciously elitist when it begins to dismiss other points of view or theories as less important due to the assumed lack of correct knowledge expressed by another. What are some topics or theories where elitism would be beneficial?

In Response to Katie's Question

If someone had a different emotion than Tolstoy was attempting to convey after reading his work War and Peace according to his theory on the definition of art he would have to claim that it was not art to that individual. This concept is partially the reason I find Tolstoy’s definition to be so flawed. It is often the case that the same work of art (for this example, Tolstoy’s book War and Peace) could successfully communicate the intended emotion to one reader but not to another. Should this mean that the work in its entirety should fail to be called art? This would mean that if the whole world was able to pick up on the emotion the artist was trying to convey successfully, but then one individual was not able to do so, the work would not be considered art. If Tolstoy is looking at this definition from an individualist’s perspective it would make more sense to say that the work is not considered art to that one individual but to the rest of the world it is. I think there are many more variables that contribute to a work being considered art other than the emotion that the artist conveys, even though that is a great factor in the definition. All works that generate any emotion should be considered art because the arousal of emotions is an important component to the artist. Even if the artist is not able to bring about the correct emotion to the individual he or she should be considered successful if he or she is able to evoke any emotion at all. If an artist is attempting to convey two emotions in the same work but only one of the emotions is aroused in the observer is it still considered art by Tolstoy’s definition?

In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 4)

Tolstoy’s theory on the definition of art has several potential contradictions. While Tolstoy believes that the only way for a piece of work to be considered art (or successful art) is to have the artist convey a specific intended emotion, there is a lot of variability in different onlookers perspectives because all art in its multiple forms is extremely subjective. I believe that Tolstoy’s theory of art is too limited. If a work successfully conveys the intended emotion to one observer, but not to another, the piece should still be considered art. From Tolstoy’s perspective, it seems as though the work should only be considered art to the observer who received the intended emotion from looking at the piece. According to Tolstoy’s definition of art, this scenario would violate the theory of non-contradiction because the same object is considered both art and not art which is against Plato’s idea that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. I think that Tolstoy’s theory is flawed in this case. Tolstoy’s theory could hold more truth if it were generalized to saying that if an object conveys the intended emotion to at least one observer it should be considered art. This definition should also include the artist himself. Just because an individual does not understand the piece to the degree to which he or she could receive an emotion from viewing it, does not mean that the emotion is not there or cannot be there when the observer gains a better understanding of the piece itself. How would Tolstoy justify the idea that an observer could see a work and not receive the intended emotion from it but then a year later view the same work but with a greater knowledge of the piece and get the emotion? Was the same work not considered to be art a year before because the observer did not get the emotion then? Here the observer changes, not the work itself.

In Response to Stephen's Question

The subjectivity of art appreciation is a large factor in its enjoyment. Many people take a liking to art in its variety of forms because of its originality from other works. For example, different genres of music are most often appreciated for their unique sounds. Often times, works which show similarities to others are critiqued for their lack of originality. Each individual song performed by a musician or musical group is subjective to the listener. This subjectivity described is directly linked to the enjoyment the listener will achieve from hearing the music play. Classical music is very subjective. While one individual may take a great liking to classics, another might be more appreciative of a more contemporary style of music, and therefore enjoy the sounds created by a contemporary group more than those created by someone playing classical music. I think that it would be difficult to truly appreciate an art form even from an objective stand point (even though we have discussed that it would extremely difficult to achieve true objectivity) because the viewer of the art form contributes so much to its enjoyment. Is there a certain art form which is more likely to be appreciated and therefore enjoyed more by the majority in comparison to other art forms? For example, is it easier for an individual to be more appreciative of any kind of music over something less known about generally such as dance?

In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 3)

All human beings are biased. Each individual has a preference for one thing over another especially in the context of comparisons. It is natural for people to make judgments based off of similar things they can compare an event, situation, or object to. Human bias derives from an individual’s learning history. The knowledge acquired throughout a person’s life influences his or her thoughts on a daily basis regardless of whether or not the individual is consciously aware that he or she is being directly influenced by his or her past. Because a person’s learning history directly influences thought processes on a daily basis, I do not think that it is humanly possible to exist even temporarily in a state of unbias. A state of unbias is impossible to come across because in order to be completely objective a person would have to have absolutely no learning history of anything because everything known influences any judgment to be made by the individual. When making judgments, a person should attempt to be as unbiased as possible. The state of perfect objectivity cannot exist, but being as close to objective as possible is ideal when making judgments, especially towards aesthetics. Is everything equally difficult to attempt to remain objective about? Or are there some things that exist which are easier to remain objective about than others? Do you think that it depends on the individual or are there a few universal things which are easier to remain objective towards than others?

In Response to Katie's Question

“Art” is such a general term that it is difficult to place an exact definition onto it. The dictionary defines art as “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination… producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”. In class, we have discussed how a large factor in the definition of art is its intent. In my opinion, art is extremely subjective to individuals and therefore cannot be limited to include only works which were intended to be considered as art. Art should be anything created or altered by the human hand that one or many finds to be aesthetically pleasing. This definition allows for more than just works which are intended to be considered art to fall under the category of art granted that several people find works which were not intended to be art aesthetically pleasing. Many seem to agree that at a minimum, art is something that individuals may find to be pleasing to the senses. Art takes on several different forms which please the senses in a variety of different ways. Art can be visually pleasing in forms such as drawings, paintings, sculptures, dances, plays etc. Art is also pleasing in an auditory way through things such as music or even taste through a chef’s creations. There is such a wide variety of art forms in the world that it is difficult to capture all that the word “art” implies under one general definition. Other than visual art what is the most prominent art form?

In Response to Jacob's Question

The question of whether or not aesthetics are truly subjective is debatable. In my opinion, all art is subjective. Opinions of art examples vary greatly from person to person, as does the idea of what constitutes art. Many consider art to be something requiring a great talent, while others believe it can be anything that is found to be aesthetically pleasing to the senses. Modern art is often a topic of debate having to do with the idea of the subjectivity of art. While some find modern art to be deep, meaningful, creative, and awe-inspiring, others view modern art pieces and do not consider it to be art because of its seeming simplicity or lack of difficulty required in constructing the piece (apart from the concept behind it). I am sure several of us have encountered at least one individual who have viewed a modern art piece and responded with comments such as “That is not art” or “Even I could do that”. Even artworks not quite as controversial as modern art are still subjective pieces. Two individuals viewing the same piece of artwork may have opinions that lie on exact opposite ends of the spectrum. One individual could look at the piece and describe it as beautiful while another could describe it as the most horrible thing he or she has ever seen. Is there something in this world that everyone considers to be aesthetically pleasing or is there always at least one person who is the exception to the rule?

In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 2)

Plato’s view of art seems overly critical in my opinion. His explanation of art as an imitation of an imitation is understandable by means of seeing how some art may be thrice removed from the original art form, but being so does not mean that it holds less truth or reality to the point of being meaningless. I do agree with Plato on the point that art is unnecessary because the world without art would still exist in an entirely functional manner. On the other hand, I disagree with Plato on his views of art’s importance. Although the world would be fine without art’s presence, many aspects of the world would change dramatically and not necessarily for the better. Art, in its many forms, supplies jobs (as musicians, dancers, writers, painters, etc.). It also does other less noticeable things such as bring joy or evoke another emotion to an onlooker, or keep people entertained in their attempts to create it. It is of utmost importance to our society. Although works of fiction do not depict the truth, in my opinion, Plato is incorrect in saying that art and poetry cannot depict truth at all. There are many works of art that are not fictitious which do demonstrate the truth. Even as an imitation of an imitation, art tends to be a very close representation of the original form which is as close to the truth as one can get. What do you think the world would be like without any art forms? Do you think there is one particular art form that the world could be rid of in its entirety and not have society change drastically?

In Response to Jacob's Second Question

It is difficult to place value on the relevance of particular intellectual virtues over others in aesthetic theory. I believe that all of the intellectual virtues contribute equally to aesthetic theories, in that one is not more meaningful than another. I do however, find it true that some intellectual virtues are evidently more numerous than others, making it seem as though those intellectual virtues which are not as commonly seen or put into practice to be of a greater interest simply due to its infrequency. For example, judgment seems to be a relatively common intellectual virtue in aesthetic concepts so therefore, many may see it as of a lesser importance than a more uncommon virtue such as interpretive charity. Critical thinking is also an often used intellectual virtue, whereas intellectual courage might be more difficult to see in some arguments. All intellectual virtues tend to be present in one way or another in theories. In developing theories themselves virtues such as passion for truth, critical thinking, judgment and intellectual courage are employed and examining the theories requires intellectual honesty, humility, and charity. Overall, I personally see no intellectual virtue holding more importance over another in aesthetic theory, but rather I see that some are more common than others making some see a greater value in those that are less frequent or more difficult to perceive. What are some other intellectual virtues not listed in the toolkit that would be a good addition?

In Response to Jacob's First Question

As we have mentioned numerous times in class, epistemology, ontology, and axiology are clearly interrelated so that one cannot exist independently of the others. Knowing that all three are interrelated in many different ways, if I had to place aesthetics in one, and only one, of the three categories I would categorize it under axiology. Axiology seems to be the most appropriate place for aesthetics because the appreciation of aesthetics is a clear value of human society. While physical art objects are evidently part of the ontological portion of the triad, aesthetics consists of much more than just art objects. Humans can place so much value on art forms that they build museums, attend stage productions, and contribute millions of dollars to the music industry, all of which are considered art forms. There is a lot of value placed on the uniqueness of art and what it brings to the mind when viewing it (whether it is some sort of emotional reaction or allowing for the individual to question its meaning and worth). Without art in its many forms our society would be at a grave loss. Due to the extreme positive impact that aesthetics has on individual’s daily lives, it is well valued to the majority of people who are able to make this recognition and accept it as a truth. Appreciation of art is a value to many people, making it more of an association with axiology in comparison to the other two branches of logic. Other than aesthetic theory, what aspects of aesthetics could be considered more epistemological than axiological?

Art vs. Pure Aesthetics

While reading the internet encyclopedia of philosophy’s section on aesthetics, many concepts discussed in the article caught my interest. The first main concept which took my interest was the argument pertaining to what differentiates art from pure aesthetics. The author of the article clearly labels the difference between the two to rest solely on the presence of intention, but this definitional difference has room for probability. The article does not go into discussing what art’s intention is to be. Art, in its many forms, can be created with the intention of being aesthetically pleasing to others, to be aesthetically pleasing to oneself, or just for the pure enjoyment of creating it. Art is used as a tool in a variety of settings from keeping kids occupied and entertained in an after school program to “art therapy” in psychiatric wards to help patients struggling with mental illnesses to focus their attention on something constructive. These forms of art usually have intent other than to be aesthetically pleasing to a viewer, but are still considered art forms despite their difference in intent. If art is created without intention is it still considered art? I think that if one finds the piece of art to be aesthetically pleasing it should be considered art despite the fact that it was not intended to be so. Keeping the argument for the presence of intention in separating art from pure aesthetics in mind, is there something that could fall into both categories of art and pure aesthetics, or are the two mutually exclusive?