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?