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?