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?