I resist to define art

·          Art is self expression. Art is the expression on people,places and things and should be left to everyone their own definition. The arts communicate on different levels and are open to a number of interpretations. If a person remembers a particular work of art,  and returns to it frequently within their mind, than that same work of art may communicate varied ways of its meaning, endlessly.   What makes art is everything related to the work itself. Any attempt to define this would almost certainly either exclude a significant amount of art or include everything that has, does, will, or could exist. There are so many different types of art. So many different levels. Different people view different things as art so the definition varies from person to person. I think its one of the most complex words within the english language due to the fact that there are endless interpretations of this one word and concept. Defining art would be a task that no one could be able to do due to the fact that they will never be able to set a specific set of conditions that will include every art form within the world, from the Mona Lisa to a tattoo on my best friends arm, art is  something that is in the eye of the beholding ( not to sound cliche or anything). Overall I have decided that I will not define art in any way. 

I resist to define art because

·          Art is self expression. Art is the expression on people,places and things and should be left to everyone their own definition. The arts communicate on different levels and are open to a number of interpretations. If a person remembers a particular work of art,  and returns to it frequently within their mind, than that same work of art may communicate varied ways of its meaning, endlessly.   What makes art is everything related to the work itself. Any attempt to define this would almost certainly either exclude a significant amount of art or include everything that has, does, will, or could exist. There are so many different types of art. So many different levels. Different people view different things as art so the definition varies from person to person. I think its one of the most complex words within the english language due to the fact that there are endless interpretations of this one word and concept. Defining art would be a task that no one could be able to do due to the fact that they will never be able to set a specific set of conditions that will include every art form within the world, from the Mona Lisa to a tattoo on my best friends arm, art is  something that is in the eye of the beholding ( not to sound cliche or anything). Overall I have decided that I will not define art in any way. 

·        

·       

Throughout this semester...

Over this past semester we have sat within the confines of 209 and listened to many philosophers theories of how to define art. I have sat in on most of this discussions and I have yet to see a theorist who has been able to concretely define art in its entirety. As I sat down and read through th different attempts at defining art, I realized that even when placed together these theories could not adequately define art. After researching the theories that I thought had the most potential I came up with the realization that art truly can never and will never be defined, due to the fact that it is the individual who decides what art truly is and what art is not. There can never be a universal set of conditions of what art is nor will there ever be an exact definition, it is much to open for interpretation. Therefore as you will read in my next blog entry, I resist to define art.

Throughout this semester...

Over this past semester we have sat within the confines of 209 and listened to many philosophers theories of how to define art. I have sat in on most of this discussions and I have yet to see a theorist who has been able to concretely define art in its entirety. As I sat down and read through th different attempts at defining art, I realized that even when placed together these theories could not adequately define art. After researching the theories that I thought had the most potential I came up with the realization that art truly can never and will never be defined, due to the fact that it is the individual who decides what art truly is and what art is not. There can never be a universal set of conditions of what art is nor will there ever be an exact definition, it is much to open for interpretation. Therefore as you will read in my next blog entry, I resist to define art.

How the essential topics of creativity, knowledge and imagination relate.

I believe that the relationship between imagination and knowledge begins with instinct and ends with wisdom. My understanding on how these essential topics relate is that it all begins with an instinct one's natural way of going about things. This instinct leads to intuition which is very similar to one's instinctual responses to things, the intuition is an instinctual feeling about something whether it be an event or a certain situation. Intuition leads to feeling certain emotions, such as fear or anxiety. Emotion derives from creativity and understanding, in order for one to recognize what one feels one must first understand the emotion, and from there one can use creativity to channel that emotion into more useful outlets of expression such as art. Creativity derives from imagination and understanding comes from knowledge. In order for one to be creative one must have imagination, imagination enables a person to think outside the normal and look into different form of expression as well as different ways to gain knowledge. In order for one to truly understand something one must have previous knowledge of that certain topic. All these elements combined create the element of wisdom, wisdom is reached when one is able to combine the elements of imagination and knowledge flawlessly in everyday life.  

Art as a process and art as an imaginary object

He I believe that the artistic process that an artist undergoes is one that helps them discover the emotion they are feeling at that moment in time. I do believe that in order for one to truly understand what they are feeling they must go through some sort of process that will enlighten them. For example if one is feels upset, one will usually cry or lash out at someone in order to release that emotion and through that process of release they will realize that they are truly sad.  I also agree with the fact that the physical manifestation that the artist creates will not be identical to what they have actually envisioned, although I believe this to be true, I do not believe that a piece of art should be seen as an imaginary object. I think that it should be viewed as a physical interpretation of an artist’s emotional state at that moment in time.  When thinking of this theory I was reminded of a study I was reading on art therapy and schizophrenic patients. Patients with Schizophrenia were told to use art as a form of release as well as a way for them to show their therapists what they were truly seeing within their minds. The art work they created was truly shocking, the way they perceived regular objects within our world was staggering. This is a reason why I believe that art work should be seen as a physical interpretation of the emotional state of that artist in that moment and time. 


Here is a work of art done by artist Louis Wain who was a popular postcard and children's book illustrator. He was known for his drawings of cats within various children;'s books and postcards. Wain developed schizophrenia later in life and was never able to recover from the mental illness, this drawing was made after his schizophrenia was diagnosed and he began to experience the side affects of the disease. 

Collingwood's thoery on what art is

Collingwood’s theory of art is based around two central claims; he states that art is merely an imaginary object and that it is only exists within the mind of the artist who has created it. Also that the work of art the artist has created is truly an expression of the artists inner emotions.  Collingwood believes that art objects are imaginary because they only exist within the mind of the artist; there can not be an identical replication of what the artist is truly envisioning. There can only be a physical manifestation that the artist utilizes in order for others to be able to experience the work of art. Unlike other theorist Collingwood states his belief that art is made to in order for an artist to reach self-acknowledgement. He also believes that as human beings we often do not know the emotion that we are feeling at the moment it arises; we go through a process in which we are able to recognize the emotion. Artist’s, in his mind work in a similar manner, in order for them to realize the emotion that they are experiencing they go through an artistic process in which they create a work of art.  He makes it a point to state that this process is merely for the artist alone, and that the artist aims to create an individual thing. He also mentions that physical entities that are viewed as works of art are not “art proper” 

Performance art and its uniqueness

Piper believes that performance art is unique due to the fact that it gives the audience the immediate satisfaction of the art itself, and therefore giving it a power that other art forms do not possess. Performance art is very interactive and is able to change and grow after every performance. Performers as well as the art they are performing become an art form all together. She believes that art has a vast power over other art forms due to the fact that it is able to interact with its audience, and is able to touch people on a deeper level due to this interaction and potentially change their views on various topics and subjects the performance is dealing with. I agree with piper in the sense that performance art can have a greater impact on an audience then a painting could due to the fact that a performance is meant to touch people on a deeper level due to the fact that it is interacting directly with everyone who chooses to go see that performance. Also it has a greater impact because it is able to grow and change with each new performance, therefore its uniqueness varies, which enables people to relate with the art more frequently and on a deeper level.

What is a fetish?

Art Done By Robert Bishop

A fetish is defined in the dictionary as "An inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit." Many people within the world have certain types of fetishes, usually these fetishes are of a sexual nature, such as a foot fetish. Foot fetishes are the most common known in the world, Freud often viewed foot binding as a sort of foot fetish. There is no known psychological cause of fetishes, although many psychologist have done studies on why people become so obsessed with these objects and/ or body parts. Fetishes themselves have become somewhat of a new art form, "Fetish art" is a well know art form that displays people in fetishistic situations such as bondage and what not. Some of the most well know fetish artists are John Coutss, also know as John Willie and Robert Bishop. The idea of placing a specific mystical nature to an object is what Piper believes as placing fetishistic characteristics to art forms.  

Art done by John Coutts aka John Willie

the institutional theory and why it fails to define what art is

 Dickie’s trys to define art using his institutional theory, which has been greatly influenced by Danto. His theory is based around the idea that the art world in general is a social institution, much like an educational institution or something of that nature. He states that in order for something to be considered a work of art it must be viewed as one with the institution of art. He furthers his views by explaining that in order for something to become a work of art it will be judged on the matter of its “artifactuality” and its “conferred status of candidate for appreciation.” What this claim means is that the piece of art work must be intended to be art as well as it must be recognized as art within the social institution of art by one or more people within the institution. In my opinion Dickie fails at his attempt to give a definition on what art truly is due to his theory on who is within the art world and who is not. He view is based around the claim that in order for something to be considered an art work it must be viewed and treated like one within the institution of art, an institution that is loosely defined within his statements. Within his work he never really gives a set list of criteria for who is or isn’t within this art world. He just states that basically anyone who comes in contact with a work of art can recognize it an say its truly art and become part of this institution. In my opinion if he Dickie’s theory has to many loose ends and no real structure, and in order to define something I believe that it should at least have some foundation to fall back on (not that I am claiming art can truly be defined).

Who becomes a member of the Art world?

In order for one to state a piece of work as “art” one must be a part of the art world itself. According to Dickie the people within the art world are those who keep the art world in tack, such as painters, writers, museum directors, ect. Those who are directly involved with the displaying, teaching or displaying of the work of art. But he also claims that anyone who sees themselves as a member of the art world therefore becomes a member. He explains this more formally by presenting the idea of a core and a minimum core. The essential core consists of the artists who make the art, the people who display the art, and all those who go and appreciate the art. The minimum core consists of those such as art historians, philosophers, and critics. Overall Dickie believes that those who are entitled to be in the art world are those who fall within the essential core and the minimum core. 

The "is of artistic identification"

 Danto’s views were revolved around  the question on how to distinguish to objects that are identical, one being the piece of art and the other just an ordinary object, or as he says “ perceptually indistinguishable counterparts.” He views on art consist of two parts. One being art theories such as the “is” of artistic identification, the other being what he calls the “Artworld.” The “Artworld” consists of knowing the history of art as well as knowing artistic theories. He states that in order to see an art as a true piece of artwork one must have a deep understanding of the history of that art piece. The “is” of artistic Identification according to Danto is a method which one can use to tell the difference between a real object and a piece of artwork. For example; when one says “A is B” the “A”, has a certain property that object B does not possess, therefore making “A” an artwork. Danto uses the example of Warhol’s Brillo Box, it looks identical to a generic brillo box, (A is B) but the what makes Warhol’s a work of art is the fact that is was made with greater care and refined and not mass produced therefore it possesses a property that a generic brillo box does not. (A possess a property which B does not making A the work of art.) 

Does a deep knowledge of art history enable you to critique art more adequately?

I do not believe that in order to have a deep understanding of art you have to know the history of it. I think if you know to much about the history of something then you set up expectations, ones that if not met could make your emotional response to the art piece less meaningful than if you would have see it without the prior knowledge. For example when a trained dancer of 12 years goes to see a performance at the Boston Opera House. Let say the performance is the Nutcracker,one of the biggest shows of the whole year. This specific dancer has already, through training and the knowledge they have of dance, set up expectations about what the performance overall should be like. They have set standards that the performance must reach in order to be considered a "good" work of performance art.This prior knowledge inhibits the viewer form experiencing what the performance truly has to offer the audience, therefore they may have somewhat of a skewed view on what it truly is. Although this is true,  I do believe that in order to critique something then you should have some prior knowledge on the subject. 

"When is art?" a good or bad way to critique a work of art?

In my opinion Goodman’s “when is art” instead of “what is art" is a good way to view pieces of art due to the fact that he provides a set of standards in which one can see when an object becomes a piece of art. I completely agree that a work of art is seen as such when it is displayed in a certain way, for example one would not see a painting as a work of art if it were being used as a floor mat, it would most likely be seen as a work of art when it is displayed in a more formal setting such as a museum. Also I think in some sense it is true that objects are made into works of art due to the fact that we treat them in a certain way. For example if the 
Mona Lisa was not displayed in a very popular,museum surrounded by a countless number of security guards, it probably would not be seen as such a valuable art piece. I think the question when does an object become a work of art is a more easily answered question the defining what art truly is. Defining are sets a concrete definition and set of standards that a work must follow in order to be considered a work of art, unlike when one looks as when something is seen as a work of art. (it allows more room for interpretation)

"When is art?" rather than "what is art?"

Nelson Goodman states that the question within the philosophy of art is not “what is art”, but “when does an object become a work of art”. His view is based on formalism, a view that basically states that everything necessary within a work of art is contained within it. Meaning that the back round of the painting, the life of the artist, as well as the reasons for which the work of art was created is not considered to be significant when judging the quality of a piece of artwork. According to Goodman in order for an object to be seen as a work of art it must be able to function as a symbol in some contexts but not in others.  For example a piece painting is seen as a work of art when it is hanging in a museum but when it is used to replace a broken window then it is not seen as a piece of art. Therefore according to Goodman an object becomes a work of art when it has five specific characteristics. (works of art must function symbolically, features of the symbol are significant, exemplification, a symbol must perform a variety of different functions.) Goodman states that works of art are made into works of art because we approach them in a unique way that makes them more significant then other objects. 

Why Hume's views on art are biased

Hume's  idea although well thought out, seemed to be quite biased in the sense that it excluded many people who would be able to give a very well thought out criticism on what a good work of art is and what is not. The “distractions” he says that inhibit a persons ability to be a qualified judge are things that most people in this world deal with on a daily basis. For example the "distraction" of being young and in love. One's age has no way of interfering with how one perceives a piece of art as well as how one relates to a work of art. As well as being in love, the feelings you have towards another person can no way inhibit your ability to look at a work of art an appreciate it, or reject it completely. No one is able to succeed in being free of all distractions, there will always be something that will be in the back of their minds that may or may not affect their personal views on things. Therefore in some sense no one is really qualified to judge art based on his theory.  

Why I agree with Weitz views on defining art, or not defining it.

Weitz theory that art is indefinable is something that I strongly agree with. I believe that constant change of the art world makes it impossible to set any standards in which art can be defined by.  If one does set standards based on traditional views, it is very likely that many art forms would be excluded for example the art form of tattooing, as well as the culinary arts. Weitz theory often lead one to believe that potentially there can never truly be a solid definition of art. In my opinion, I think that their are a set of standards that one must follow in order to critique what art is. But I believe those set of standards are all individual. There are no one set of standards that is universally agreed upon, and that is used to critique art. Truly all there is, is one's own perception of the piece of work as well as one's emotional response and connection. Overall I think that Weitz is a great starting of point that on can look at if one is against writing a definition of art.  

Hume views on how to define art

Hume within his work “Art as Object of Taste” is not trying to create a definition, but is trying to see if one can find a set of objective standards in which one can use in order to criticize how good a work of art truly is.  He presents an antinomy, an antinomy is defined as a pair of ideas, each with a claim on truth but seemingly mutually irreconcilable. He states that the first idea of this antinomy is that people claim that they can make critical judgments about the quality of a work of art, while the other idea within this antinomy is that it is merely taste that can decide whether a work of art affects one’s “sentiments”.  He states that there can be no objective standards when judging a work of art, he also says that there are certain features within works of art that please all human beings. Since there are certain features that make a work of art pleasurable for all human beings therefore there will be a sort of universal agreement that a work of art would be more beautiful than another. Hume makes it known although there is universal agreement on some works of art, there is bound to be disagreement on how aesthetically pleasing a work of art can be. He accounts for these people who disagree as people who have a sort of psychological impairment that inhibits them from being able to adequately place judgments on a work of art. For example he says that one must ignore those who are influenced by their culture, being self absorbed, being in a state of intoxication, being sick, or even being young and in love.  He believes these things are “distractions” that do not allow people to create good judgments on about art. In order for someone to be able to pass a good judgment on art they must be clear of all distractions. 

Why "openess" makes art impossible to define

Weitz  believed that art can not truly be defined. He states that overtime art keeps changing and evolving, creating new genres that overpass the prior views of what art is. He believes that art should be classified on the basis of ones understanding of the piece of work and its resemblance to the tradition views of what art is. Therefore creating the view that art can not truly be defined, due to the fact that it is constantly evolving. Weitz says that’s art’s “openness” makes a definition impossible because art is constantly changing and evolving. As he says within his work “Art as Indefinable”, “What I am arguing, then, is that the very expansive, adventurous character of art, its ever present changes and novel creations, makes it logically impossible to ensure any set of defining properties.” What he means by this is that art constantly is creating new categories and breaking the traditional ideas of what art actually should be therefore making it impossible to create an exact set of rules in which art can be compared to and defined by.

Can Birds truly make art?

Taking in account Dewey’s definition of what art is, I do not believe that birds could truly create art. Dewey emphasizes that an artist creates a work of art in order to elicit immediate satisfaction from their audience. Birds on the other hand create their nest in order to survive in the wild, although their nests are beautiful they do not create them to get a response out of other birds or us. They create their nest as something that is instinctual. Therefore I do not believe that they intentionally are creating a work of art, therefore I do not believe they are truly capable of this creative process.  Dewey’s views to me shows great potential in their ability to define what art truly is, his emphasis on the creative process is one that should be taken into account when creating an overall definition of what art can an can not be. I do believe that the process in which an artist undergoes to create a work of art is important, and it gives that specific work its quality and value. 

Dewey's pragmatic views and artistic process

When first brought into the lime light, Dewey’s views on art were widely criticized by other philosophers of his time stating that his theories were not truly pragmatic. PRAGMATIC, after a very awkward 20 minutes sitting in silence we learned that when someone is pragmatic they believe in approaching things in a practical way they also believe that the truth must be tested. Dewey’s view on art is one that has great potential in my mind. His emphasis on the process in which art is created is something that I think should be noticed. I think the process in which the work of art is created gives the specific work its quality and value. An artist who spent their entire life working on a piece in my opinion will evoke more emotion within an audience then a student who sketches a flower on their notebook. But it could be argued by some that both pieces could provoke strong emotions from an audience. This makes one wonder if Dewey’s emphasis on the process takes away from the actual quality of the piece of art.

Significant form and aeshtetic experiences in Bells view

Bell to me seems to be one that has a strong preference towards abstract art, his theory on aesthetic experiences and significant form strongly support this assumption. He explains that an aesthetic experience is caused by ones response to the forms and relations of forms within a piece of art. Significant form on the other hand is what evokes the emotional response to the forms and relations of forms. So therefore one can view significant form as what evokes a certain response and aesthetic experience as the response itself. Bell’s theory in my opinion is an attempt to be highly selective of what art is truly “good” art and what is seen to be “bad” art, in some way I think it strongly has to do with his preferences. His whole view is based around the fact that the aesthetic value of a painting has nothing to do with its actual success as a piece of art to represent something else, like a landscape or what not. But after reading this chapter I began to realize that his views are very narrow, leaving really little room to truly say with great certainty what is or is not good art, bad art, or art in general for that matter.

Bell's views

When first reading Clive Bells view on what art truly is, I was completely and utterly confused. Not to sound cliché but it was the truth. I could not grasp the concept of that he was trying to portray. But through further reading I was able to understand his concepts and make critics on why I believed his theory could not define art. In my opinion when an artist has a preference, (in this case a strong preference) towards a certain genre of art they tend to be more likely to form their theories in relation to those preferences, therefore creating a theory that will defend this art form and leaving out many others. In my opinion Bell’s theory has a very biased nature, I do not truly know if this is done on purpose or maybe out of pure instinct to defend a genre of art he loves, but in any case his theories have only shown me a way to defend abstract art, not a way to define art as a whole.

Art throughout periods of time, Freud

Through further class discussions of Freud's views, I began to separate the previous ideas I had about Freud and began to really look behind his strange views, (well, strange in my opinion). The concept of time and phantasies began to take on a new light. The idea that phantasies are threaded through three periods of time started to make a lot more sense. He explains this threading throughout time as; one has an impression that is brought about by an event that creates an inner desire. This causes us to remember a period in our life (usually in infancy) in which this desire was fulfilled. This creates a situation in the future that represents when the dream may be fulfilled-this is seen as day dreams or phantasies. Although I am not one to agree with many of Freud's views, the threading through time seems to have good underlying qualities. For example the idea that the idea of a desire being present at all three periods in time seems very probable. This ideal could be applied to other example outside the realm of art, and in some cases if not all it would seem very likely. I may not be a fan of Freud's views, but I do believe he is brilliant within his own element.

Freud and "Phantasies"

Being a psychology major, one learns about Freud and his views towards the human mind as well as his views on why people choose to act the way they do. Although Freud is said to be controversial due to his unusual views, and his choice of extracurricular activities (his usage of opium), his ways of viewing the world have stood the test of time. While reading Freud's take on what art truly is, he said something that caught my eye. " We can begin by saying that happy people never make phantasies, only the unsatisfied ones." He goes on to say the unsatisfied wishes are what drive people to create these "phantasies". So therefore if someone phantasies does that mean one is not satisfied in their life? Also do these unfulfilled wishes drive us to create art? Truthfully I do not believe that if one phantasies they are unsatisfied, I believe that they become things we wish to have, things that motivate us to work towards completing them. I do believe there is some truth in the sense that our inner desires may fuel us to create art. Without inner desire to express a certain emotion or feeling, there would be no art, therefore who's to say an inner desire can't motivate someone to create a piece of art.

Tolstoy and Beauty

"All the aesthetic definitions of beauty come down to two fundemental views: one, that beauty is something existing in itself, a manifestation of the absolutley perfect-idea, spirit, will, God; the other, that beauty is a certain pleasure we experience, which does not have personal advantage as its aim. " This quote is said by Tolstoy at the being of his section where he begins to try to define art. Throughout my reading I found myself returning to this particular quote and wondering if many people view beauty within art in one of those two ways. Then I began to wonder if It is possible to define beauty within art in one of those two ways. I came to the conclusion that it is possible to view beauty in art as mystical or as something one experiences and gets some sort of pleasure from it. For example one may see a work of art and say it is beautiful but not recieve pleasure from viewing that particular piece, while someone else may look at the same work of art and experience pleasure from it but not view it in a mystical way. I think it really all comes down to how each individual views art, and how they interpret it.

Tolstoy's views

Our disscusions in class made me understand Tolstoy's views in greater depth. In his opinion if the artist did not convey the emotion in which the painting was originally made to convey then it was a failure in the art community. In my opinion this view holds the artist in full responcibilty rather than distibuting the failure/ success of the art equally on the artist as well as the audience. No two people can experience the same emotions from a painting, a persons happiness may be greater than another person's all though they are both feeling happiness. Therefore as someone mentioned in class, a spectrum of emotion would be more appropriate than just one general emotion. Tolstoy in my eyes was trying to dictate what art should or should not be art by being highly detailed in his views of what art is. His views show that he is trying to place boundaries on many modern art forms. Such as body art, tatooing an such art forms that werent widely recognized in his time.As you may tell I have a very strong opinion on what I believe is art, and it seems as if Tolstoy is excluding many art forms that have impacted many people although each person may have viewed the art piece differently. Art in my opinion is an artists attempt to show us the inner workings of their mind as well as their emotions, no one painting can convey their exact emotion due to the fact that at the time they may have felt many emotions, some that no matter how many people view the piece of art all the emotions will never be truly portrayed. Art to me is emotions, its an artists soul on canvas. How can an artist fail at portraying what they feel?

Plato and his views.

Plato’s claim that art is an “imitation of an imitation” in my opinion, its significance is truly one to be interpreted by all those who have the chance of reading it. Plato believed that art was an imitation of an imitation of an original form. Many people who have the views of mathematicians such as Plato believe that all art is just different forms, therefore they believe that art is somewhat pointless and is just imitations of another imitation. Plato's views in my opinion take away from the true meaning of a piece of art by making its significance somewhat pointless and its meaning worthless. I am not fond of his views but I do understand why his opinions and views may be viewed as meaningful, he does make a good point or two. Overall, Plato's views are that of a true skeptic, history has taught many that the way people view art and its significance has changed overtime, making many more openminded towards the world of art. I wrote on my Q&A a question that truly has been haunting me since I read Plato's views.

Is art truly imitation or is it truly the artist’s interpretation?

How can one view art philosophically?

Philosophy can be defined in many ways, in my opinion it all depends on who you ask and what their views are. It is said that philosophy is a way to think about a topic open mindedly and critically, without subjecting yourself to bias. I believe that in this century many of the bias that we have acquired are due to what we have be taught. So therefore in order to view art philosophically we have to push aside those views and become more open minded. I know this may be hard for many of you out there but trust me it can be done. Anyways, overall in my opinion viewing art philosophically is a way for one to take all views and opinions on a certain work of art and analyze them, and then truly understand the purpose and meaning of the work of art that was produced. So I pose this question, Without a philosophical view on art how would the art world be interpreted by those who are truly ignorant to its purpose?