Response to Josh

Does art need to express to the artist at all?

            Cognitive art or art intended to make people think would not be expressing the artist’s emotions. Artists could also create a work intending to communicate an emotion to an audience instead of trying to understand more about their own emotions. People can understand what anger means and aim to communicate it without figuring out the unique aspects of their own emotions. Art could also be intended for the artist to develop their skills or to make them think without it being based around emotion, although I think most art has an emotional component. An artist could also fully understand their emotion having previously expressed it and intend a work of art as a way to revisit it. They could use art to reflect on their past. I suppose art could also be made as an attempt to understand someone else emotionally rather than the artist trying to understand their own emotions. Art could also be used to reflect on the subconscious an emotional response might then be secondary. Someone could also make art for the sake of beauty or to challenge the current standards. Many reasons exist for creating art that do not have to contain an expressive component.

            For any artists out there, what do you think you are trying to do when you create art? Express, communicate, challenge, etc?  

Response to Natalie

It is true that instinct comes prior to emotion, but without emotion would we use our instincts?

            I think that instincts come prior to emotion and can exist without emotion. An instinct is a response to stimuli that people are born with. They do not have the chance to use emotion or thought before acting on them. I suppose an instinctual behavior would be one that is acted upon without any learning or a reflex. An instinct could potentially be learned if it becomes a pattern of behavior acted upon without thought. I think we could have an emotional response after an instinct or in reaction to an instinct. Fleeing from a certain stimuli would probably occur before someone realized they were feeling fear. I guess we could have an instinctual emotional reaction, but not all instincts would involve emotion. Instinct is inherent, unlearned and probably the same throughout the majority of the species. Emotions are subjective and emotional dispositions are often included in the way we describe our personalities. I think emotions and instinct are closely linked. We react to stimuli without thought in instinct and we often seem to have emotional responses before we think through a situation. If we have an emotional response before thinking about something then this would fit under the category of instinct. Emotions also come from thinking about a situation though and instinct does not.

            How closely related are instinct and emotion?

Response to Brycen

Therefore, a question that I pose is can art be an expression of ideas without being able to communicate to the audience?

            I think art can express ideas without communicating them to others. This occurs when someone uses art as a method of getting their own emotions out as a way to understand them. The expression helps the person who creates the art but is not intended for the viewer to understand and the viewer may not be able to understand. This is I think what Collingwood means by art as expression, art allows the artist to recognize, come to terms with and clarify their own emotions. This is not to say that art cannot be intended to communicate to the audience, but if it is the goal is probably not expression of emotions. When someone makes art with the intention of having an audience receive it a certain way, they lose the freedom to fully explore their own emotional situation. When someone uses art to express emotions they are not entirely clear on what the emotions are beforehand so they cannot make art as expression and communication. I suppose this would not be the case if someone fully understood the emotional place they were in and still felt the need to articulate it. Someone might do this if they thought it would help them move past the emotions they understand, but are still weighing them down. Then they would be expressing them with a full understanding and could have a secondary goal of showing them to an audience. People could also create a work of art originally simply because they wanted to communicate a certain emotion to the audience and it could evolve into an expression of their own emotions. They could also express emotions in such a way that it is easily communicated to an audience, but I do think it would be hard to at the same time intend to communicate to an audience and to really plumb the depths of one’s own complicated emotional reactions. I think someone could hope that their expression of emotions would be relatable to other people, even if it was not a strict communication of a certain emotion. If people made are to express emotions and impart the general idea of what they were feeling to an audience, these two goals could be compatible.

            Do you feel when viewing art that you are receiving emotional communications from the artist?    

Horror and Philosophy

               I found a discussion on a forum that analyzes The Philosophy of Horror by Noel Carroll, which I read for my book review, and reaches a lot of the same conclusions that I do.  He also writes that it is not clear why people would not watch fantasy instead of horror and that it does not include human’s that act like monsters. He adds a criticism that if monsters are expected to appeal to our curiosity, then Carroll’s argument does not explain why we would watch films about the same monsters. It would seem that overtime vampires would stop inspiring curiosity and would start to seem normal. He does not mention that idea of breaking category distinctions that is so important to Carroll’s theory, but I think this is what is intended to be appealing to curiosity so it is somewhat implied. Overall I think the post at the top of the page on this forum is a good, quick look at horror and philosophy. He also finds that getting scared is an important part of horror even though Carroll finds fear to be a secondary part of horror and not why most people would read or watch it. I would agree that at least some of the appeal of horror has to do with the fear and other emotions like disgust that it inspires. Otherwise people would be content with non-horror fantasy and it is clear by the persistence of the horror genre that they are not.  

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/why-do-we-enjoy-horror-films-28527.html

Why do you think people enjoy horror?   

Art and Theory

I read something today looking at how art and theory go together that said that they do not seem to have a lot of bearing on each other. Many artists do not look at theory in an academic way and many theorists do not realize the process of making art is so different from the theory. This is a piece of the article.

The Art Newspaper: The topic of the Frieze panel is “Have Art and Theory Drifted Apart?” What are your thoughts?

Robert Storr: I’m not sure that art and theory were ever that close to begin with. There are some artists who read theory seriously but not all that many. And some of the theoretical writing that was done about artists was very important, but what people now call theory is a vast field and a relatively small amount of it bears directly on art, or at least on art production.

We’re in a very strange situation where some artists have derived a lot from their theoretical reading but never as systematically as people are inclined to think. Felix Gonzalez-Torres, who I know read theory carefully, nonetheless made a point of saying that it was not to be read in a kind of rigorous, academic way, but to help unblock thoughts and open up questions.

A lot of artists don’t want to tip their hands and show how selective and shallow their understanding is; a lot of people who do theory full time don’t really want to acknowledge that the process of making art is fundamentally different from the process of writing theory. And, therefore, even though you may share a vocabulary, you don’t share at all the same kind of generative process or goals.

How much impact do you think theory has on art?

Response to Andrea

However, is success even applicable to art, if it is so subjective?

I think the ways you suggested success enters into art are absolutely true. If the artist is happy with it and the individuals involved and in the audience are happy with it is has been successful. This does leave the question of how many people need to be happy with it for it to be a success. If the director is the only one who likes it is it a success? If one member of the audience likes it is it success? I do wonder where financial aspects come into play. With a student production monetary aspects are not terribly important, but in many productions a goal is for the members of the cast to receive a paycheck. If people are to survive as artists there has to be financial gain and this is a kind of success. If a play is not particularly liked by the cast and crew but it makes money is it a success? Also if a student production is not well liked, is it still a success if the students learned something in the process? I think success is applicable to art but first it has to be determined what the goal of the art is. If the goal is making a profit and it does it is successful. If the goal is education then if people learn it is successful. If the goal is happiness and people like it then it is successful. A play does not have to make people happy to be a success though. If the audience does not like it but it causes them to question their outlook on something, that is a different sort of success. The artist could also create a work to release pent up emotions and if it does so it has succeeded even if nobody including the artist likes the final product.  

                What goals are typical of an artist when they produce a work and how can they determine if they are successful?

Response to Brycen

Now a question that I pose is could something that is ones skill also be something that they are talented at?

I think something one is skilled at is often something that one is talented at because I think people often enjoy things they are talented at so they work at them and gain skills. That is not to say that someone cannot learn something they are not talented at, people often do, or dislike something they are talented at. I do think that when people try something and are good at it they come to like it and want to continue. This talent may give them self esteem which allows them to continue the subject even when they struggle with it. They remember that they can do it and so they do not give up. When someone struggles with every aspect of something they learn it is much easier to simply stop and say they cannot do it. I think many skilled people began as simply talented and may have surpassed their natural skill as they gained skill or combined their talent with skill.

Do you think having talent inclines people to gain skills?

Response to Andrea

Can someone be better at an art form than someone else? Or is the skill just different?

                I do think that some people are better at an art form than others especially when it comes to skill. Skill involves practice and experience with an art form. Working 100 hours will increase skill more than 10 hours. I do not think this is elitist at all because anyone can achieve a high level of skill. To say that skill is just different is like saying that a kindergartner’s essay is as good as someone with a college degree in English because we cannot be completely objective. To take skill away as an important aspect of art production is equivalent to saying that hard work does not matter. No matter how little time you spend trying to learn something you are just as worthy of being an artist as your neighbor who never spent time trying to learn. Skill is a matter of levels which are not just different but important. This is not to say that simple or primitive artwork is not art because the work is not as complicated. It probably takes some skill to recognize the beauty in simple things and some art may turn out quite well without a high skill level. Talent certainly contributes to how well an art form turns out. I also think it is a mistake to associate skill purely with academic learning. Practice by working with an art form in your own way in your own time can also contribute to skill level. Someone working with a form the first time is not going to produce as well as when they work with a form the second, third or any future time. The more skill a person has the more they will be able to present their ideas as they imagine them. People with more skill will be able to express themselves to a greater degree.

                How important is skill in art?  

Competative Art

                Art is usually thought of as creative and imaginative, not competitive, but certain art shows involve competitions to see who will be allowed into the exhibit. One article, linked below, is about Nikaten which is a Japanese art show where judges choose which art is worth putting in an exhibit based on number of votes. The decisions are made in less than 30 seconds. I think art is often thought of as a slow and contemplative process involving a lot of thought and introspection, but certainly this is not true of all art. Also, even if the process of making art was an involved process, many people who visit museums or view art do not spend much time on each piece. Does it follow that art needs time to be properly judged, or is it possible to see a work of art and judge it based on one quick view? This is what many museum guests seem to do, but that does not make it the right way to view art. Also, if this is a legitimate way to view art, does it follow that judges should make decisions about art quickly? It would fit with the way many people view art, but it would also seem that they might miss minute but important details and they would not take the time to allow the art to provoke much thought or emotion, if that is the art’s intention.  

 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fa20090904a3.html

How do you feel about art as a form of competition?

Response to Natalie

                To be honest, I have no idea what a higher form of art even means. I suppose it could mean a few things. It could be another way of saying good art which is ambiguous by itself. It could be a way of saying art that is based on more than instinct. A higher art being roughly like saying a higher being to mean more evolved. Higher is used metaphorically and we often use it when we mean something is more than something else, like a higher price. In order to know if one work of art is more of something than another we would need to know what we are referring to. If the quality we are referring to is more unique then we might be able to make a case that performance art is a higher art, as Natalie suggests. In order for something to be higher it has to be in regards to something else. We could also say that non-performance art is higher if our standard is something like permanence. I agree that we could not say that a cellist is higher or lower than a composer because there are different standards at play. We could say that one cellist has a higher skill level than another cellist because we are comparing two things and using higher as a metaphor meaning more skilled.

In direct response to the question on art existing on a common plane, I do not know if everything in art could be said to exist on the same plane because I am not completely sure what plane is being referred to. Of course all art occurs on this plane of existence if we mean this world, but many forms of art require very different types of skills so we would not compare them directly. It seems odd to compare a cellist to an actor because the required abilities are different. If we delineate planes as groups of differing skills then different art is not on the same plane. Although, I think vastly different types of art would be more like parallel lines. They would be on the same plane, but they would not intersect. We would not talk about them together in conversation because they do not overlap each other, at least commonly. We can probably come up with a few qualities all art has, so the parallel line concept is by no means a perfect analogy, but it shows how something could be on the same plane without being directly related. We also use plane to refer to a state of consciousness or existence, mostly within religion, so I suppose if art all comes from the same aspects of consciousness it could be considered on the same plane. I think that different art requiring different skills would utilize different aspects of thought and so would not be considered on the same mental plane.

                When we refer to something as higher art, what are we really trying to say?

Character Identification

                I read something recently describing character identification in fiction and I’m going to try to figure out some things about the concept. People often say that they identified with a certain character when reading a novel, but it is difficult to describe what they really mean. To say that one identifies with a character it seems like they mean they become one with that character at least on an emotional level. It sounds like they take on the identity of the character. One of the definitions of identification on Princeton.edu is the attribution to yourself the characteristics of another person. If this is the case, character identification does not seem valid to describe what happens when we read. People often feel emotions that the character does not when they read. For example, the audience may know that the protagonist is in danger before they do so we feel fear while the character feels content. A character might also lose a family member and we feel sympathetic, but we do not grieve with them. People cannot be in the same emotional state as characters for much of the time that we spend reading and even if we feel something similar, our feelings are tempered by knowing the source is not an actual person. No matter how terrifying a description of a monster is, we are not going to respond the same way as a character because we never believe one is attacking us. Wikipedia has a brief section on character identification that says it is when “readers or spectators see themselves in the fictional character.” I’m not sure that we can really see ourselves in another character, we can relate to their emotional reactions and responses, but we never think we are part of that character. What I think we do is relate strongly to the character. We think if I were in that situation I would probably do the same thing or this situation the character is facing reminds me of something in my own life. I do not think that in everything we read we have to be able to relate in this way. We can enjoy reading about someone acting in a way we would not, like a text from the perspective of a vampire hunter, or be surprised by someone’s emotional reaction. We always see the characters as someone reacting to the context of the story, but we maintain our perspective as outside the action. There is never a point where we become so caught up in a novel that we think we become the character.

                Does this make sense? What do you think it means to identify with a character?  

Response to Andrea

                I think we insist on saying that art is either good or bad because it has to mean something and if it does than each one cannot portray that meaning equally. People often think of art as a way to express emotions and some expressions of emotions are stronger than others. Some people think of art as a way of communicating emotions and some must do this better than others. If art is just lines and shapes and colors than one example is not better than another but then art is pointless. I think art has to have emotional content and if it does not than it is bad art. If every work of art was created equal then no artist could be really respected in their field because they could never be better than average. Everyone would be the average. There would be nothing to strive for. In order to know whether a work of art is good or bad if first needs to be determined what the goal of that piece of art is. The degree to which it reaches that goal would determine how good or bad it is. If a piece of art is made to portray a social message and manages to do so it is likely a good piece of art even if it is not aesthetically appealing while a work that is meant to be aesthetically pleasing is a good work of art if it is for many of the people that view it. I do not know if all art should be held to the same standard or if art has more than one purpose. Maybe it cannot be defined because as such a broad category the different categories are not only different in their methods but in their intended purposes. Art is a difficult concept to define and until it is defined it cannot be known what is good and what is bad, but if nothing is good or bad then art can never be judged. If it can never be judged no work can be superior to another. In a practical sense this would be bad because art chosen to be in a museum would be completely arbitrary. There would be no reason to choose one piece and not another, so museums could have no standards and would be unjustifiably denying anyone they did not include in their exhibit.

                Does this make sense and what other reasons are there for determining whether art is good or bad?    

Response to Christine

Other art forms that could be considered living and breathing are spoken poetry, comedians, anything with live people. I also wonder if film could be considered as such. It involves performances by people that viewers often say they could watch over and over again and still see something new. Artists are not actively participating in the sense that their performances are not live, but they are unique if people see different things or react differently on subsequent viewings. The role of the audience is as important as the artist when it comes to viewing art and if they find differences then those differences are real to them. The movie itself does not change but the experience changes. The reason this is especially true of film is because it is so complex and includes layers of art including lighting, acting, costuming, set design, musical scores and more. Other art forms could be the same if they have multiple or detailed aspects that people discover upon multiple viewings. People will always be more complicated then objects, but this does not mean that people will necessarily see everything worth seeing in an object on the first viewing. Recordings of people also have depths of expression, inflection and other aspects of their performance that is distinctly human even though the recording itself never changes.  

                Does performance art always have more depth than art using physical objects?

Response to Brycen

I do not think that performing art is better than other art simply because it has the ability to change. There is some pleasure in consistency and when an artist makes an object they can spend as much time and effort on its creation as they want. They can fix any flaws before it ever reaches an audience. In the case of music, they can add aspects in the studio that they may not even be capable of during a live performance. Performance art because of its unique qualities can never fix the mistakes made during a performance for the people who were in the audience that day. Once the mistake is made it is a part of the piece for that person. It is possible that these mistakes will add variety and interesting qualities to a piece, but it is just as possible that they will make it worse. People are unique so the same performance will never be seen twice but that only makes performance art better if it is seen multiple times verse seeing non-performance art multiple times. Most of the time people do not want to see the same performance piece repeatedly anyway. There is also a comforting familiarity to having the same work of art in one’s home or listening to the same c.d. one knows by heart. Performing arts may be the only type of art that can be completely unique, but uniqueness is not the only positive aspect a work of art can have. I do think Piper has a point that performance art is more unique and that art is often fetishized, but I do not think this makes performance art better, only different. I also think that people can enjoy art for the lyrics, colors or other qualities that do not serve to fetishize it and people can enjoy performance art because of its “mysterious” qualities where they do fetishize it. I think Piper would agree with this statement but it is still worth saying.

                Is some art only enjoyed because of fetishized qualities?

Feeling and Emotion

                It was briefly mentioned in either this class or another philosophy class that feelings and emotions are not the same thing even though we use them the same way. I was reading something recently that said that emotions are emotions involve a physiological reaction, a feeling and a cognitive state. The idea was that a physiological reaction to something like a car crash could be simulated in a laboratory. The same parts of the brain could be stimulated, but we would not say they were afraid. To be afraid they would need to have that reaction, know that they are in the dangerous situation of the car accident. Emotions differ based on knowledge of the circumstances. Feelings are described as accompanying emotions. We need feelings in order to have emotions. For example if a computer could recognize it was going to be in a car accident and flashed a light it would be physically reacting to a situation requiring some level of knowledge. It would not have the ability to experience fear though because it lacks feelings. The combination of the three would create emotions. If we go back to a theory of art requiring emotion would this mean people need to have cognition, feeling and physiological reaction in order for a work to be art? If someone looked at a work of art and said it looks kind of sad and they recognized it as art would it not be art because they did not have the physiological response to make it an emotion? Or would it be art because actually conveying an emotion is required and not just a feeling. If it truly conveyed that emotion then a physiological reaction such as increased heart rate would be present. Since emotions seem to require a certain level of cognition maybe art would give people a different emotion then other objects simply because they differentiate it on a cognitive level.

                Do you think the distinction between feeling and emotion makes sense and what would it mean to art?     

Response to Davion

If everyone had the same experience, biology, culture, etc. of course they would like the same art, but this could just as easily be every person feeling angry looking at the same work of art or sad looking at the work of art. Hume specifies a specific sentiment people would share, but I think even if people were all the same they would not be experiencing a distinct type of sentiment. They would all just experience the same emotions based on their now universal understanding of themselves and the world around them. I do not think Hume’s idea, even under ideal conditions, would necessarily be applicable to the real world. If everyone acted and thought the same we would not know if they were experiencing art without distracters or if they simply shared all the same distracters. I am inclined to think the latter is the case. If distracters are all the things that allow people to function as a human being, then removing them all is impossible and cannot be applied to the real world. If all people’s qualities somehow become the same, then they simply are distracted by all the same things. This would be possible if we were all pod people or existed in some other strange reality, but does not prove the point Hume was attempting to make.  

I know this is backtracking a little in the curriculum, but do you agree with my assessment?

Response to Andrea

                I do think that artists should have a very large say in what is art, but this is an empty statement until we can define what an artist is. It seems to me that art is defined by artists who are defined by their making art a lot of the time. It is really circular and does not explain anything about what art is. The problem I have with Dickie, and I’m sure many people do, is that anyone everyone is a member of the art world that wants to be and anyone who is a member can decide what art is. This would probably never happen, but say there was an object that every artist (whoever they are) decided was not art but someone who went to an art gallery one before saw it and decided it art. As long as that person felt they were in the artworld they could give it that status and it would be art. Dickie gives a definition that is too vague. What if someone saw a stick decided it was pretty, put it on their mantle piece and said I just made art. They are an artist then so their work is a piece of art because they said so. I think in giving everyone too much power, people who think they are artists get too much power.

                It would make sense to try and define what an artist is. In Dickie’s view they would be people who use artifacts to confer status. A couple of options come to mind. Artists could be individuals that create of find artifacts in order to convey emotions. This would require the additional element of emotion to art though and it could be possible to have emotion in art. They could be people who create artifacts using some degree of creativity. This seems to eliminate simply finding something like a stick and putting on display, but if it was displayed at an angle or something it could be called creative. Then that definition is meaningless unless there is a firm definition of what creativity means. Artists could be people who create or find artifacts in order to please viewers, but this seems to imply that art has to be done with an audience in mind. If artist is such a vague term that anyone who wants to be is an artist, then artist becomes a meaningless description and it does not matter how much power they have compared to others.

                What makes somebody qualify as an artist? Can anyone be one that wants to be?

Danto

Danto finds that art history and theory are important determinates on whether an object is art. An object can even be art solely because of theory and history as the two images of bifurcated rectangles showed. They were exactly the same and yet with different reference points one could be considered art and not the other. He also uses the example of a bed with paint streaks that is considered art. One problem I think this theory has is in determining which theories are valid. If all art theories are valid then something that Tolstoy considered art, like a painting that conveys sadness, is not art to Bell who finds it is not a peculiar emotion if it is sadness, so a work can be art and not art at the same time. In order for art to be determined by theory there must be agreement on what theory to use and even among experts that would have to be very contentious. Besides if art is determined by theories and theories are determined by the art that exists then nothing seems to be solved by looking towards theories as the determiners of art. Most of the theories we have read seem to be trying to find commonalities among all art that will allow something objective to emerge, so they are using art to make their theories. Art cannot be determined by theory if theory is determined by art because the argument becomes circular. An interesting problem with many of these art theories is that they are based on the art of their time. People seem to try to fit the art that evolves into their time under a new theory of art which becomes outdated during the next evolution in art. It would be intriguing to see someone anticipate directions in which art might go within their theory rather than limiting it to what is already known. This would be very difficult to do but might result in a theory that better stands the test of time.

How does or should Danto deal with conflicting, legitimate art theories?   

Response to Brycen

            I do not think we can conclude that art is defined by when it is being done. Although people tend to understand when art is being done, this is based on recognizing our own conceptualizations of art. In order to recognize when something is being done we have to know we are referring to. If we asked someone who did not already have a concept of art to recognize it by when it was being done then they would simply be confused and never figure it out. Even in the way you phrased the question a concept is required, “If something is art when it is doing something, than haven’t we defined art right there?” The it is required in order for something to be done and we do not have a clear understanding of what that it is. Without a definition of art separate from it is art when we recognize it as art then anyone could judge what is art and anyone could make anything art. The rock on display becomes art and I do not think art is really so open. If anything is art when used as such then art has no distinguishing features and loses its value. If anything is art at any time that anyone says so, then viewing art becomes as simple as going outside and saying I like this discarded soda bottle I will display it in my home as art. Also, as we said in class we would consider a painting to be a painting even if it were used as a blanket. Someone who saw another person using a painting as a blanket is likely to say “what a silly use for a painting.” This means that people do recognize art even when it is not being used as such. If a painting used as a blanket is still a painting, then defining art based on use does not make sense. Too many counterexamples would be readily accessible.

                Do you think art needs to have restrictions placed on it or do all restrictions serve at some point as arbitrary limitations on people’s creativity? Is requiring creativity itself a limitation on art?

Response to Alex's Theory

Alex’s post was very helpful in increasing my understanding of the theory he has been putting forth which I think has some quite positive qualities. It seems to leave art relatively open as there is no overarching definition and instead art is defined as the whole made up of variant parts. Each part consists of a spectrum of further parts in an effort to break down categories of art into their varying members. So art is somewhat defined as all instances of visual art, writing and music. I believe the largest circle, which is unlabeled is art, but a subcategory is called art. Since he says this category plus music can be combined in such instances as animation I believe he means visual art and is not categorizing art as a part of art. If this is true then writing is probably a sub-genre of visual art. Also could, for example, perfume creation be considered art? If it can then that would have to be a separate sub category of art because it is neither visual nor auditory like music. Spoken poetry would also be a separate category if music is the title of the subgenre because it is auditory, but not music.

 The breakdown of music into a color spectrum is interesting and could mean one of two things in my mind. Either each shade of blue, to use his example, is an equally good shade of music and simply differentiates the two or each shade of blue delineates a quality distinction of art. I am inclined to think that he is going in the second direction because he marks two example genres. One is classical and one is electronica. They are marked on almost exactly opposite ends of the spectrum. Since classical is the more respected of the two genres of music I am guessing that the darker end of the spectrum is the music that would be judged better. Also the way the diagram is designed it looks like animation is outside the circle of art which I think, since it a combination of two parts deemed art, is not intentional. I think that animation can exist without music but not without visual art so maybe animation should be a circle drawn almost like a Venn diagram but with no part singularly in music only with the overlap. (I apologize if that is unclear. I do not know how to draw diagrams on the computer.)     

If I am confused on any aspects of the theory please feel free to correct me.

Can art be defined as the sum of its parts? If so how do we recognize when something should be considered a part?

Goodman and Tolstoy

If art is made up of symbols that people interpret to find meaning in the work of art then art starts to sound like a language. Symbols that are understood by the culture are put into the work of art and then people hear or see them to determine what the artist is telling them. If this art is used to communicate emotion then Goodman’s theory begins to sound like Tolstoy’s theory. In Goodman’s theory symbols create the meaning in art, but does art need to communicate emotion in Goodman’s view. In some ways it seems that for art, at the very least to be accepted by viewers, needs to communicate some sort of emotion even if it is just a pleasant feeling. Otherwise what incentive would people have to use or look at art? Going to see a painting, for example, does not serve a practical usage unless one wants to understand what other people have been making a fuss over but then someone had to start making a fuss over it. Art must serve some purpose for people then and it seems like that is emotional connection.

                Do you think Tolstoy and Goodman have compatible theories about art?  

Goodman and symbols in art

Every work of art utilizes symbols if it represents anything and all art represents something even if it is just shapes. It may exemplify the shapes that are presented or the pattern that they are presented in. Even a work we might not classify as representational symbolizes an emotion or feeling. If all art is made up of symbols which serve to convey the emotions that are so important in art, is there a way to judge how well symbols are portrayed? It seems like in Goodman’s theory the art is a product of its symbols so it follows that when judging art one should judge the symbols. Maybe if people could recognize common symbols an aspect of judging art should be the creative use of unusual symbols or the creative use of traditional symbols in unexpected ways.

Unexpected use of common symbols could be particularly striking in art if contrasting symbols caused contrasting emotional responses in the same person. A combination of emotions could also make one feel peculiar emotionally if they had not experienced the combination or they were unsure what to feel. Maybe there is a logical explanation for Bell’s peculiar emotion that does not necessitate the mysterious significant form. What he sees as significant form could be his mind interpreting symbols that he does not even consciously realize are there.

Each symbol can be artistic or not depending on its usage. The same artistic line in a drawing can be in a thermometer but it is not artistic then. This seems to mean that nothing included in art is exclusive to art which makes it very difficult to recognize when something is art. This is, of course, the very question Goodman sets out to answer.

To understand a work of art one would have to figure out all the symbols, then interpret their meaning in the culture at that time, and then interpret what the combination of meanings represents. Would it ever be possible to complete this task successfully?

Response to Christine on liking art we relate to

                I do think that people like art more when they can relate to it and I think Hume would find fault in that as self-absorption but I am not so sure that it is a bad thing. Artists can often express difficult concepts that we might have trouble not only articulating to others but difficulty discerning in ourselves. I have found various novels that I have read and thought I do that and I never realized it. Once art, in my case mostly novels, allowed me to recognize characteristics in myself I was able to take a deeper look at myself and see if there was a quality I wanted to work on in my own character. One of art’s purposes is engendering emotions in people. In order for people to respond emotionally to a work of art they have to relate that art to their experience. They make associations, probably through symbols as Goodman suggests, and these lead them to connect the art to an emotion which they then associate with the work. If they receive the emotion then they can relate to the artists presentation. If people truly did not relate to a work of art why would they like it? If they cannot make any connections and through these connections draw emotion out of it then it is just an image or a string of notes. When we create meaning we have to be relating the art to something even if we are simply relating black to depressing we are interpreting the art into something we understand. If that did not happen it is likely we would say it’s boring and move on. I suppose a painting, for example, that was liked because its organization was pleasing would be art we are not relating to emotionally, but in a way it is. People like patterns so we associate a pleasant feeling with them or we dislike chaos so it strikes us emotionally to see it in art in a way we can come to appreciate. Either way we are making associations between the art and our own views of the world. It would be impossible not to.

                Can art exist that people do not or cannot find a way to relate to?  

Hume and Art

Although Hume’s theory has many flaws, it may be able to tell us some things about art. He is likely right that one should at least try to avoid certain distractions when judging art. It is very clear a drunk’s opinion on art is not to be taken as seriously as a critic. It is also true that bias may come into someone’s judgment of art. People like stories, paintings, music, etc. that they can relate to. That one person relates strongly to a work does not mean it is better than a work someone else relates strongly to, but those people are going to prefer the work they relate to.

One problem even in understanding that there may be judges who preferences are truer to what constitutes good art is that the viewer has no incentive to care. If there are judges that know good art, but I see good art in things that they do not like then what incentive do I have to try to change my view? Listening and trying to understand the perspective of these judges would possibly change my view, but it would likely reduce the enjoyment I get out of the art that I like. I might get as much or more enjoyment out of the art I am taught to like, but I also may not. Also, if I am not a true judge and will never be able to rise above my distractions, what if I am able to see why I should not appreciate the art that I like as much, but am not able to see why I should like the art that the judges like? Then I would just lose my appreciation for art. I suppose if people experience a large variety of art through education or acting upon their own interest, then their exposure to more art will give them more to appreciate. I can see why experts would be useful then. They could inform people of the aspects of art that may add to appreciation for those people who cannot or do not want to spend the time discovering the possible experiences in art. The critic becomes a short cut for them.  Then the critic is worthwhile not because they have better judgments of art, but because their judgments are based on more research then the average person they have more to compare and base their judgments on. Hume would suggest that judges are preferable because they have fewer distractions when they are good judges. I doubt this is the case, but I do think art critics’ opinions are to be taken more seriously then they average person.

  What incentive do people have to change their appreciation of works of art even if standards are found that allow one to differentiate good and bad art?

Response to Sean

The different influences that people have growing up would constitute distractions and so people growing up with different influences would all be distracted just by the fact of those influences. This is why Hume’s theory does not seem to have any practical application. Nobody could be without distraction. Although since Hume is able to recognize all the distractions, it is possible he thinks that he is without distractions and therefore he is the only one or practically the only one. This is why Hume’s theory seems to be a way to justify his own opinions about art as the correct ones. If you do not agree with him then there must be some distractions that you do not recognize. The majority of people could have a distraction that makes them all wrong about something being good art, so popular opinion does not seem to be enough to justify a work as good. Also, if popular opinion is enough then pop music and comic books are some of the best art and I do not think that Hume would necessarily find that to be the case. Also, it would be impossible to be free of distractions because people do have experiences, belong to different cultures, etc. and although they could recognize aspects of the influence these impart they could not recognize them all. If people could recognize everything that shaped them and remove them as distracters then they could not be functioning human beings. Then if we add genetic differences between people and remove those, we lose people altogether. People are shaped by experience, culture and genetics remove those distracters and people can no longer exist. Hume’s idea does not work because it removes everyone, except possibly himself, from judging art.

Do you believe that there is a distinct feeling people receive from viewing art or do we experience the same feelings we have in our everyday lives?

Hume's theory of art

Although I will agree that there are subjective and objective judgments a person can make about art. If a painting is of a cat then all people can likely agree it has a cat, but they will not all agree that the cat makes it feel cheerful or something like that because that is a judgment. Hume does not make this distinction. He thinks everyone will have the same judgments if distractions are removed. He does not explain what constitutes a lack of distraction though. It does not seem to be achievable to lack all experiences that could lead someone and so anyone, even someone who was considered an expert, would have some sort of distraction. If we are looking for no distractions from experience and culture, which would be impossible, then we are judging good art based on genetic inclination. Hume seems to assume that nobody would have genetic differences. Either that or that is another destructor, but one people would never be able to get over unlike age etc. Although is every age entails distractions than age will also always be a problem. Hume’s ideas about art do not seem to be able to have any practical usage.

Do you think Hume’s ideas could have any practical usage as an explanation about art?

Weitz

Weitz defines art as an open concept that cannot be defined, but certain aspects of it seem to almost always be the same in his mind. He writes, “mostly, when we describe something as a work of art, we do so under the conditions of there being present some sort of artifact, made by human skill, ingenuity, and imagination, which embodies in a sensuous, public medium –stone, wood, sounds, words, etc,- certain distinguishable elements and relations”(192). This does not address the emotions, expression of wants, etc. that many of the other artists have included, but it also does not exclude them as aspects of many works of art. It seems that this quote could serve as a definition, but it is likely Weitz had at least a few exceptions in mind because of the use of the word mostly. If this were to be used as a definition, as Weitz would not want it to, it would eliminate animals creating art and any art where there is not an artifact present so oral storytelling would not be an art. This definition would not exclude much art. A definition based on this one that includes a little more would be art involves the creation of something either enduring or brief that involves the use of skill, ingenuity and imagination to create something for more than practical use. This definition is vague and probably includes too much.

                What are the flaws of this definition?

Indirect Response to Jonathan

           Jonathan asked about how the environment one sees art in impacts the experience, but I decided to look at the connection of art and the environment. I think this disscussion connects, at least indirectly to his post.   

  The Hudson River artists present art is a representational manner, but one that often idealizes the setting. It seems possible that viewing this art could instill or renew an interest in natural surroundings in the viewer. Art could expose people to aspects of the natural world that they do not regularly see. For example, someone growing up in an urban area will be exposed to a lot less of nature then someone in a rural area. Growing up without seeing much of nature may limit someone’s appreciation, but art may allow them to get a sense of what they are missing. Art can also be used to draw attention to environmental issues and encourage people to take an interest without coming out and asking for donations or anything like that that might turn people off from various causes. If a goal of art is to increase people’s emotional connection to nature, of course it would not be the goal of all or even most art, then nature photography would serve an important role. Photography is often questioned as an art in class, but a good photographer often provides a view of nature that many of us would not notice walking in the woods by ourselves for example. The different angles and close-ups can make nature more beautiful than a casual observer would see. One exhibit at the Craft Museum in Brockton had a structure outside not far from the parking lot with various pouches from parts of nature. People were encouraged to take something out that they liked and replace it with something new. The act of searching for a new piece to add to the work of art forced people to really look at the natural world and most of that work of art was nature. In that case it was hard to separate the art experience from the nature experience.

                How closely can nature and art become intertwined before something is no longer considered art?     

Responding to Andrea

As far as I know animals do not have a concept of art. To have a concept of art would be to make something for the pleasure it brings oneself and others and not for a practical or survival based need. I have no experience with animals doing so and unless it could be shown to me that they do, they are not intentionally creating art. On the other hand various animals have proven to be quite intelligent and it does not seem like much of a stretch from there that some would be creative. In fact, after doing a little research, I found that elephants have been known to create art in zoo environments. This art may be because of human direction, and not because the animal intends to make anything. It is not really a concept of art then. It is more like following instructions.

 There is a group called the Asian Elephant Art and Conservation Project that sells art created by elephants in order to raise money for the elephant’s preservation. Link to their website: http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/artstate.php   

This article is about chimps that create art that is going to be displayed in an exhibit. It also says that the project to teach the chimps art was a way for them to combat the depression they seemed to have, so these chimps may even be using art as a way to express emotions. That seems to come pretty close to how we describe the seemingly human process and reasoning behind the creation of art.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/sep/26/artsandhumanities.arts

If people used an animal to create art (say by getting an elephant to splash a paint brush across a canvas) would that be art created by the elephant or would the elephant be more like the utensil that the person was using to create art?

Art and universality

                If art is developed through natural development and experience can art be entirely universal? People’s biological and genetic appreciation for art is unlikely to change much overtime, but people’s experiences will vary over diverse landscapes and cultures. If art is created based on the feelings engendered by living in a certain culture it might not be as accessible to someone in a different culture, but if emotions are the same across all people then it should not matter what inspired someone for someone else to understand. Taste could easily differ across cultures though. People like what they are familiar with and if a piece of art is completely foreign to someone in a different location and time they may not like it. This art is not universally appreciated then, but it might be as relevant emotionally. It also may not be as relevant emotionally if people have an instinctual dislike for it as different and do not give it the chance to impact them with the intended emotions.

Also, if art is taught in school it might encourage people to restrict themselves to certain standards of art. They will likely be told the right and wrong ways to produce art and get in the habit of doing so in their own creations of art in school. They would also learn cultural standards for art outside of school, but it might be easier to break societal preconceptions if they do not get in the habit of making art the way a teacher tells them to. This might mean that if art is taught in school the focus should be on quantity so that students do not pigeonhole art, but the more quantity is taught the less time students have to develop skills in any one method.

Is art truly universal?

How should art best be taught in school?

Response to Natalie

I do not think that animals can produce art because as far as I know animals do not have a concept of art and produce objects with specific goals in mind and not for the pleasure of creating them or having others view them. If animals developed a concept of art and used it, then they would be creating art. If they created something purely for the emotional pleasure it brought and it did not have a practical use that would also be art even though it lacks the understanding of the concept. That being said I do not think a soul is a necessary component for the creation of art. I do think that the possession of emotions and the desire to express these emotions in a physical representation is necessary. If the soul is necessary to produce art, then to produce art one needs to have a spark of the divine and it becomes a god given talent instead of a naturally developed one. I am not inclined to say that art is a form of divine experience although it is a strongly emotional one. I think that if people lack souls, they can still conceptualize art and as long as they can do so they can create it. A question that develops then is why people choose to create art. I think that people probably create art as a way to express things they do not know how to express in language. This can be in Tolstoy’s sense where art is its own language of communication of emotions or in Freud’s where it is wants and needs that go unrealized in the person’s conscious mind. Art is an expression of people’s feelings and with so few ways to express emotions in a way that is accepted and appreciated by society, producing art may feel like a compelling need for certain people. If people connect the soul to deeply felt emotions then I can see why people would describe the soul as a necessary component of art. People do seem to connect the soul with emotions. One of the definitions of soul on dictionary.reference.com is “the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments”. They have another definition that seems even more fitting for art, “deeply felt emotion, as conveyed or expressed by a performer or artist.” The problem I have with saying that a soul is necessary for art is the religious component where the soul is an immortal aspect of a person given to them by God.   I also do not know why people would possess souls and animals would not, but that is a religious question and this may not be the best venue for it.

If people stopped creating art what would the consequences be for individuals and society?

Dewey art, aesthetic and intellectual achievement

Dewey separates two aspects that often become combined when describing art. He finds that art refers to the actual object while aesthetic refers to the way the object is experienced. This makes art objective and aesthetic is subjective. This makes a lot of sense because the physical object of art has known characteristics and qualities. This means it has aspects that all people can know while everyone’s taste can differ in their taste in art.

This separation of the artistic and the aesthetic also allows one to see how closely tied everyday experiences are with the artistic/aesthetic. Everyone creates things that are visually pleasing. Dewey uses the example of poking a fire to make it burn brighter. This is not quite art because the purpose of creating it is not the pleasure it brings, but people enjoy the changes in color for the pleasure they bring. Creating the fire is an everyday human activity, but it contains some of the qualities of art.

 This suggests that art is not in a separate realm from human’s natural life as Bell would suggest. In Dewey’s view all of art is grounded in the natural. People can only create art because of their natural development and connection to nature, but they are the only ones that can create art because they are the only ones with the concept of art. Dewey’s ideas seem to be aimed at making art into a more natural and less divine conception, but he is likely guilty of overly romanticizing art himself. He finds that the conceptualization of art is “the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity” (142). He is placing art above any sort of academic knowledge which we often think of first when discussing intellectualism. I usually think of an intellectual as prioritizing reason over the emotions and I do not think this is the case for art. Art seems to prioritize the emotions and the manners in which they can be portrayed. Also, if Dewey is right and art is the greatest of all human achievements then school systems clearly have their priorities wrong. Art tends to be the first program cut in school systems.

Is art the “greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity”? / What makes art intellectual?

Potential problem's with Bell's definition

                Bell feels that significant form is some mysterious combinations of lines shape and colors that produces a peculiar response in people. He cannot even describe the response beyond a “you know it if you feel it” definition. He cannot describe what significant form is and he cannot describe the emotional response it causes. This starts to sound nothing like a definition and moves in the direction that art is indefinable. People respond differently to different works of art so it would be nearly impossible to come up with a consensus on works of art. An answer for this would be to find people particularly sensitive to significant form, assuming there really is such a thing and such people, and then have them decide what art for the rest of us is. Then art becomes very elitist. Only the special people get to choose what art is. Bell considered himself one of these special people and this means he would be one of the few privileged people who got to decide what art is. His view increases his own importance and that makes it suspect as well as its complete lack of clarity. Also, if we determined that two people were sensitive and so they were judging a work of art, we would encounter a problem when they disagreed. Experts disagree regularly and one could easily find what they define as “aesthetic emotion” where another does not. Does this mean that the latter is not as sensitive? If we decided that was so, then art critics might be inclined to say there was aesthetic emotion where they did not feel any so that they do not risk their position as “sensitive.” Then the poor folks that suffer from a lack of sensitivity would be looking at things they have been told are art and are not and experts would be questioning themselves and their opinions constantly trying to figure out where they missed something.

                Do you think Bell’s ideas could have real world application?     

Bell and Art

                Clive Bell argues that art produces an aesthetic emotion that is separate from nature. He cannot describe this emotion or how it is different. He simply says that you know it when you feel it and if you do not then there is something lacking in you. This places the reader at an unfair disadvantage because they cannot disprove him without saying that they do not feel this emotion and that makes them insensitive. We used the example of the butterfly and cathedral in class and said that if you do not feel different emotions for each then you lack this sensitivity. This example is probably not the best one available because even people who lacked this supposed sensitivity would feel differently when looking at a butterfly and cathedral. A butterfly is delicate and simple in its beauty and a cathedral is imposing and intricately detailed. If one is to simply look at a piece of art and a part of nature and see if their emotions are different in order to evaluate Bell’s idea then the other variables need to be limited. Emotions are complicated so it would be impossible to limit all the outside variables but if we compared something like a cathedral and a mountain the ordinary emotions might be closer. Then feeling something separate for the art piece might mean more. Even this does not really work because people might feel differently for anything manmade verse nature. There might be some ingrained pride for something created by the human species rather than the more random beauty of nature. Then the separation in emotional impact would not be contained to art. Also, if you feel a special emotion for something made by people does that make it art? Say there is something about my bookcase that makes me feel the same way that I might about art. Is my bookcase then art? I suppose that it must have significant form for me to feel that way. Then we recognize art through this emotion and therefore this art has significant form. If that is true couldn’t they be correlated rather than cause each other. What if, for example, Freud was correct and we like art because we are able to express and feel our repressed desires? Then art still has lines, colors and shape but the quality that provokes this emotion is different. Bell said that significant form is the only quality that all art shares, but that could just mean he did not see the other quality or qualities that do exist in all art.

                Could aesthetic emotion exist without significant form?      

Response to Gina's question

                I think people should try to express their emotions as often as possible and if they can best express them through art they should do so. I do wonder if it would be healthier to discuss emotions/ unconscious needs with someone and try to figure out where they are coming from with the clarity of dialogue. Art is by necessity more vague because the unconscious desires must remain vague for other people to appreciate them. Dialogue does require speaking with a knowledgeable person who is non-judgmental. This may not be easily possible making art the next best option. I think that allowing unconscious desires to build without expression would lead to negative emotional states, perhaps depression or seemingly irrational anger. Art could serve as a cathartic method of expressing these desires so that they do not constantly impede our daily lives. On the other hand constantly looking for these emotional states in order to produce art might make us unhappy. If one is constantly looking at things that their mind seeks to repress seems like a form of torture. Expressing hidden emotions/desires through art is not separate from repressing emotions for a societal standard because artists repress their emotions whenever they are not creating art. People are probably better off with a sometime outlet that they can then return to society having expressed their emotions. People in society also get the chance to see the art and let themselves feel their own emotions that they would usually try to repress.

                Assuming Freud was right could art exist that does not express any unconscious needs or would all art need to express unconscious need?  

Response to Samantha's Question on whether art is subjective or objective

I think art would have to be subjective because it is produced through a person's mind and not applicable to everyone whereas something objective is without human bias and therefore cannot include emotion. Since most people would determine that art must include emotion, then art must be subjective. I think that art itself has to be subjective but that does not mean that a definition cannot be objective. For example, Wikipedia defines emotion as associated with mood, temperament, personality, and disposition. Although beginning a definition with association seems to make it unnecessarily vague, the point stands that the definition itself is applicable to everyone and without emotion. There is a problem in ever having something be considered completely objective because people can only know what people have determined. This means that all knowledge is a creation of people and so can never completely exclude human bias. If everything is subjective, though, the question becomes irrelevant. It is easier to think of objectivity as something people strive to achieve and is always slightly out of reach. If art appeals to the same emotion in all people then it is maybe closer to be an objective example of that emotion. I do not believe that emotion can be understood as anything other than as belonging to an individual and that the goal of objectivity is to be without emotion or with equal representation of all emotions as newspaper articles aim to achieve. Art is not objective then because it is aiming to appeal to emotion and I return to the determination I started with.

We can never know exactly what emotion someone else feels, even when they call it the same thing because we are judging other people’s emotional states based on what we have felt in similar circumstances. I can never experience your feeling of happiness; I can only assume it is what I feel in certain situations. This does not mean that Tolstoy was wrong if we assume that approximations are enough. The artist was trying to communicate what they define as sad and I felt what I define as sad is probably close enough. If this is true than an artist may have more leeway because what I define as sad may be what you define as depressing. Then the communication is accurate but the language is not. If we have miscommunication of feeling in art it seems just as logical that we have miscommunication in language and we may not be aware that the other does not share our understanding.

Is art a more or less difficult to understand form of communication to traditional language? Does it depend on what is being communicated?

Art as communication using Freud's view

Is art simply a response to an unfulfilled need in society or does it have its own benefit? What I mean by this is it seems in Freud’s work that if people were able to talk to somebody about their desires that they would no longer need to make or view art. If I have repressed desires and I talk to say my psychologist about them then they are expressed. I would no longer need art as a way to do so. This seems to suggest that art is created because of people’s flaws. If people were open, expressive and happy than they would not create art. It does seem that people often feel a connection to works of art that makes them really like them even though they cannot express why. This inexpressible connection does fit Freud’s theory of art quite well. It also fits in a way with Tolstoy’s theory. Art is communicating the same repressed thoughts to different audiences when they enjoy it. The writer of a work of fiction is communicating our daydreams which we need but are unwilling to express, “the true enjoyment of literature proceeds from the release of tension in our minds. Perhaps much that brings about this result consists in the writer’s putting us into a position in which we can enjoy our own day-dreams without reproach or shame” (Freud 116). The repression then is the same among people and we utilize the language of art to communicate it.   

                Does this mean that artists are particularly unhappy people? Are there unfulfilled desires so strong that they have to express them in a way that non artists do not? If people are really good artists does that mean that they have repressed desires that are desperately trying to get out more than other peoples or does it mean that their repressed desires are so common that tons of people can relate to them?

Is Art the only way to express repressed desire?

If art is a way for people to express their hidden desires after they reach a certain age, it would follow that everyone would need to practice some form of art or they would need an alternate way to do so. Everyone choosing to live in a civilized society would have to repress some of their thoughts and actions. We certainly do not say everything we think to a boss or teacher. It would also follow that these thoughts we do not say stay with us until we are able to get them out. This would make art a vital system of release for people. We might think then that everyone would utilize some form of art, but I do not think that I personally do. (Some people have argued against me when I make this statement because I am in broadcasting, but I make news and documentary style work that involves little creativity and mostly interviewed people make up the content of the presentation. While this involves my choosing parts of interviews and content, it does not seem to have the necessary level of individuality for needed for Freud’s understanding of art). If people do not release their built up emotions and issues through art and Freud is correct about their need, then they must be releasing it somewhere else. It is possible that they could do so through misplaced emotional response. For example, someone might be angry at their boss and yelled at their child. This example seems to suggest that art is necessary for psychological health, though, and I do not think I want to make that assumption.

The same assumption is made if one finds that those who do not create art must utilize it as a cathartic way to release their own pent up emotions and desires. This would also assume that people have the same pent up emotions and desires and although they are closely linked there is probably some variety. Perhaps sports could be an alternative to art as a way to release emotions and desires. Certainly in the example of someone mad at their boss they could release their anger in the physicality of sports. The more difficult aspect of this is the hidden desire. It is possible that sports allow ones ego to be enhanced because they are being viewed by the crowd looking to see what they do next. There is also a connection to the lust Freud feels most people hide. Sports enhance a person’s physical fitness and this is sexually appealing to most people. This means that sports are enhancing one’s physical ability to draw in sexual partners. In some sports there is the more obvious example of cheerleaders acting as sexually appealing figures specifically showing interest in the members of the sports team. They in turn are considered sexually appealing by the sports team achieving their need to be the figures of lust.

What are other ways than art and sport for releasing repressed desires?    

Using Freud's Theory Art is Positive or Negative?

                Parents often consider their children to be the highest level of responsibility and devote a huge portion of their life to them and their care. These children grow up knowing that their parents love them, maybe more than anything else in their life. It would make sense that many of these children would grow up with an overinflated sense of importance that they would have to temper in every day society. It might seem like these children grow up and enter society where they learn that they are not the most important thing to most people, but what if they resent this? It would, of course, be inappropriate to ever say that one resents not being the most important individual, but this only makes it more likely to fit in with Freud’s ideas about repression. These grown up children want to be the most important again, so they create characters to represent themselves that are all important. These are the heroes of stories. They are people creating a world where they are the most important individual. The people who read them would then imagine themselves as the character presented. They would then relive the world that circles around them that they lost in childhood. Writers and readers are then individuals obsessed with rebuilding their self-importance, even if they can never voice that want. This presents a negative view of literature, where it is a way of encouraging an already high self-regard. On the other hand, the literature could be a way of releasing building resentments about not getting enough attention in society. Then, if the tension were not released, it could come out in angry words or other negative modes of expression. If this were the case, then reading and writing may be positive methods of release.

                If this theory is true, does that mean that reading and writing fantasies is not something that should be encouraged in society as it only encourages egoism or is it cathartic?

Response to Sara's post on art and connectivity as influenced by Tolstoy

It only matters in Tolstoy's view if the emotion intended by the artists is actually realized by the observer or listener. That would mean that Justin Beiber and Katy Perry are only artists if people really feel the emotions that they are trying to portray. I know that many people enjoy their music, but I don't know if they would say they are infected with the emotions. I know that listening to I Kissed a Girl never made me feel promiscuous. This would mean that artistry is potentially open to anyone as anyone can try to be an artist, as I think we would consider positive in this country, but not everyone can achieve true art. It also means that monetary and popular successes are not the same as creating good art. The whole world could like someone’s art and never completely feel the artists emotion.  

 I do question whether it is important for people to have an understanding of art to enjoy it but I do not have much knowledge of art and there is art that I appreciate. I also do not think that Tolstoy is concerned only with purity and truth in art. He is famous for works like War and Peace that address a lot of the horrors of war and he certainly would not restrict art to the positive emotions. Even in the example in his text he discusses a boy’s ability to tell the story of an encounter with a wolf, either real or imagined, in such a way that it inspires the fear he experienced in the audience. Since this example allows for the encounter with the wolf to be an aspect of the imagination it is not truth and it is not really pure. Unless you mean that the emotion is unchanged from the feelings the boy experienced. In that way the emotion itself would always be pure and truthful even if the medium it is presented through is not.

Assuming that people try to connect to each other every day both the popular description of art and Tolstoy’s definition allow for this. Through popular music, books and other forms of art people are able to find things in common that they all know and discuss. Through Tolstoy’s description of art people are able to communicate emotions to each other in a way that simple dialogue does not allow them to adequately do. Even if one does not understand something and cannot describe what it is or means they still may feel something when they look at it or hear it. This is an emotional connection between artist and layman viewer even if these people do not understand the art.

Does understanding become a necessary component in connecting to something?