A Response to Denise's Question

In her blog Denise asked the question:
Is art just an attempt to capture the experience of being alive?

I absolutely adore this question and I think it captures the essence of most of art. Put simply, yes, art is a simple and desperate attempt to capture some of the emotion and being of being alive. Is this not the purpose of many things in our lives. Love stories, love poems, romantic movies all want to capture the feeling and essence of being in love. Even for those who have never felt that feeling of loving and being loved in return, these movies still touch us and make us feel something. Good art, such as a good book or a good movie or a magnificent painting make us feel something. That "something" is not the raw or pure emotion but somewhat of a knockoff of that emotion, a generic if you will. Without the true experience and true emotion, we will never really feel love or anger or passion, but art gives us the next best thing. Art gives us those emotions, captured in a painting or in a book or a film or in a song and it displays it to us in an easily digested fashion. It is this attempt to capture being alive and the feelings of being alive that we enjoy so much . However, as I said before, these are not the true emotions and these are not the true experience and that is why art sometimes leaves us with an empty or wanting more feeling. We want these almost tangible and almost real emotions that are given to us through art but we cannot but see or read or watch them play out. Do you think this is why art a lot of the time inspires us, we want these emotions and feelings?

A Response to Katie's Question

In her blog Katie asked:
1. Are artist's more comfortable with the concept of "nothingness"?


In her actual blog post she spoke of the different ways and us humans compartmentalize and break things down into groups and analyze things to death so the world does not seem so big or impossible to understand. Putting everything into groups and breaking down things into base parts make us feel safe. Things like the universe, as Katie suggested, scare us. They scares us because they are "infinite" or immeasurable. They are not things that can be simply broken down or explained and as humans this is not okay with us. By saying it is infinite we are at least giving it a word to be assigned to. Since we are not able to break it down we simply cast it off or brush it off as being infinite. We would love to find the end of the universe and pin point the longitude and latitude of the end. This is why we are constantly exploring space, sending out satellites into orbit and sending astronauts into space. Also, Katie mentioned religion and "God" as something to also satisfy our hunger for answers and truth. We create things such as religion or use it as a tool to feel better about our lives, our situation, and the end of our lives. We use this to answer the unanswerable question. So to answer her question on whether artists feel better about nothingness, no I do not believe they do. When they say that their painting means nothing, I think it is a weak answer to an unanswerable question just as we have done with the universe and death and our lives. But why do we need these weak answers, why cannot we simply say there is no answer?

Rusenova

This week, we discussed the multifaceted face of imagination. Also, the many implicated words that come along with imagination. Among these being thought, knowledge, creativity, understanding, and intuition. We discussed where these words begun and and where they ended. Many believed the start or source from which all these terms sprung was thought. Thought being the basis of everything because what you need to think and to create thought is a brain. You do not need much else. It is extremely interesting to think about where we begin our creative thought. Where it is we begin to be able to be philosophical and ruminate on subjects such as art and life and the human position. I believe, however, that all these words and ideas such as imagination and knowledge and creativity are all human constructs. This is not to say I do not think we have these abilities or the capacity to be creative or knowledgeable, it is to say that we are the only ones who feel we should place a word and definition on them so to make us feel we are the only animals who possess them. But who is to say that no other animal has these qualities in the same degree as we do but has not the means or the words to express them. Even crows have the creativity to add rocks to a container of water to raise the water level so they are able to drink. This is more than most humans (haha). In my opinion, the most humans have over other animals is spoken language, record, and egos and this serves us in one way, dominating the other species and the world. In our eyes, this is our world and everything in it is here for our taking when this is not the case. All these human constructs have caused us to lose sight of what we really are, animals, living in this fragile world. When will we realize this, when we are on the edge of destruction?

A Response to Griffin's Question

In his blog Griffin asked the question, Can a human be an art object?

This is a very interesting question that has numerous implications. This question depends upon one thing, how the public or audience views it. In my opinion, anything is an art object if the public or the art audience views it as such. Art is not truly art unless it is appreciated as art. This might seem superficial or solely based upon the approval of others but it is true. As Goodman described in his chapter, we would not think of Rembrandt's works of art as works of art unless they were displayed in an art gallery or in a museum as art. We would not look at it twice if it was, as Goodman suggests, hanging as window or used as a blanket. This, I believe, would be true for humans too. Since, for the most part, we are not displayed or thought of as great works of art, we are not going to be viewed as such. But things are changing this view. There was an exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science in which people who donated their bodies to science were put on display. They were posed in positions of athletes, housewives, and dancers. The different poses displayed the different layers of skin, the many organs, and the complex muscles. This was not only a science exhibit but also an art exhibit in many people's eyes. Humans were not only the audience and the artist but the art in this case. Also, could we not say that performance art has humans being the art piece as well? Humans are up on stage performing and displaying themselves as the art whether that means dancing or acting or singing. Do you believe humans are the art form in these cases or do you believe the dance or the play or the song itself is the art form?

Aristotle

In his essay on art, Aristotle states many of the same principles and thoughts of his teacher Plato. But he seems to have a much more appreciation for art than Plato did. Plato believed that art did not have a place in society and the emotional aspect of it was detrimental to society and there should be much more reason and practical thinking in the world. In Aristotle's essay, he has a much more of a positive look on the world of art and its place in our lives. He believes its cathartic qualities is one of its main positive points. I absolutely believe this is true. As I said in a previous blog, I very much prefer a good good or a poem to a painting. Many would disagree but that is just my personal opinion. One of my favorite books is Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky. It is a very emotionally intense book. The main character goes through every emotion possible within the human spectrum and still has this underlying sadness. We go through a year of high school with him and experience everything first hand. You feel for him, you want him to succeed and get upset when he fails. This feeling of fear and pity that Aristotle talked about is exactly what you go through. This art form has fulfilled Aristotle's musings. You feel these emotions without actually experiencing them. The things that happen in this book are awful and devastating and great and uplifting but if they were in our lives personally we would not see them in the same light. We would be offended and truly destroyed or too overwhelmed with happiness to truly see it in an engaged but outsider perspective. We live vicariously live through this person and we feel their pain but once we are done we feel as if we experienced an art form and enjoyed the experience. And this is cathartic, the "purging of emotions" that are not truly our own.

Is every art form cathartic, or is some art just offensive?

A Response to Denise Question

In her blog, Denise posed the question :
If ideas can be art, then can descriptions of ideas, such as a prose paragraph describing a painting, real or imagined, be art?

I think the answer to this is simply is yes. If not, the descriptive way of poems and  the indulgent ways of philosophical musings would not be considered, in some way, art. We believe the way a good poem ebs and flows and the way the words work together and make us feel the flow and rhythm and meaning of the poem in our hearts, as corny as it sounds, is art. In a way I think they are the same thing in different forms. The descriptive ways of a poem and the philosophical musings are just beautiful paining in word form. Like the poem To Autumn by John Keats is a beautiful and one of the best descriptions of the sights and feelings of autumn or fall, you can feel the slow progression of the death and ending of life in fall, as the summer and the flowers and life slowly winds down. But could this not be a painting like "Autumn's Impression" could give you those same feelings by simply looking at it. Personally, I enjoy a good poem or a well written book to express emotion and feel something. These descriptive paragraphs that could describe a real or imagined painting could mean anything. They could describe the feelings or even the flow or the look of the brush strokes and still it makes us feel or see something that is not physically visible. This is an art from. Being skilled in this way of words just like many lyricists and poets and authors are is an art form. Making someone feeling something or alert a sense that is not present in the art piece is art in itself. What about a description of a book or a poem, would this be considered art? Where does this descriptive way stop?   

Critcism and Art

In his blog, Griffin asked: Is there a 'barrier' between art and nonart? Do things have to be one or another? or are things more muddled then that, and can they be mixed?

Like Griffin said, art is a very complicated subject. You cannot, or a critic cannot, say that art is simply art or non-art. There is no simply "barrier" as Griffin said or a simple qualities or group of qualities that make art or non-art. There is just a group of critics of a group of people who call themselves a critics that decide what is good and bad. In this collection of critics, there is a million of contradicting and contrasting opinions and decisions on art. Even in my own humble and amateur blog, I have probably contradicted myself probably a bunch of times. I cannot make up my mind of what is good and what is bad and what definition is more right than the other. I cannot decide whether I agree more with Dewey or Tolstoy and even when I do agree more with one or find one more enlightening than the other, later I might contradict myself in a blog. I am sure this must happen all the time also in the dignified art world and with the dignified art critics. So therefore there is no clear cut or cut and dry definition of art and so there is no cut and dry separation between non-art and art. Furthermore, no one can even decide WHEN art is nonetheless WHAT art is. So who can even decide if art is art when it is created or when someone appreciates it. So is more important to decide when is art or is it more important to decide what is art?

A Response to Denise's Question

In her blog, in a response to my question, Denise posed the question,  If you had to create a definition of art from examples, which works, and qualities of those works, would you choose?

This question seems to be simply answered by simply: good art.  I guess or suppose every person would immediately think of this answer. If we wanted to show a person something or explain something to a person without actually defining what that thing was or using words, you would show examples and the best examples at that. You would show them the ones that you find the most intriguing or the most beautiful. You would show them this and say "This is art." You would show them a Picasso or the Mona Lisa or you would show the most inspiring or striking piece of work you could find and tell them that this what art is. You would point at the brush strokes and the likeness of the work to the subject of the painting and say this is what makes it art. At least, this is what I think you would show but how can I speak for each person? Maybe the next person hates Picasso or thinks the Mona Lisa is overrated and too simple. Maybe the next person hates art in general or hates portraits and loves cubism. Maybe the brush strokes mean nothing to the next person and all they want to see are the lines and shapes within the painting. Or maybe they do not find paintings art but find literature and poems art and point out the flow of the words and the ease of the speech. Each person would show a different view and side of art and say, this is it, this is what art is, at least to me. These are the features that make it so. But can we say who is right and who is wrong in their assumptions?

Dickie

Dickie had a theory that screamed inclusion. He named off a number of people who were considered to be in the art world including art philosophers, artists, exhibit owners, and even news reporters. Even after naming every person who might be considered part of the art world in some way or the other he even included "and others." He then goes on to say that even people who just consider themselves part of the art world are part of the art world because considering themselves makes it so. This sparked a conversation in class whether or not people could speak on a subject without being classically or academically trained. The example of a quantum physics professor speaking psychology was brought up. You would not take their opinion too seriously aside the fact that they are an intellectual. They do not know about psychology, they know about quantum physics. But can they not speak on the subject of psychology by simply things they observe and witness in everyday life. Aren't we all psychologists when we over analyze and pick apart peoples actions. When we explain someones behavior or actions on something in their childhood or the way they think. Is this not psychology? I think this is what Dickie was getting at in his extremely inclusive theory. While we are not all great artists or have pondered and ruminated on the great works of art and artist of our times, we still can look at a piece of art or read a book or listen to a song and know whether we like or not. Whether it is pleasing or not. Whether it is aesthetically pleasing and well put together. Every art theory we have read has dealt with this. What parts of art makes it so it is pleasing to the public and seen as art and therefore art. If the public's opinion does not matter simply because they are not artist, then we would not have art. So therefore, we are all a part of most subjects. Everyday in our lives, we think and interact with an array of different subjects and areas and we know them inside and out. Is there anything we are truly ignorant of or never come in contact with or have no experience based knowledge with?

A Response to Denise's Question

How would you describe art to an intelligent life form that has no understanding of the concept?

This is a very sticky question. I honestly do not know how you could possibly describe art without giving examples or to someone who has no concept of the concept. Art is a taught thing. From birth we are immediately learning new art forms and ways to create art. We are given finger paint as children and told to create art. We are told what is art by our parents and trusted adults. Our teachers tell us what is good and what is bad. As we grow older, we learn if we are artists or not. Whether we have the talent to become an artist or if we are simply not artistically talented. We then learn of all the different types of art. We learn there is paintings, literature, film, sculptures, plays, and music. We are shown examples of great pieces of each of these types of art. We are shown plays by Shakespeare and compositions by Bach and books by Hemingway and paintings by Picasso. I know I am using the most obvious and famous artists but it was what we were shown, these are the things we were shown to show us "great" art. From this we learn what is good and what is bad, what is art and what it is non-art. Although none of us or the great philosophers from years past can pin down the exact conditions that constitute art, we know what is art and what is not. So how are we supposed to explain this to a life form that has no concept of it? We would have to use examples, many many examples and show them what we mean. There is no way we could simply explain art to a life form no matter how intelligent they may be. We, as humans, cannot even pin down conditions or define it, we could never explain it or put it into words. So is this the way we should define or pin down art as well, use examples, compare new art to old art?

A Response to Caleb's Question

In his blog Caleb asked the question: Could we ever define the strive for efficiency in our technological devices art?

This was a response to my question of what we had over animals that made us superior in relation to viewing art and appreciating art. I think we could define this constant drive for more efficient and proficient ways of getting things done as art. Our world lives and thrives on technology. Without it, the world would fall apart. The very thought of losing power so that our technological devices would not work is absolutely terrifying. We would lose our food, our heat, our water, our lifelines to the outside world. Everything, and I mean everything is run on technology. The art of making it better and more efficient to use is something we also depend on. If  there was not this constant strive for these advances, our world would be failing. I guess this is the symbolic meaning at least Goodman looked for in art. The meaning of dependency. We can all relate to this, at least in industrial countries. We all know what it means to have technology, to depend on your phone and your computer, that these things are lifelines of sorts. If we did not have them, we would not know how to contact people, have people contact us, connect with people. We have completely lost the sense of just being together and getting together. We must text someone or Facebook them and then eventually, after much arranging through your phone and computer, they might get together and spend time together. But this is the connection and would you not say theses technologies are beautiful? Are they not pleasing, to see a big screen television project a moving picture or seeing someone in another country through your computer screen. I guess you could say that they are somewhat of a crutch or a portal for art to come through.

Without them, what art would we lose?

Goodman

Goodman's theory of art is that the question is not what is art? but when is art? This completely changes the game and the idea of defining art and everything surrounding it. Instead of trying to find a set of specific conditions and rules for art and the definition of art, we are now looking at how art is employed and the uses it is put to. One of these uses is being symbolic or having symbolic meaning. Goodman believed that art must be symbolic or represent a symbol to be art. This is almost the direct opposite of what Bell said, that art does not have to have meaning but must have "significant form" or a collection of lines, shapes, colors that give us aesthetic emotion. There is no need for symbolic meaning or meaning at all behind the art piece to be a great piece of work in Bell's eye. I do not know how I feel about these assertions. I feel like if a piece of work is great, it appeals to the masses and for that to be true, I feel it must have some type of meaning that appeals or strikes a chord with all of us. So there is meaning, there is something that says something to us and makes us wonder and stare at this painting or sculpture or read a book or poem over and over again or listen to a song on repeat because something inside of it makes us feel something or a connection to it. This meaning makes us love art. It provides an outlet for our emotions and pent up worries. As cliched and corny as it sounds, it's true. We need it. On the other hand, can we not look at a piece of art and still think it is beautiful without feeling anything? Do we have to feel something or find meaning to find art beautiful?

Hume

One of the things we talked about in class on Friday was David Hume's theory of art and its relation to Dewey's theory of art. Dewey said that art was prefigured in our nature as animals. We do things that we know will give us pleasure and art is one of these things. This ties somewhat indirectly into Hume's theory of art. Hume blieved that art is simply a matter of taste but this taste, usually, lined up with one anothers' taste so that there is a universal and somewhat correct view or judgment on a piece of art. This idea that art and what it is supposed to be and how we are to create and view it lines up with these two philosophers. Hume believed that if a person did not agree on the universal verdict on a piece of art, there was something psychologically wrong with them. This idea that art and the "right" view of it is already in our nature was shared by both men. The idea that humans, as advanced and intellectual animals, view art in a similar way. I feel this view and idea of humans as intellectual and superior animals is incredibly common and somewhat false. While obviously humans are as a society more technologically advanced, I do not think this means we are more above other animals in a artistic or necessarily intellectual sense. Animals instinctively know how to do everything we had to learn. Many animals, from birth, know how to feed themselves and find and fend for themselves. We depend so much on technology that I do not think we would know the first thing about surviving in the wild. Animals also seem to respect and appreciate nature and everything that surrounds them because they depend on it so much. Who is to say that isn't art? They find pleasure in little and simple things and look at the world not as enemy as humans do. This, to me, is artistic. What have humans done with art in a viewing sense that makes us so much more superior to animals, over analyzed it?

A Response to Griffin's Question

In his blog Griffin asked: Now, going along with objectivity and Hume, since Hume says that art is a matter of taste and only certain tastes are objectly right, does that mean people could have an incorrect sense of humor?

In Hume's eyes, yes. If humor and jokes were seen as art form by Hume and art is at the same time a matter of taste but at the same time only certain tastes are right, then humor can be incorrect and fallible in some situations. While Hume never outlines the conditions and type of people whose "taste" count and matter. This pretentious and lofty opinion that certain people matter and others psychological make up prevents their opinion from meaning anything contends this fact. Humor is definitely and undeniably a matter of taste but Hume argues that only certain opinions are right. To me, this argument is kind of along the lines of an argument amongst people who are basically saying "No I'm right" "No I am". Apparently to Hume there is only one right answer and the other person has psychological problems or defects. We are supposed to believe that Hume is one of the correct or valid people who can judge and determine art's beauty and worth. So if one was to laugh at a joke that Hume found completely unfunny then this humor would be fallible and incorrect. There must be something psychologically wrong with you. Honestly, I think this whole idea of people being right or wrong is fallible in itself. Where are the conditions for who gets to decide who is right? We never seem to find these conditions of who gets to decide what is good or bad art or in this case who is right in determining good or bad art. I think this is because the simple idea of determining what is good or bad in art is like determining which ice cream is the best tasting. If I say vanilla and you say chocolate, no one is right. Its a matter of taste. If Hume stopped there I would of have to agree with him but he keeps going with the idea of correct taste and that is where he loses me. But what psychological factors could you think of that Hume would judge as ones preventing one to fail at judging art?

A Response to Denise: What good is bad art?

In her blog Denise asked: What do we lose by avoiding the experience of "bad" art?

Superficially, I think most people would say that we lose nothing by avoiding art that is deemed "bad" by critics and others whose opinion they respect. If someone who is in a superior position who is deemed "good enough" or more intelligent to judge films, books, television, art pieces, etc says that certain art is not good enough or bad then we believe them and do not waste our time with that art. I think this, however, has major downfalls. When critics judge a piece of work they judge it for the masses and judge it on points that the masses and general public will like or dislike. I do not think they take enough time thinking of the little points and eccentricities of the work that will mean something deeply to a person or a group of people. When we look at a piece of work there are major things that appeal to all of us like the flow of the plot or the characters or how vibrant the colors are or how detailed and intricate the sculpture is but small details always mean something different to all of us. Like we talked about in class, the only way to experience a piece of art the same way as someone else is to be that person. We all lead different lives and watch the world through different eyes. So when someone watches a "bad" movie or looks at a "bad" piece of art and sees something beautiful, are they wrong? What if a small piece of it resonates with them? When we avoid supposedly bad art, we also avoid an artists vision and voice and what he wanted to convey. And what this message is might be something that could save someone. So what are we doing, judging art is an impossible thing, so what do we think we will gain from it?

Weitz

Weitz provides us with no definition or definitive explanation for art in his essay. This is extremely odd in a book solely devoted to finding and exploring the definition and nature of art. If you look closer, however, it offers us some interesting and points about art and the way it effects us. His definition, as well, can be applied to numerous everyday things. Weitz asserts that art cannot be define because it encompasses and can encompass too many things. New forms of art are constantly arising and we extend the word "art" to them. He believes we are more talking about the concept of art. This is what I have been talking about in my past blogs. Why are we so obsessed with defining an elusive and difficult concept? Why is this so important to us when, like Weitz said, it has eluded the human population since Plato's time and from then on. We are trying to define and pin down an ever-changing thing and over-simplify something that is amazingly complex. This, I think, can be said for many things in our lives. Like love and happiness and contentment and entertainment and food and civilization and technology. It is simply impossible to pin down any of those things. Love today means a totally different thing than it did in the early 16th century. There are marriages between people that was forbidden and condemned years ago and we are fighting now for rights for even more people and their definition of love. There are no set conditions that can be applied to every single thing that we describe as love and happiness. We could go all day trying to describe conditions and characteristics and never get all of them. But can that not be said for most things in these lives we lead? Do we all try to pin people, places, and things and define them to the death so we are comforted in knowing we are knowledgeable even falsely so? Why do you think we do not live more instinctively and less wrapped in emotion and definition and wondering?

Dewey: Is Art, Art Without a Receiver?

One of Dewey's many assertions about art is that there must be a creator and a receiver. This theory, I think, is incredibly accurate. It brings to mind the infamous question, "If a tree falls in a forest and on one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" This age old question has never had a definitive answer but my answer would be no and yes. I think that art has the potential to be art but is not art as of yet. The concept of art and the art world is completely human made. It does not exist in any other way except that humans have put a label on books and poems and paintings and sculptures; that those things are somehow special, purposeful, and necessary to our everyday lives as sophisticated and domesticated animals. So if a human creates a piece of something or smears some paint on a piece of canvas and there is no other human to deem it as art and appreciate it as art, then I do not believe it is truly art. Just as Dewey said, all art needs a creator and a receiver, to have both aesthetic and esthetic value. Humans put labels on everything and try to define everything that we interact with. There are hundreds of words to describe one thing and a million different interpretive definitions for a word, an action, or a thought. No other animal is like us. We feel the need to do this because the unknown scares us. So if there is no one there to extend and precipitate this definition and word that is art, then it is not art. Art is not art without humans because art is a completely made up concept. To every other instinctual animal, it is just a piece of rock carved into a shape or a piece of canvas smeared with colors or a couple hundred pages. But this is simply my opinion, what do you think, does art have a purpose and is it art if there is no receiver, viewer, or reader of the art?

A Response to Griffin's Question

In his blog Griffin asked: Is it okay for a critic to try to correct ones interpretation of the art piece is dead wrong? Like a painting of a butterfly, if a person thinks that butterfly represents eternal torment from Hell, would a critic be allowed to say that the persons belief is wrong?

The world of critics and critiques is an extremely complicated one. We have this strange love-hate relationship with critics and their opinions. We are always damning them and believing they are wrong, judgmental, and picky but at the same time we are constantly feeding into and reading what they think and what their opinions are. We are willing to have them tell us whether a movie or book or CD was good or bad and based our purchases and choices on these opinions but how far does this go? Like Griffin asked, can they tell us whether our belief or interpretation of any form of art is correct? To this I would say no. No one can really tell us what lies in our hearts, as corny as that sounds. This is what, at least what I believe, makes humans different. We can have so many influences and interpretations from each other and who is to say those assumptions are wrong? Each piece of art work means something different to all of us because we all lead different lives and see the world through our own warped lenses. When I see a butterfly picture I might think of happiness and childhood and spring because that is what happened in my life in association with butterflies but my opinion is not the be all and end all opinions on  butterfly pictures. Our twisted lenses prevent us from seeing anything neutrally. This goes for critics too. They have just the same biased subconscious as the rest of us, it is impossible not to. They conducted this study where they had something had a party and taped it and they asked a bunch of people what had happened. Each person told them a different story and each of their stories was not what happened. So, what is our obsession with pinning down things as good or bad when we all look through a different glass as we view the world?

A Response to Sarah's Question: Television as an Art Form

In her blog Sarah asked: What makes bad art bad? What makes bad TV bad?  Is it fair for me to say that television should have a place with art when it comes to philosophy?

I think a lot of people would classify television and the work surrounding television in the "non-art" category. I, however, do not agree with that assertion. I think television, much like film is a true and modern art form. I do not think that simply paintings and sculptures and poetry are our last vestige of art. As the world changes to become more technological and mechanical, so do simple and sometimes seemingly unchangeable things. As years went by after Plato and Aristotle and other great philosophers, time changed the view of art and what it was. Film and television provide entertainment, stir up emotion, convey emotion, and are, in some people’s minds, destroying and distracting society. These are all conditions of definitions of art that we have read and studied before. In the same sense, television can be classified as bad or good. It also is impossible to define. I think this is one of the few commonalities between all art whether that mean paintings, sculptures, literature, television, film, or fashion, that they are so incredibly hard to define and pin down. If I like a television show and you do not, does that make me wrong or you wrong? Who gets to determine if it is a good piece of television art or a bad one? Another commonality, in my opinion, is that there is some level of skill involved. Creating television absolutely involves some type of skill and ability so as to not make the television show or the idea behind look completely amateurish and poorly done. Television is absolutely an art form from every standpoint but again it begs the question, can you ever define it as good or bad?

Bell

Clive Bell was a scholar of the arts and an artist himself. His idea of art and why we find it appealing is extremely interesting. He believed that appealing art that made us feel "aesthetic emotion" had significant form. This significant form was a product of all the lines, colors, textures, and shapes that make up a picture. Each of these things produces or causes an emotion within us which he called "aesthetic emotion". This combination of textures and lines does not simply convey emotion, but stir it up in the receiver or the art. Bell also made the assertion that all art that has significant form causes this emotion in "anyone capable of feeling it." This idea that some have this ability to feel while others do not is also intriguing. Again, the question comes up of who gets to decide which art has significant form and produces aesthetic emotion. If someone does not feel emotion when they look at the art does this mean they are not capable of these lofty and elusive artistic emotions or does the art simply not have the significant form that produces these emotions? Bell slightly implies in this essay and his other writings that the people who can feel these aesthetic emotions and determine whether an art form has significant form are of his stature and intelligence, coming off a bit pretentious. He even states that some of his friends are not able to feel aesthetic emotion. Is this to say that the only art that has significant form when Bell or people Bell respects? These unanswerable questions show us that it is impossible to define art. Even if you create a formula like Bell did, determining who gets to decide or decipher this formula becomes the problem. There is no true and through way to determine art from non-art. And there is certainly no way to determine good art from bad art. So what is this obsession with defining art, what is it in us that drives us to pick apart every little thing in this world?

A Response to Amanda's Question

In her blog Amanda asked: What is it that your subconscious attempt to convey anyhow through nightmares?
This question has been asked time and time again and still there is no real answer to this question. Dream analysis is one of the few things that we have that could potentially answer this question. As Freud believed, many of our dreams and daydreams convey some type of deep desire or fantasy of ours that we hide from the outside world. This explanation could not possibly work for nightmares though, could it? We do not fantasize about getting chased by rabid animals or killed by an insane mass murderer or a loved one dying or even ourselves dying. These thoughts in our waking day are terrifying to us and are just as terrifying when played out in the very real (or at least to us) dream world. This is where we find the answer to what they are trying to convey. These terrible thoughts and happenings cannot be fathomed or thought about constantly while living or we would go insane and have constant anxiety. Our waking lives would become nightmares. So in our vulnerable and open sleep states we fathom these awful happenings, we let our mind wander and wonder about the dark and seedy parts of the world and our lives. This release allows us to live our lives without constant anxiety and depression. Instead of desires and wishes, we allow the things we desire the least and would not wish upon our worst enemy to bubble to the surface and convey our fears and worries in a manageable way. Anxiety and depression do, however, affect numerous people around the world so what does this say about nightmares for them? Are they not sufficient enough or do they have an overactive mind?     

Freud

As we talked about Freud in class the other day, we discussed Freud’s theory that art is either a substitution or continuation of childhood play of fantasies and tall tales and great imaginations and we do this subconsciously. This turned into the idea that our conscious mind and self is just a very small part of what makes up us. It is like an iceberg, the very small part that shows above the water is our conscious and awake mind and the rest of the iceberg and self is our subconscious. This got me thinking of the relation between this childhood play and the making or creation of our subconscious. Many experts say that our core personality of morals, beliefs, cultural perceptions that shape our daily lives and lives in general are formed at a very young age. This, I believe, is also the creation of our subconscious. At this young age, we are living and creating worlds of fantasy and fantastical imaginings and with these imaginations and beautiful, unbounded minds we are also creating our core personalities and subconscious that in many ways guides us for most of our lives.  From this we create art. When we create art, at least I think, we tap into our subconscious and our deepest desires, wants, secrets, memories, scars, fantasies, and imaginings to put it on paper and express these deep hearts of ours. We are not creating from the very basic conscious mind; we create from our complex subconscious and consequently our childhood. Not only is the art a continuation on or substitution for our play as kids, but it is an active part in creating our subconscious mind and creating our artistic spring.

Do you think all art is subconsciously stemming or do you think some art can simply be superficial and basic?