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?