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?