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?