Re: Xhirley (12/6)

When it comes to Adrian Piper, she can be extremely confusing in which some of her theories may not make sense or make some sense to the average reader. She does state that the "spatiotemporal" location does make each object unique because one object cannot also occupy the same area at the same time. This does make complete sense when an individual breaks down the word because this large word, is more like two words fused together into a fancier or proper word. Personally this word has never crossed my mind as even a real one because I strongly believe that this word is fake, authenticated by Adrian Piper, an intelligent philosopher. However not to get off track, if the spatiotemporal location did not exist, there are many characteristics that would make an object unique. For example on a Biological Basis, humans all have unique traits and chromosomes that differ from one another. No exact person is going to have the same genetics as anyone else in the world, even twins that share similar genetics whether identical or fraternal. So physically and genetically we have established that any individual does differ "genetically". But what are some characteristics that would make art unique? Well again, any painting will not be the same physically but the ideas of the certain individual (artist) differ dramatically? When we view the Mona Lisa for example, we tend to just applaud the painting due to that Leonardo DaVinci painted it, but do we also ask ourselves, what was the artist thinking at the time? What was he/she feeling when this masterpiece was created and does the Mona Lisa reflect the ideas, emotions, and well being of the artist. As Piper stated that the art object (masterpiece etc.) is not what is unique, it is the individual who created this object that is unique. In this situation I feel as if Adrian Piper had kind of contradicted herself by stating that the artist is unique but also the spatiotemporal location makes the object unique. Does this situation contradict her theory of what makes art unique or does it add to the theory? But to answer you last question, being "unique" does have its category that may possibly have a negative connotation. Being unique is inevitable because everything in the world is unique from each other, even a forgery which is unique from the other forgeries if analyzed at a microscopic level. In general, there is nothing wrong with unique because if this world did not experience some type of "uniqueness", then everything would be alike, with no personally whatsoever, kind of like the movie "Pleasantville".

Outfoxxed

Throughout the past week I have seen a great documentary in which has provoked the sense of reason withing myself. The name of the documentary is "Outfoxxed", a documentary in which portrays Fox News and how they are basically pro-republican and how their type of news is only what they (Fox Network) want to be displayed. Basically the documentary starts off with Rupert Murdoch, the founder of the news corporation acquiring a Washington D.C based news station, and about a couple decades later Fox news had became the offspring of this "D.C" based news station. When he founded the Fox news corporation, he was fond of President Ronald Reagan which led to an obsession with the Republican political party and this is where the seed of injustice began. From this point on, Fox news displayed only what they wanted to display, in favor of the Republican political party. For example when Senator John Kerry was running for President, all Fox news did was they displayed on how George W. Bush Jr. was such a great man, president, husband etc. and how John Kerry was could only destroy the United States. All of those rumors about Senator Kerry that the news generated were all false. The most controversial rumor and also the most ridiculous was that Sen, Kerry was French because French people are assumed as lazy. In addition, Fox news had also brought in some pretend French politician state that all french people do is think all the time therefore no work is done whatsoever. Honestly these statements/examples are completely ridiculous because who can properly designate which ethnic group is lazy or not and then relate these examples to John Kerry just because he looks like a French citizen (which does not make any sense whatsoever). Another example is that news anchors, reporters, and analysts could only say certain phrases or reveal certain answers delegated by Fox news because they were under contract and if they breached the contract they would be fired and in most situations, sued. Is this even legal even if these employees of Fox News are covering the truth with lies? So this brings me to my question is that are there morals and standards within news that should be followed on a daily basis and if so, why?

Analysis of Adrian Piper

Throughout the past week we have analyzed the philosophy of Adrian Piper in which she critiques how we view art and argues for the special status of performance art. She has an interesting background, being the first African American philosopher and on the other hand an accomplished artist which is miraculous. In addition she has received many awards, taught at multiple prestigious universities such as Harvard, Stanford, and Michigan and has traveled all around the world. However not to get off track, Wartenberg states that Piper makes her case with a familiar view of some modern works of art: that they seek to make the uniqueness of objects available to the general public as viewers. In addition she also argues that instead that the contemporary art world values artworks precisely for their uniqueness and that it is the aura that endows artworks with their distinct ontological character. Precisely she does give two major and key reasons why humans are drawn to art. In every art object there is some type of “uniqueness” in which she defines that the spatiotemporal location of the object divides each object from everything else. However are we truly drawn to art because of the uniqueness of the object or the aura? Truly the aura of an object attracts anyone for numerous moments of time but in general it is more of a combination of aura and “uniqueness”. For example “Starry Night” by Vincent Van Gogh truly is unique but the uniqueness is only a necessary quality that can define the painting and the aura lures viewers, attracting them to analyze the whole object. There is a specific type of “glow” within the aura of art that also distinguishes a piece from another piece of art. The painting “Starry Night” is evidently shadowed by darkness through the bleak tower that seems to dominate the painting but there is also life through the presence of light in the town, the stars in the sky and the lights in the town. Anyone who views this painting should be immediately drawn and moved but the presence of the aura in this painting because this object is just not a painting but a masterpiece. Piper also states that we are regularly blinded to the mystery of objects in daily life because we so often utilize them as tools or instruments for achieving, or for satisfying our needs and desires. Under these conditions, the objects in question are not seen as self-subsident entities to in their own right; rather, they are perceived and conceptualized through the lens of the final ends they are utilized for. Again she is also correct because many viewers within and outside of the art world do lack to properly locate the mystery of art, primarily due to an analysis that is not deep or in depth. Furthermore humans in most situations lack to view the bottom of the iceberg only perceiving the top, thus the mystery of the art object is never located. Therefore it is necessary to look beyond the art physical nature of the art object. Viewers should be questioning the meaning and asking, what truly is the mystery of this object and does it intertwine with the meaning?

Q:When Piper states that every object possesses a “spatiotemporal location” that will differentiate itself from others, is this true or does this statement reflect solely her personal views?

Response to Blog: Alyson Carey

Well let me just start at the beginning. I am so surprised that the concentration camp or holocaust survivor was actually getting his "number" that he received at Auschwitz re-traced via tattoo. Mr.Zmijewski should be arrested immediately because what he did was convince the man to get his number retraced. This is ethically and morally incorrect because you make this poor old man re-experience what he faced during the holocaust. The holocaust definitely was not a time or tranquility or peace but more of horror and what us Americans would call "a living hell". I honestly don't care if Arthur Zmijewski is an author or not because this definitely is not what anyone, by any means would define art as. Zmijewski is taking full advantage of this man and does not even know what the holocaust was like, even so being born in Warsaw,Poland does not make you an expert. As Ken Johnson (the author of the article) questions the ethics of Zmijewski he asks," Ostensibly, renewing the number is a metaphor about memory and history. We mustn’t forget the Holocaust and other catastrophes, or similar events are bound to happen again. Was this hackneyed lesson worth the price of a vulnerable old man’s peace of mind?". As anyone can see this man is not sure if he should have the artist tattoo the "number" onto his arm because the man clearly does not want it done. For example I feel that Arthur Zmijewski is just like a child that begs and begs constantly for his own way in anything, not giving up, thus being extremely persistent. He just had to be morally incorrect and does this man even have a conscience? On a daily basis this old man will never forget those horrific days that brought so much mental, social, and physical pain. I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for him because many other Jewish Europeans could not survive the holocaust and were tortured against their own will. This old man symbolizes survival, courage, bravery, persistence, and perseverance. He should be honored on a daily basis not tormented, re-tortured by engraving his "numbers" back onto his arm, and respected, a quality that Artur Zmijewski lacks and must gain.

Pre Analysis of Dickie

During the last class (11/30/2009) we discussed George Dickie and his deceitful philosophy on art. Basically Dickie believes that if an artwork is a candidate of art, then it pretty much is art. However this statement can be argued in which a candidate of art may not be an artwork in most situations. In addition we must understand what a candidate is before we analyze Dickie's philosophy. Basically a candidate can be a person or object which possesses characteristics that will make the person or object an ideal fit for a certain or specific situation. For example Dickie classifies Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" a piece of art because Duchamp's actions confer artistic status on it. Duchamp made "Fountain" a work of art when he signed,stamped,named, and exhibited it because in doing so, he made it something that others in the art world would treat as art. However this "Fountain" created by Duchamp was not really created by him, he just signed his name on it. In addition how can a fountain become a work of art? It is more furniture like than anything else and did this "fountain" have some type of candidacy? For example one of my friends could go into a bathroom or hardware store such as Home Depot or Lowe's, pick out a toilet seat, autograph it, and name it, but is this still art? The thing about art that confuses me the most is that the field is far too inclusive in which anything can be or become art. So far I tend to disagree with Dickie one hundred percent because how can a pre-art object that may confer artistic status (and I said "may")become a work or art? Dr. Johnson exemplified this situation perfectly the other day when he stated that there were multiple parties that ran presidency of the United States of America thus possessing some type of candidacy. However were these candidates ideal leaders to become president, probably not. More or less any object or person can possess some type of candidacy but is that person or object an ideal candidate? In art I believe that a toilet bowl or fountain(such as Duchamp's) does not possess any type of candidacy to become art because an object that is used to dispose of human waste or to hydrate an individual serves more as a tool instead of an artwork.

Q: If an object possesses some type of candidacy, even though most situations the object does not (since art is an extremely inclusive field), how is an object conferred as an artwork as Dickie states?

Response to Dr. Johnson's blog entry (11/24)

Why is President Barack Obama sending more and more troops to the middle east on a yearly basis? Honestly when he was running for president, didnt he state that the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan were going to be withdrawn slowly? We are basically fighting former president George Bush's war, which is pointless and as you stated in class, a war to conquer the middle east. However will sending all of these troops, about 23,000 soldiers to the middle east still leave us in this current recession, a recession that has kept our country in debt since the early 2000's. As stated in the end of the article the estimated cost of the war (that is if we are still involved) can possible range from 700 million to 1 billion dollars which would lead to a supplemental funding bill next year, wow!!!!!!! But what would happen if we pulled the troops from the middle east. Truly we would save millions of dollars, preserve soldiers, and possibly the economy could re-stimulate. However would this move leave us (United States of America) vulnerable or would we lose key allies? Honestly this war is pointless and as I believe, this war is all about controlling the supply of oil. Personally President Obama should pull the troops,slowly out of the middle east because we are fighting a battle that cannot be won. There is far too much turmoil,pain, grief and suffering for many families that have husbands,wives, and children that may never be seen again. What is the worst that could happen if the troops were pulled out? Probably the oil prices would still stay the same or they could change, but who honestly knows the answer to this question? There is only so much anyone can do when the main political party within a country (in this case the "Taliban") seizes control and demands ridiculous expectations from others. While on the other hand, if the soldiers were left in Iraq continuing to fight, would we assume victory in the next decade, and if we were to be successful, would the price of oil decrease dramatically? Again this is another question that we do not know the answer to but hopefully this dilemma will be resolved in the next five years.

What Distinguishes an Artwork?

Through the previous week, we have started to discuss the philosophical works of Arthur Danto. More or less as Wartenberg stated "Abstract expressionism........minimalism - these and other schools produced works that seemed to violate the boundary between art and non art....And if anything could be art, was art still itself a meaningful concept?" the point that I am trying to make out of this statement is that central to Danto's argument, what distinguishes an artwork such as Warhol's Brillo Box from the real thing? So the question that I am asking is that what distinguishes an artwork? Since anything could be art, ranging from a toilet bowl to an elementary school chair, why is the Brillo Box (that contains soap pads) not an artwork? Danto states that the problem is that if we cant see any perceptible differences between an artwork and the real thing, why isn't the box on the supermarket shelf also artwork? A response to this question is that whoever or what proved that the box is not an artwork? As I stated before anything is art and art does not have to be tangible or physical. There is the art of basketball, the art of sleeping, the art of drawing , and so on. Anything is art until someone/something proves that it is not. So I'm guessing that is it safe to say that the Brillo Box is an artwork because it does contain characteristics that many pieces of art possess during our era, the 21st century. For example that Brillo Box is colorful, creative, contains shapes, and a catchy logo. While Danto would probably disagree with me in this situation he would further state that Warhol's Brillo Box is a work of art but only the picture, not the actual box. In this instance he states his case very precisely and many people would not recognize that the physical "box" is not a work of art. It makes complete sense in most situations but in some situations it does not. Does Danto mean that on a specific painting such as the Mona Lisa is a work of art, but the canvas and frame are not part of the artwork. Or even better with a building, is the actual architecture considered art but not the steel,concrete,and brick which is holding the building together in place? His theory is confusing but makes most sense in certain situations. However Danto states in his second theory that the artworld is comprised of an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art. In response, Wartenberg states that the statement is imprecise but it can be unpacked as followed: to understand a work of art, one has to have knowledge of both the history and theory of art. This is probably some of the best words that have came out of Wartenberg's mouth because he is close to one hundred correct about this statement. The reason why is that how can you appreciate a Van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, or a Renoir without knowing the background of the specific artist or the background (history) of the painting. In most situations you cannot appreciate artwork you don't know anything about. You can say the same about how can anyone appreciate music if you do not have a history of knowing the origins of music, the famous classical composers,and even a brief history of some of the major instruments? You just cannot in these situations that can be so complex and full of vital information. However in some simpler situations such as food and television shows you can appreciate them with no or very minimal knowledge. They are most likely events that an individual could instantly find an appreciation though taste and pleasure. To conclude that without a prior understanding of art history and theory of the artworld, a viewer cannot see an object a work of art.

Q: If an individual does not have knowledge of art, can he/she appreciate art? Why or why not?

Response to Stephanie Carone (11/18/09)

Q:Why does being "elite" have negative connotations? Is believing you are elite snobby and rude? Or is it deserving?

Elite, now that is a word that is heard on a daily basis in regards to the best at whatever he/she does better than another individual in a certain subject or domain. I agree with you that the word "elite" does have a negative connotation however the word also has a positive connotation. Now why would describing someone as "elite" come with a negative connotation? In general when describing someone as "elite" is more of a complement towards that individual in which he/she demonstrates mastery in a certain domain (field). For an example Tom Brady is an elite quarterback in the National Football League and likewise Bill Gates is an elite businessman. More or less describing someone as elite can also just be stating the obvious fact. But I think that your question involved personally describing yourself as elite can carry a negative connotation. Well it most likely can in which anyone could boast that they are elite and if they were, the statement better be 100% true. However in today's society everyone is always competing to be the best at everything, to become number one at whatever their mind is set to. Personally I have experienced this type of situation in which many of my classmates in a specific class shoot not only for an A, but the best numerical grade in the class. Even though I could get an A grade with a 94 numerical grade and one of my competitive classmates receives and A with a 98 numerical grade, that person assumes that he/she is better because the higher grade was obtained, even though we both walked away with an A in the course. But the point I am leading to in this example is that many individuals want to have the word "elite" attached to their description when they are mentioned. I also agree that many assume that one is snobby and rude just because they describe themselves as an elite whatever. Truly people of an elite status lose their ability to become humble, thus having to boast about their successes to self-pleasure. If you ask yourself, why do snobby people become snobby, an answer can be due to wealth (monetary net worth)and successes whether financially, athletically, or academically. While on the other spectrum, "elite" can have a positive connotation but there are few instances that I can think of. One would be to confirm that you are elite but that belief is kept to yourself, in which nobody knows about any successes that would make an individual elite. In this situation you stay extremely humble and grateful about yourself without showing any of the physical or verbal signs that you possess elitism. But again being elite is a trait that an individual earns thus NOT GIVEN. In your instance that you gave in which your non-honors friends concluded that honors students are already elite and that honors students also get to wear special tassels and ribbons sounds like a form of jealously. But the fact remains is that your friends, like everyone else at the college all has the opportunity to become an honors student via earning a 3.4 Cum. GPA, completing a minimal single class a year or completing six honors classes to receive the special tassels and ribbons, and just plain out working extremely hard on a daily basis. Many people lack the dedication that honors students possess and honestly people that I have met at MCLA and my last school are in college because their parents made them attend or they just want to party 24/7. In general the title of being "elite" is deserving and anyone who obtains this title should be proud about themselves.

Response to Dr.Johnson (In regards to Modern Pork Production and H1N1 Virus)

Throughout the history of food production common animals such as cows and chickens have been injected with steroids, while being confined in 1" by 1" cages. The question that comes to mind is that first and foremost, where are the ethics and morals of these producers? Do they have a conscience and if they do, does money only motivate the CEO's and Presidents of these food production companies? The answer is yes. Corporations do not care about the likelihood of these animals and neither do they care about the average American citizen who can only afford these types of steroid infested animals. However the alternative for this problem, is permitting these animals to live a long and satisfied life. But on one hand the cost for purchasing organic meats in extremely expensive in comparison to the average steroid injected animals. Honestly when I was shopping for my parents one day at Stop and Shop, they were advertising organic boneless chicken breasts, and the price was ridiculous at $7.99/lb, which is completely ridiculous. This makes healthy food unaffordable for the average person which implies that society wants Americans to consume unnatural food. Why? I thought that the U.S.A is the best country in the whole world. Well I guess that my hypothesis was wrong and only the upper echelon of society thrives while the rest suffer. Truly who can afford to consume organic food, especially while supporting a family? The upper class and maybe the upper middle class in some situations, but anyone who falls into the lower classes (middle,lower-middle,working,and lower) cannot afford to provide themselves and their family with these organic products. On the other hand what actually is injected into these animals? We know that steroids are being injected but is that all? How do we not know that poison or another unnatural substance is being used? Again we do not know and willingly, we still consume these poor animals. On the other hand in regards to the viruses (H1N1,H3N2), do these animals obtain these infectious diseases through the unsanitary conditions that are prevalent throughout slaughterhouses? In combination with the chemicals (via injection) and these terrible conditions, animals are more likely to become sickly than an animal who is left to live a complete healthy life.

Analysis of "When Is Art" (Not "What is Art")

The question that is presented at the beginning of this week's reading is "When is Art" from the perspective of Nelson Goodman. Now not to confuse anyone with "What is Art" (What defines art etc.) but in general "When is Art" mainly argues that the philosophy of art is not what makes an object a work of art but when it becomes a work of art. In addition an object of art as Wartenberg states is a work of virtue, not of some special property it possesses, but rather how it is employed. However leading to the question when does art actually become art. Does an object become a work of art when the artist makes his/he final touch on the specific piece or is the object a work of art from the beginning such as the example of "White Fog" which is a blank "white" canvas that has been untouched on display at Mass Museum of Contemporary Art? As Goodman states, an object of art must function as a symbol, something that it can do in some context in others. He also gives a perfect example that a "Rembrandt" (painting) may not be a work of art when it replaces a broken window but can be a work of art when displayed in a museum, meaning that an art object has the potential to become "art" instead of being an object of necessity. Honestly his logic of this subject matter is unique in which I have never though when art actually becomes absolutely "art". But Goodman is correct when art should have to symbolize something it can do in some contexts but not in others. This statement is also confusing because is he contradicting himself in the previous example? So when would art symbolize something it can do in some contexts but not in others? Does that mean that the meaning of an art object is not fixed, assuming to be constant? First and foremost my personal definition of art is the collection of human emotions, most specifically the emotions the artist is experiencing at the given moment,and with those emotions project most importantly, the artists' state of mind projected on canvas etc. Now how this statement of mine can be related to Goodman is that an artist can have these emotions function only at certain times and other times it cannot? This does not make any sense whatsoever. therefore it must be nonsense or a contradiction which is more common and respectful than assuming an influential philosophers' logic is "nonsense". However from Wartenberg's perspective in addition to Goodman's ideas, he believes that works of art do not constitute a special class of object, although they do have certain types of properties that single them out, rather they are objects we approach in a specific way. This is a helpful statement because many critics of art (including myself) try to place art into a specific class like fitting a puzzle piece into a complex jigsaw puzzle. I do not know if this is natural for humans to classify to judge it but maybe it could be a lack of experience on my part in regards to art. However not to wander off into a completely different direction, what does Goodman truly mean (In laments terms) when art must function as a symbol, something that it can do in some contexts but not in others?

Response to Xhirley Gonzalez (11/8/2009)

Art is generally an extremely inclusive and subjective field, which can contain numerous perspectives, opinions, and thoughts. As you previously stated that three different people can look at an art object and all have different perspectives or ideas about the specific piece. Well that is just how humans are because we are not designed to agree completely with anyone over a particular subject. What I learned in my English Literature classes is that even though certain individuals interpret stories completely different than the general population of the class, they are not wrong unless the interpretation has completely noting to do with the certain story. More or less in many cultures,particularly Mediterranean (Italian,Greek etc.) arguing during a meal equals a successful and complete event. Mainly for humans not to agree on all topics just because one perspective is assumed to be accurate in relation to other perspectives is great because it gives us the ability to analyze the subject from every degree possible. For example when debating a controversial issue such as the death penalty, my perspective is strictly against it because the methods are inhumane, and the criminal receives the easy way out of the crime, through death. However, the certain individual of whom I am having a conversation with may disagree with me completely and state that the death penalty is just because the penalty fits the crime, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Does that mean the individual is wrong because he/she holds a completely different perspective than myself? Or is it the other way around, I am wrong and he/she is correct? Well to these questions is the same in relation to art, both are correct because there is not a specific rubric or answer sheet that will reveal correct answer. That would be completely ridiculous in which that probably would be the first step that human beings would take in order to become robots with a pre-programmed sense of mind. However in some situations people give an answer that will please the general population in accordance to the most popular answer (which you stated but in relation to an art object and they really do not mean it). To generalize this type of reasoning and thinking,people who agree with other people just to please them (general population) again are taking the most effortless direction thus inhibiting their ability to think on a critical basis. In my honest opinion these types of people are lazy and fictional towards society. How can anyone state that an object is beautiful it is not? However we truly all think about the same thing whenever we view an art object, the only difference is since that initial thought is premature, many will revert off of that idea/though, maturing the idea/though by either leading to a generalization that is either a revertion of the initial thought by defending it with conclusive evidence to support the perspective of the argument. How this happens to conclude the argument is that we are all different in which we will all have different thoughts,opinions, and ideas. It is in our DNA and genes to disagree and also in human nature. If we truly did agree with everyone about everything in society would we still be human or maybe robotic?

Analysis of Hume and Wartenberg's Antimony

When it comes to the judgment of an art object, who has the correct answer or the incorrect answer? Does the normal average person have a better understanding of art, even though this person has not experienced art? Or on the other hand does an accomplished artist who possesses the skill such of Renoir or Monet have a better understanding of what art truly is? The answers through these questions may never have an absolute (true) answer (definition) but through “Art As Object of Taste”, David Hume’s antimony states that two central beliefs claim to be the rubric for assessing the goodness of art. For example Hume believes that most people think that it is possible to make critical judgments about the quality of art objects. An instance that would portray this situation, would to compare Norman Rockwell and Leonardo DaVinci’s art objects, and conclude that DaVinci’s artworks are better due to he is more of a renowned artist than Norman Rockwell is. This argument could go both ways because how do we truly know that DaVinci is more of a superior artist than Norman Rockwell, or vice versa? This is more of personal opinion because again who can admit that DaVinci is truly superior. It is true that the Mona Lisa by DaVinci is one of the most recognized and appreciated paintings of all time but can we truly judge one artist by one masterpiece? On the other hand Norman Rockwell has been extremely popular with the American culture since the early 20th century in which many of his art objects have been posted in numerous art museums, calendars, and strangely in restaurant bathrooms, which I have experienced. Again this argument is double sided because this is an answer of taste in which depends solely on the personality of an individual. Now the second side to Hume’s antimony results from a consideration of what grounds these judgments, asserting that taste determines whether an art object affects the manifestation of multiple emotions or “sentiments” which Hume relates to. Truly an individuals’ taste can affect the outcome of judging an “art object”, adding a significant amount of bias to the outcome. Previously when relating Rockwell and DaVinci, the reason why an individual would conclude that any painting of DaVinci is superior in relation to Rockwell is due to taste. For an example I can say that out of the science, Physics is completely boring but the knowledge that anyone acquires from this subject is practical, and can be used in daily applications. However another person can proclaim that Physics is entertaining but the information is completely useless in daily applications. Who possesses the correct answer, myself or the other individual? Is there any type of rubric to distinguish whether an individual is correct or are they lying? Truly we may never know the answer to “exclusive” based questions because does any answer even exist?

Response to Fay (10/29/09)

In response to your blog "Life without art", I agree with you about some aspects in which I cannot picture the human race without any form of art. Honestly we could exist physiologically but not emotionally, socially, and maybe not mentally. The key of human life is survival, and how could we survive without any form of art whether in the forms of clothing styles or the cars that we drive? When I think of the human race without any form of art, the move "Pleasantville" comes to mind. When the two main characters enter the main scenes, the movie is basically set sometime in the fifties when colored televisions did not exist. Likewise the world that the two main characters were trapped in was black and white, everyone had the same clothing style, and a positive attitude existed throughout the whole town. Originally both characters were following by the script but when they did not, everything changed in which the back and white colors changed into all colors (red,white,blue,purple etc.) Once a certain characters pigmentation changed, they were quarantined or disregarded from the village like a deadly plague. But to get back to your question I do believe that humans can live without art on a daily basis but life socially and emotionally would be completely different. For example life pretty much would be dull, in which everyone would be feeling the same emotion, wearing the same clothes, and the same duties would be executed on a daily basis. However we must look at this issue from another perspective. Specifically in the movie "Pleasantville, everyone was positive on a daily basis and there was no crime or violence whatsoever. None of the issues that we face on a daily basis would not even be thought of (racism,genderism,homicides). People would have the same status as each other and everyone would know what to expect on a daily basis. Maybe the world would be a better place without art or maybe the world could be worse without art. However how can we know the true answer to this question? Well we cannot because art will not cease to exist overnight but I believe that art helps people better themselves. People can strongly express their emotions, individuality, creativity, and the price of art cannot be measured in any means possible. Art is eternal, thriving to exist, and will never become extinct.

Analysis of Weitz

Throughout the past week we have discussed the philosophy of art from the aspect of Morris Weitz. More of less I have enjoyed Morris Weitz's aspect of art because It makes me think about the past readings in regard to the intentionality thesis, Plato, and Aristotle (which we did not read, but I read the section myself, and researched about his thought toward art). Specifically I agree with his opinion that art is an open concept. Again as I have stated in the past and also in accordance to art, "Art Is an Open Concept, an idea of a thing constantly changing over time", in which there are no sufficient conditions or no definable characteristics to summarize what art really is. For an example as we discussed previously in class (Monday) a bachelor is an open concept because the definition of a "bachelor" changes over time. Specifically our understanding of a bachelor is an unmarried male that is of a marriageable age/position. The meaning of bachelor could be in reference to animals or even infant children one hundred years from now but we may never know. While on the other hand a triangle is a closed concept in which the object is three sided, closed, while containing three common line segments. A triangle will never be four sided, open (not an open concept, but an open shape), and the "triangle" will never have the lines placed straight instead of perpendicular. Since now we can distinguish that art is an "open" concept it is fair to state that there are no set of predetermined rules or are there in some cases? Since there are different types of "art" ranging from contemporary to abstract, are those specific works of art following the rules to fit into that certain genre of art? What I mean is that for an example an artist creates a piece of art and lets say that he/she sells that piece in which a museum of some sort buys the piece. As the board of directors set a meeting and decide that the piece of art is contemporary rather than abstract, does the art object follow by the rules of contemporary art or are the directors of the museum correct when deciding that the piece of art is contemporary? In each situation the two questions pose a correct answer in each outcome. First and foremost, if the art object falls into the category of contemporary art, then the object must be playing by the rules of contemporary art. Likewise the board of directors must also be correct because they possess a sufficient amount of experience and expertise towards the domain of contemporary art. So my question for anyone to answer is that does anyone also agree with Weitz's philosophy and if not what are some reasons why?

Response to Michelle Webb's blog entry (10/28/2009)

Q:....What is Art to you?

Honestly this a kind of a difficult question. Throughout my life I found art to be very boring because I always have been more of a "sports oriented" type of person in which anything that is not related to the field of sports is just plain out irrelevant to my type of lifetstyle. However there was a point on my life in which art was interesting and I enjoyed many artlike objects especially the works of Monet,Van Gogh, and Homer. That part of my life happened in fourth grade when I was living in Mansfield,Ma. Perhaps the reason why, is that my teacher at the time was also "sports oriented", and I thought she was pretty cool also, so I basically imitated her. But the best part of my fourth grade experience (other than playing football at reccess)was the field trip to the museaum of fine arts in Boston,Ma. Honestly I was just amazed by all of the beautiful paintings, sculptures, ancient artifacts (especially the entombed Egyptian mummies!!!), and everything else that was there that I cannot remember. The day was just a blast and to this day I have never forgotten about that day. That brings me to my next event in which I went back to the same museaum to the guitar exhibit. This was actually really cool because the only type of music that I listen to is Metal, strictly. However I do appreciate many other genres of music, but most do not interest me whatsoever. Otherwise getting back to the event, the exhibit was awsome because every famous musicians guitar was there, and it was just neat to view all of them at once. The craftsmanship and overall design of the guitars really stood out from eachother, making each unique from one another, and if this exhibit would ever happen again, I would definitely go back. Furthermore what art means to myself on a daily basis (as of October 2009) it is definitely a good outlet, through music (metal). This may sound stupid but the rock genre of metal really pumps me up before attending the gym and it illustrates my daily intensity in life, on a daily basis. Generally this is probably the only aspect of art that I value and if music was to be extinct then I would probably go completely insane.

Analysis of Dewey in relation to "Experience"

What is experience? Is experience the process in which an individual lives his/her life thoroughly, in which multiple events are not regretted or is it the process of accumulating experience (wisdom, mental wisdom etc) through daily tasks? Well we may never know but throughout the reading “Art As Experience” by John Dewey, he believes that art should be understood in terms of the conditions of human life. For example, Dewey believes that humans and animals share certain basic vital needs, deriving the means for satisfying these needs from animal nature. Basically life progresses not only in an environment but in an interaction with that environment. The live creature uses its organs to interact with the environment through defense and conquest while very need is a lack of adequate adjustment to the environment, and also a demand to restore adjustment and each recovery is enriched by resistance met and overcome. Also Dewey defines that an experience is one in which the material of experience is fulfilled or consummated, as for example when a problem is solved, or a game is played to its conclusion. Dewey contrasts this with experience, in which we are distracted and do not complete our course of action. In addition an experience is marked off from other experiences, containing within itself an individualizing quality. He believes his talk of “an experience” is in accord with everyday usage, even though it is contrary to the way philosophers talk about experience. For Dewey, life is a collection of histories, each with their own plots, conclusions, movements and rhythms in which each has a unique quality. However in relation to art, works of art such as paintings, sculptures, and architecture are important examples of an experience in which the artist(s) possess an awareness that is consciously “moving”, thus being alive. In relation, Dewey believes that humans only feel properly alive when absorbing the aesthetic features of nature. The activities of the perceiver are comparable to those of the creator in which reception that is full perception not recognition is a series of responsive acts resulting in fulfillment. In perception (what is seen by the human eye, thus being interpreted), the consciousness becomes alive such as one experiencing. However, consciousness requires implicit involvement of motor response throughout the organism, which entails that the scene perceived be pervaded by emotion. Although this phase of experience involves some type of surrender, this can only be done through controlled activity, not withdrawal.So my question that I have for everyone to answer is that since animals and humans are related on a similar basis, who proclaims that animals cannot produce works of art such as humans do?

Belian Aesthetics (Very Confusing)

Throughout the reading “Art as Significant Form: Clive Bell”, Bell discusses the principles of “significant form” and “aesthetic emotion” in relation to art. First and foremost Bell defines “significant form “as the description of the combination of lines and colors (distinctive), which makes an object a work of art. While on the other hand, “aesthetic emotion” is the experience in which anyone becomes aroused by “significant form”, while suggesting that the reason why we experience this emotion (In response to the significant form) of a work of art is that we perceive that the form (as an expression) of an experience the artist has. Bell proposed that nothing else about an object is in any way relevant to assessing whether it is a work of art, or aesthetically valuable. For example a painting that represents is completely irrelevant to evaluating it aesthetically. However in addition, he also believed that knowledge of the historical context of a painting or the intention of an artist such (As stated in the intentionality thesis) is unnecessary for the appreciation of visual art. He stated "to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions”. More or less Bell’s type of logic towards art is completely accurate, but on the other hand if an individual evaluates an ancient piece of art, such as Spartan swords and shields, how can that person appreciate the artwork if he/she has no common knowledge of ancient Spartan history? When it comes to the critique of historical artifacts that are considered as “art”, the certain individual should possess a minimal or maximal amount of knowledge about the certain subject, to fully appreciate the work of art. Nevertheless Bell suggested that the reason we experience aesthetic emotion in response to the significant form of art is that we perceive that form as an expression of an experience the artist has. In laments terms the artist's experience in turn is the experience of perceiving ordinary objects in the world as pure form. But there are a couple flaws in regards to “aesthetic emotion”. For instance Bell only discusses about aesthetic experience in terms of a distinctive kind of emotion which artworks produce. But can we rule out that some artworks produce an intellectual response that deserves to be called ‘aesthetic’? Also we know that an object has significant form when it results in aesthetic emotion but when we ask what aesthetic emotion is, the answer that what is produced by significant form? Thus significant form must be defined in terms of its relation to aesthetic emotion at the same time that aesthetic emotion is defined in terms of its relation to significant form. But in general the subject matter is extremely confusing and my question to everyone, is that possibly can the subject matter be simplified so that the normal person can understand the message of this reading?

Response to Natasha Robinsons blog entry (10/14/2009)

Q1:Who is to say what emotions are normal or common for all people?
Q2: Is it not true that some people are unable to feel emotions we may feel because experiences in life are so vastly different?

Throughout this week, we have discussed Clive Bell's perspective on art in regards to aesthetic emotion and significant form. More or less these two terms (A.E. and S.F) can be extremely confusing and in general, can intertwine with one another. But getting back to your questions, each them can have multiple opinions and perspectives that can range drastically. However in regards to the first question, nobody should be able to say or judge which emotions are normal or common for all people. For example Clive Bell pretty much is a normal person with the exception being that he is a philosopher, not a mental health professional (psychologist, psychiatrist, behavioral analyst, etc.), therefore he cannot properly judge that a certain individual should or should not experience certain emotions. While on the other hand, an individual can experience certain emotions differently than another individual due to life experiences. Lets say that person "a" was raised by an average family, in which he/she was loved unconditionally and given everything in life that he/she should have. However person "b" was raised by a family in which domestic violence was prevalent on a weekly basis, their family life was hectic and chaotic. Therefore person "b" will have a tough time experiencing the positive emotions (joy,happiness,compassion etc.) that person "a" experienced, due to their life experiences and vice versa. But with many of your ideas I can completely agree to what you are experiencing because Bellian Aesthetics are extremely confusing and personally his ideas do not make any sense whatsoever, therefore being more confusing than advanced particle physics. An emotion is not a foreign language that we as humans cannot understand sometimes nor is it an undecipherable code that even the most accomplished white collar thief cannot break. As I discussed previously an emotion is built into our body from birth, and life experiences ranging from normal to traumatic activate those certain emotions (in a negative or positive way). So in general we (humans) are extremely capable of interpreting and feeling emotions whether they occur on a biological basis or on experience, they are prevalent in daily life.

Response to Julia Les's Blog Entry (10/7/2009)

"What is your opinion on this topic? What could be some reasons that art and religion share these similarities (if you do believe that these two concepts are comparable)? What causes a person to prefer one art form to another art form, or one religion to another religion?"



Well when it comes to my personal opinion or aspect in religion, there is no correct or incorrect answer to whichever faith is superior to one another. Personally I grew up within a Roman Catholic househould in the majority of my family are extremely strict when it comes to the topic of religion. From my birth date I have attended mass every sunday, holy days, and sometimes confession. The point that I am trying to get to, is that the church is central to many families throughout numerous cultures, worldwide. In addition, usually the religion that the household that one is born into, already has a religion that one is worshipping, and if not, the person will prefer a certain religion based on cultural beleifs or the current societies preference of religion. However when art and religion are being compared, each do not share any similarites whatsover in relation to the mission or message they are trying to portray but they do in relation to art,posess a relationship.In many churches, synagogues, and mosques, what are these buildings mostly composed of? There are beautiful stained glass windows, architecture, and in some religious buildings, paintings of each specific god/goddess. When most of us were little kids in religious education classes, gods and prophets were also depicted via. comic-style drawings, so we could better understand that person by either their display or physical characteristics (height,eye color, hair color etc.) But in my opinion, art the mission of any religion should not be depicted by art because most religions are proven by sacred and ancient historical text, while art is just the expression of human emotions on a pictorial or physical basis. Mainly anyone can say that religion is an art but more or less that is blasphemy, offensive, and ultimately sacreligious.

Response To Freud's Perspective on Art and the "unconscious".

From the reading, “Art As Symptom”, the philosophical views of Sigmund Freud were concisely analyzed in relation to art. For example, Freud claims that dreams need to be understood as camouflaged wishes because the content of the dream relates that something (a specific dream) can be expressed as a thought, in which expresses either a sexual (erotic) or a self aggrandizing nature. Furthermore the artist’s unconscious is less repressed or hidden than others in which Freud argues that feeling a deep need to express unconscious thoughts and emotions, artists create works that like dreams are really the fulfillment of concealed wishes. In this situation Freud is most likely correct because artists do create an object in which their state of mind is portrayed on a pictorial basis. The question that comes to mind, is that does the unconscious delegate what the artist intends to be a work of art? This question can go in multiple directions, but how can humans (as critics) tell the difference between a work of art that has unconscious thoughts and emotions expressed throughout the art object or not? Honestly this question is tough to decipher because there is no mathematical equation that defines whether these thoughts are expressed, neither is the answer of a personal opinion? Basically the only way that this answer can be figured out is the artist has to state that the object contains or not contains unconscious thoughts and emotions, and how can that artist know cannot tell the difference without seeking professional help from a psychologist or a psychiatrist, such as Freud? Likewise human emotions are expressed throughout art but not unconscious thoughts and emotions that Freud discusses. In Freud’s Iceberg theory, the unconscious contains an immense amount of depth in which cannot be extracted instantaneously, such as conscious thoughts. The process of obtaining the unconscious thoughts goes through a process in which the thoughts from the unconscious have to be extracted from the preconscious by psychological methods. Possibly the unconscious can be expressed within many objects of art but the chances are minimal. To prove this point, most of Claude Monet’s paintings are colorful, creative, and beautiful, replicating common appearances of daily life. Therefore his current emotions were expressed without any type of unconscious thoughts but conscious ones that are most prevalent in human thought. So the main question I am going to ask, (confusing) is that for the unconscious thoughts and emotions to be ascended into the conscious, what necessary processes should be taken, and is the normal human aware of unconscious thoughts on a conscious basis?

Response to Xhirley Gonzalez's blog entry on 10/2/2009

In response to your question there actually is nothing wrong with seeing the beauty of art and getting some type of pleasure out of it. Naturally humans cannot control these types of impulses but on the other hand, many do not appreciate the beauty of art therefore neglecting what art truly is, and that is a pictoral or a physical form of pure beauty. However all art does not display beauty, mainly because some artists do not intend for a picture to portray this trait, and many strongly believe that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. Probably the single most distiguishing factor about art which makes it great is that tohere are so many different interpretations to an object than just one person. There are no rules in art like there are in a chess game, so what makes someone else's opinion correct in comparision to mine or yours? Nobody because there is no answer key like in mathematics that justifies that a certain answer is correct or even incorrect in certain situations. But getting back to Tolstoy's philosophy of art, he is correct when he states that art shouldnt be rejected because it cannot be rejected as a necessary form of communication. As oral communication is the language of ideas and thoughts, art is the neccessary language that conveys emotions, mainly the artists' state of mind, and what he/she is experiencing or feeling at the given moment. I firmly believe that without art, human life would become dull and lack the neccesssary pleasures in life (since the field is far too inclusive, anything can be art as long as the artist/creator intended a specific form to be art or something in relativity) that we should be experiencing on a daily basis. There are so many life lessons we can learn from art, we can experience the same emotions that the artist was feeling, and our way of thinkng will broaden out instead of being one dimensional. That truly is the reason why art should exist for eternity because if there is nothing that can cause humans to see the beauty and pleasures in life, why should human life be prolonged without this necesssary outlet?

Analysis of Leo Tolstoy's Philosophy of Art

Throughout the past week we have analyzed an excerpt (Art as Communication) from Leo Tolstoy's book "What Is Art", in which his personal ideas and opinions of defining art are expressed. So far I have enjoyed Tolstoy and hope to read more of his works in the near future because anyone who is a pacifist will always be accepted by positive people in everyday society. But the question that I have been pondering in the past week is one that exists in the Question and Answers. Does Art have to contain only one specific emotion to be successful? This question can go either way because I believe that a specific emotion (primary) more or less is an embrella for other emotions (secondary). For example, fear is more of a primary emotion and joy, sadness, and anger are secondary emotions because they are the bi products of the given emotion. But whenever I analyze a specific object of art there are a wide collage of emotions being expressed at the moment, just not being limited to only one singular emotion such as in Vincent Van Gogh's famous painiting "The Starry Night". But if anyone takes a good look at this painting to analyze the masterpiece, its is obvious that multiple emotions are being expressed. Specifically the painting portrays a small European village with a dark gloomy structure towering over but on the other side, the moon is enlightening the villlage to neutralize the darkness. Honestly the meaning of the masterpeice can be complex, simple, or neither. However the masterpiece, more or less illustrates Van Gogh's state of mind while expressing his emotions pictorally, and this is evidence that can either prove or reject Tolstoy's philosophy of art. But mainly I would like some feedback from anyone who agrees or disagrees with my theory and if possible does anyone also feel that Tolstoy knew of the intentionality thesis before he wrote this book?

Response to Blog : Stephanie Carrone

When it comes to the type of reasoning Plato belives in, more or less it is his own personal opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However in my opinion, the subject or art and emotions go hand and hand. The reason why is that art is an expression of human emotions pictorially and physically (furniture,architecture etc.) because without emotions, art is just plain, containing an immense amount of structure. The objects of art would not possess a type of identity, creativity, or even intetention. Furthermore how do you know what that specific artist was thinking at that given moment and even better how were they feeling? Basically you do not know and therefore art without emotion (in my opinion) is not considered art but more of an object to discard. Plato also states that the more human emotions there are within art, the further the piece will drift away from truth. Art does not have to contain an abundance of truth because there is not an exact meaning of the specific matter, which in this case is art. Anyone viewing a specific piece of art will have a certain summarization of the meaning (definition) towards the piece and each person's opinion is not incorrect nor correct, such as in poetry. There is truth to art but only in the eyes of the perceiver.

Response to Plato's View (Art As Imitation)

Throughout the week, we have discussed how art is an imitation of copied or ultimately "unreal" objects (which in my opinion does not make sense) through a platonic view. This whole conversation does make logical sense that artistic objects are copied on daily basis, but why does those objects have to be imitations. In my opinion, I feel that the word "imitation" has a negative stigma in society and should not be used to describe the inclusive subject of art. In general we can say that everything in this word is an imitation (which actually is true), ranging from furniture to human beings. But the topic that puzzles me the most within the field of imitation is "architecture". More or less, architectural structures such as styles of buildings (Victorian, Gothic, Colonial etc) are copied when new structures are being created, however those structures are being modified to an extent. Therefore the process of imitation is taking place but new ideas are being invented in the architecture world, although these new ideas are modified imitations. On the other hand,I can agree with the idea of imitation when relating to the internal framework of a building (electrical work, plumbing, carpentry etc.) because when it comes these tasks, there is only one correct to follow by. For instance lets say that I am a contractor and I decide to install the electrical work in a completely different manner than usual, creating a new innovative method that may or may not be successful. Most likely this new innovative method that was created probably will not be successful, therefore the building will not be properly lit. However in general, I cannot see "eye to eye" on Platos theory of art (which can be defined as anything) and most of his theories are based through his personal opinions. So the question that I am going to leave is that even though Plato claims that art is an imitation....., how can this statement be acceptable i the field of art?

Response to Shelby Giaccarini's "Representation" entry (9/18/2009)

In response to the question, "Does Representation like the intentionality thesis, play a role in defining art as art? That is, is it necessary for a work of art to represent something?", does play a signifigant role in defining art as art. Personally I believe that representation comes from the intention of an artist, while falling under the same domain. More or less emotions generate what art should or should not be and how the piece is represented For example, when we (as a class) were analyzing the couple pieces of art there were no distinguishing characteristics that you could tell what the piece/object meant , or even possessed some type of purpose. However beyond the physicality of the piece, you can tell that there is a representation through the artists state of mind and most importantly, their emotions. In any type of art emotions play a key role and can go hand in hand of the artist's state of mind. For example if you look at many of Vincent Van Gogh's paintings you can tell that he was in a deprives essed state of mind and that many of his works reflected himself on a particular day, therefore giving the piece an identity. Getting back to the topic of "Representation within Art", is that "representation" gives art an identity, and without some type of identification, how can there be an intention within art? Likewise the answer to the question is that representation does play a signifigant role in defining what art truly is because without representation, how can you classify art as "art".

Analysis of "What Is Art"

Throughout the first week of Dr. Johnson's Art and Philosophy class, we have analyzed the introduction of"The Nature of Art" by Thomas Wartenberg. The Introduction in a nutshell poses the argumentative question of what actually is art by definition? Honestly we may never know and through the intentionality thesis, there is no defining pathway to what art is. In addition, the thesis states that art is defined through the intention of the artist, which is highly debatable and argumentative. In my opinion I tend to disagree with the thesis because it is far too exclusive. There are no rules to the subject like in a football game or chess tournament, so can art range from anything that has intention? More or less there will always be some type of bias in art because the subject is defined mostly by taste, and if the person who evaluates the piece doesn't like it, is he/she right or wrong? Mainly I would have to say no because a mediocre work of art (in most instances) can be extremely appealing to a person who has a far different taste. Getting back to the conversation of "taste" during the previous class (9/16/09), someone may like chocolate flavored ice cream and another may like vanilla. Personally I prefer to eat frozen yogurt due to the immense health benefits,which is not ice cream but falls under the same domain of frozen snacks/desserts. Is my preference in comparison to the two who prefer vanilla and chocolate ice cream correct or incorrect? Again the answer, more or less is undefined, and is more of a personal preference. Humans are like computers being pre - programmed from the day of existence, having individual characteristics that make us unique from one another,which includes our likes and dislikes of objects (food,events,clothing, etc.). Basically the point that I am trying to prove is that another cannot judge an art object and say whether it is good or bad, nor that it posesses creativity or not. Another aspect of the Intentionality Thesis that also picks apart my brain, is if an art object possess some type of intention or desire than the object is a work of art. Right away I say to myself that this whole thesis is completely off the mark, basically being a false statement right off the bat. But if you think and contemplate about the most famous and respected pieces of art than you must come to a conclusion that many of those pieces contained an a to ant amount of intention and most of all, creativity. But truly and honestly art is in the eye of the beholder and is extremely inclusive. Nobody can define what art truly is in words or in pictures, but what makes art, well Art?