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?