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?