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".