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?