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?