Tolstoy

As I was reading Chapter 8, Tolstoy's thoughts and definitions of art and the art world, one word came to mind: inclusive. This is in no way a bad thing. Leo Tolstoy's definition of art is one of the most, in my opinion, accurate and well put definitions we have read or talked about so far. His idea that art is a language in some ways that speaks in only emotion is absolutely interesting. Before, with Plato's condemnation of art, we were told that art is too emotional and detrimental to society. Now, Tolstoy sings the praises of art. He believes art creates a communion between humans and connects us through the one thing that makes us humans: our emotions, our compassion, and our deep hearts. Art is like spoken word except it communicates emotion instead of thoughts and this is where the word inclusive comes in. Tolstoy believed that anything that can convey an emotion is art. The setting sun, the crashing waves, a book, a painting, a joke, a speech, are all examples of art because they “call up” a feeling the creator once had and convey it to the receiving end. This is, to me, absolutely beautiful. It reminds us that there is beauty and emotion all around us. That in each sun beam and each well told story or joke; there is an art form and a special kind of feeling. This all inclusive definition of art reminds us that art is something that makes us feel something and it shows us the reason we are human; that we can look at an art piece and feel something, feel an emotion and find pleasure in it. We are the only animals that can do this. We do not only see the sun and water as necessary simple objects in our animalistic lives as a mean of survival, we see the art in them, we see beyond necessity and instinctual want. To cast aside these art forms would cause a downfall to our society of humans, a society partly based on emotion, compassion, and human hearts.

What do you think the greatest contribution is that art has given to our society?

A Response to Katie Sparagna's Question

Katie Sparagna asked in her blog: Is art in our society more valued or less valued then other eras?

This question is an extremely difficult and sticky one to answer. To say simply say more or less would not give justice to the tangled web of the art world. There are many ways it can be and are valued in our society. From the sense I received from Plato's thoughts of art in society and what I know of art's importance in that time period, I know that art was what people fed and lived off of. They devoured literature and art as an education and knowledge of the world around them. In this way, I think art was valued as information and a life line to education and being an educated human being and an asset to society. Nowadays, I think art is valued as a side-note education. It is looked as a tool to become cultured and well-rounded.. It is not, however, seen as a main educator for the masses and is therefore less valued in an education sense. We value standardized testing and calculating abilities as a way to test someone’s intelligence and mental strength. There is little emphasis put on art, its creator, and its history in the core curriculum of school and the education system. I know little about any art or artist and I did relatively well in high school. If I wanted to learn more about art, I could take a elective or a side course but it was certainly not required or even necessary to be deemed “good enough” to go on to higher education. This is seen in life too. If you would like to be cultured in or knowledgeable about art, it is an open and encouraged thing but it is neither necessary or required by society to be seen as “good enough” or an educated human being  Before it was the only education, and now it is just an elective both in life and in the education system. The true question is that has this taken away from our value as human beings, being less educated in a truly magical craft?

Art and Emotion

As I was reading Chapter One of our anthology, I thoroughly enjoyed Plato's ruminations on the subject and nature of art. Plato believed that art is a very emotional thing and that there is no real necessity for this emotion and art in the world and society.  When I say I enjoyed this rumination on art thoroughly, I meant that it made me think about art in a new and interesting way and I enjoyed this new light shone on the subject.  This thought that emotion is not valued or should not be valued in Plato’s Utopian society while reason and calculations were, is extremely interesting. The world without emotion would undoubtedly be very prosperous, technologically advanced, and ridiculously boring. Back then, things of art and emotion included literature, paintings, music, and plays and productions. Now it includes those along with television, films, music videos, fashion, photography, and the list goes on and on. Both then and now, art is incredibly distracting. These are the things we spend hours a day just fawning over, admiring, listening, reading, and watching. Plato saw this admiration of this industry as technically a waste of time and a danger to invest ourselves in this emotion-run industry. But without these “distractions”, what would we fill our days with? What would be our escapes from our lives and the chores that we must muddle through each day? Our lives would have no joy, no excitement, and basically no life. If each day we woke up to our jobs and our lives and the things we must get done to be productive and that is all, it would be an exceedingly depressing life. We take things and we devour them with our eyes and our hearts and we find joy, comfort, sadness, anger, excitement, or love in them and for some reason or another, we love that. Or we create pieces of work and thrust them out into the world and find joy, comfort, sadness, anger, excitement, or love in people’s reactions or in the simple act of creating something. Art makes us feel something and we take pleasure in that. Why would we want to rid the world of it?

As a philosopher, Plato believed emotion was not necessary in this world but do you think philosophy is an emotionless craft and how would you think Plato would reason philosophy being a productive and calculating craft?

Response to Kaylie's Blog: Are We Kidding Ourselves?

This is a response to Kaylie Sweet's blog.
In Kaylie's blog, she asked the question if there is a possibility that we are all just kidding ourselves in thinking we understand art and what the creator was thinking at the time. She asked if we have the mental capability and prowess to be able to dig that deep simply by reading or looking at a piece of artwork. I believe the answer is no. We are no mind readers and we certainly do not have the connections or the time traveling abilities to ask the great artists and poets exactly what they meant by each stroke or word. We are completely kidding ourselves to think that with enough intelligence or “deepness” that we can dig deep enough and know, simply know. As Kaylie said, I think this is one of art’s many appeals, that we cannot fully understand it; the fact that we can stand in front of a painting for hours on end and still not comprehend the innumerable meanings and inferences. Also, we enjoy the fact that one person’s interpretation could be completely different from our own and still have validity and a basis. This, however, is also where art frustrates us the most and the fact that we would like to think that we can understand it. As humans, we believe or sincerely hope that nothing in this world is beyond or grasp of knowledge and competence. So, this is when we stand in front of the painting spouting words of wisdom and lofty interpretations. We say what the artist was thinking and what they meant by each brushstroke but, I think, we all know we do not know what we are talking about, that this is just another tool and trick to make ourselves seem better and superior to the rest of humankind. But why must we look for meaning, rules, and intentions. Can we not just enjoy the painting or creation for its sheer beauty and for the reason it might actually evoke an emotion inside us?

Intentionality

The other day in class we spoke of intentionality’s role in the art world and how much weight it carries. I offered my opinion that intention only goes so far as to give the artist or creator of the art a vessel to know what they are creating and to market it as art. Someone challenged me that you cannot or should not look for approval from the outside world to know you are creating a work of art. They said that appreciation from the art world cannot be the only reference a person uses to know they have created art. It got me thinking about standards in not only the art world but every aspect of our daily lives. The only reason we believe something is beautiful art is because we see it in a museum or someone of significance tells us it is a great piece of artwork. Now that is not to say that when we see a painting, we do not think it is beautiful and wonderful on a personal level. It is to say that we only look at art as remarkable art when it is in a museum or art gallery or has garnered enough attention to be in a place like that. Masterpieces are not masterpieces until someone has said they are and they are put on display as such. We are creatures that follow and look at the actions of others and the social norms and mirror ourselves after them. Art is no different. When you intentionally create a piece of work, by definition, this means you know what you are doing. With this knowledge, you can market it or present them as such. This is as far intentionality gets you. This is where the standards, the many many standards of our modern society come in. We wait to see if our artwork or the artwork of others is good enough to be “great”, whatever that means. This might seem unfair or I guess you could say extremely conformist but if you really think about it, it is not. If there were no standards, would anyone know if anything was good or bad? Also, what would our world look like if we based our worth and merit in the art world on solely intention? How inclusive is intentionality?