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?