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 People seem to try to fit the art that evolves into their time under a new theory of art which becomes outdated during the next evolution in art.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?

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?  

Hume and Art

Although Hume’s theory has many flaws, it may be able to tell us some things about art. He is likely right that one should at least try to avoid certain distractions when judging art. It is very clear a drunk’s opinion on art is not to be taken as seriously as a critic. It is also true that bias may come into someone’s judgment of art. People like stories, paintings, music, etc. that they can relate to. That one person relates strongly to a work does not mean it is better than a work someone else relates strongly to, but those people are going to prefer the work they relate to.

One problem even in understanding that there may be judges who preferences are truer to what constitutes good art is that the viewer has no incentive to care. If there are judges that know good art, but I see good art in things that they do not like then what incentive do I have to try to change my view? Listening and trying to understand the perspective of these judges would possibly change my view, but it would likely reduce the enjoyment I get out of the art that I like. I might get as much or more enjoyment out of the art I am taught to like, but I also may not. Also, if I am not a true judge and will never be able to rise above my distractions, what if I am able to see why I should not appreciate the art that I like as much, but am not able to see why I should like the art that the judges like? Then I would just lose my appreciation for art. I suppose if people experience a large variety of art through education or acting upon their own interest, then their exposure to more art will give them more to appreciate. I can see why experts would be useful then. They could inform people of the aspects of art that may add to appreciation for those people who cannot or do not want to spend the time discovering the possible experiences in art. The critic becomes a short cut for them.  Then the critic is worthwhile not because they have better judgments of art, but because their judgments are based on more research then the average person they have more to compare and base their judgments on. Hume would suggest that judges are preferable because they have fewer distractions when they are good judges. I doubt this is the case, but I do think art critics’ opinions are to be taken more seriously then they average person.

  What incentive do people have to change their appreciation of works of art even if standards are found that allow one to differentiate good and bad art?