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?

Communicating Emotion: A Response to Denise's Question

In her blog Denise asked: In a society where beings can communicate emotions directly, such as one where all of the members are empathic, would art exist?

This is an incredibly interesting question. Denise brought up the example of the movie Avatar where the aliens or creatures in that movie simply attached themselves to the other objects or creatures to understand what they are feeling and what they are thinking. If we were able to do this, if we were able to express emotion directly and without words or expressions or symbolic objects, would we still create and want art? My answer is yes, art would still exist but not in the way it does now. Art, as Denise suggested in her post and what Tolstoy believed great art is, is something that expresses or conveys an emotion to the onlooker or receiver of the art. It conjures up this emotion within the reader, the looker, the receiver and makes them feel something that they once have felt. The artist calls this emotion back up from when they once felt it and put it onto paper or out into the world. We want and need art because we have trouble being empathetic, we have trouble expressing ourselves. We love the fact that we can express ourselves through an art form and have someone see it and feel the emotions we felt. We also love seeing the art and feeling understood. If, however, we did not need this middle man that is art, art would become a more recreational and beauty-based type of thing. By beauty-based, I mean that art’s value would come more from beauty than meaning and emotion like it is now because we do not need this emotional and feeling filled art. If we were able to express ourselves directly to each other, art would become a sport of sorts. It would become a contest to see who could make better or “more beautiful” art. It would become exactly what Tolstoy believed art was NOT, not based solely on beauty and skill but emotion and meaning. We as a society would also lose interest in these emotional things. Movies, books, paintings, etc. would all lose their meaning and importance to us as emotional and expressive pieces of work that we can relate to in our sometimes emotionally stunted lives. Lives in which we feel we either do not express ourselves too little or are understood rarely and in which art makes us feel like someone else knows. We, however, do not live in a world where we can express ourselves directly, so art will not become a sort of side project for people at all. But if we did, would Tolstoy and other philosophers have a place in this world, or would they too become somewhat unnecessary and recreational?