Aurora's Art & Philosophy Blog

response to lisa on piper

2010-05-10T19:58:00.000-07:00

lisa asked: Do you think that the human form it in itself a form of art? Why or why not?

nahhhhhhhhhhh and this goes back to our class' anticipatory discussion on what art is- we spent a lot of time discussing whether nature, untouched by man, is art. i consider the human form to be an element of nature. sure, we do a whole lot to separate ourselves from nature, but we are just animals with nifty abilities. take away the nifty abilities, just animals. just nature.
the question changes when we consider things like muscle building and dancing. these are products of man, because both require information that is not inherent within nature. therefore, man's product is up for candidacy (as dickie would say) for artness. however, the form of a human, in the most simple consideration, is not art. it's more of an empty canvas.

questionionionionion: what are examples of ways we alter human form to set ourselves apart from nature, whether it be with the intention of creating art or not?

piper on performing art

2010-05-03T19:50:00.000-07:00

here's my big question.
if performing art is an example of unique art, who exactly is the creator?
1. the original script/whatever writer?
2. the director of the current performance?
3. the performers themselves?

piper identifies performing art as unique because the creation is happening right before our eyes. however, this creation isn't necessarily possible without prior creation which was done in private.

so is it only unique when we're appreciating what's in front of us, not the work that was done prior to the performance?

example.
i love shakespeare's hamlet. i read it in high school. good times. so i go see hamlet, performed by actors, directed by some individual. as i watch the show happen before my eyes, i am appreciating many elements of the performance. first, i'm appreciating shakespeare's writing. second, i'm appreciating the way the director interpreted shakespeare's writing for this performance. lastly, i'm appreciating the abilities of the individual actors to play their roles on stage.

so, i ask agaaaain, whose work am i appreciating?
WHO IS THE ARTIST IN THIS UNIQUE FORM OF ART/!?!?!??@?#@KLJEFLK

response to tyler: fresh palette

2010-04-30T19:42:00.000-07:00

Is it possible to approach a piece of art with a fresh palette while simultaneously in possession of knowledge in the field. Can we look past what we know and see novelty and newness again, and be inspired and moved by the freshness, even if it is amateur freshness?

aurora votes YES! totally.
1. by reconsidering the value, apart from what we know factually
2. copious amounts of drugs
3. by combining a work of art with other forms

i think it's important to continue to reconsider the value of older art in a changing society. otherwise, old art becomes obscure when it could be looked at as valuable in a way the creator perhaps did not intend it.

is art still value if we interpret it in a way that the creator didn't necessarily intend?

dickster's artworld

2010-04-28T19:30:00.000-07:00

so it's art if the artworld agrees, and anyone can be a part of the artworld. hmm. i don't think dickie's really setting out to define art with that sort of claim- i think it's more about the importance of trying to understand the different elements of art: dickie says at the end of his article:
"The definition I have given contains a reference to the artworld. Consequently, some may have the uncomfortable feeling that my definition is viciously circular. ... I have, however, devoted a considerable amount of space in this chapter to describing and analyzing the historical, organizational, and functional intricacies of the artworld" (226).
while other philosophers have pointed out that people in a society need the existence of art. dickie, on the other hand, points out that art needs a society of people in order to exist. i'm cool with this. art needs people to create it, and then in order for the communication process to take place, more people need to be exposed to it, some of whom will participate in the interpretation and appreciation of it.

question:
do people need art?
does art need people?

"an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art."

2010-04-25T19:21:00.000-07:00

danto, danto, danto.

wartenberg's intro to this chapter includes this quote:
"Without a prior understanding of art history and theory--in short, of the artworld--a viewer could not see an object as a work of art." (206)
hmm. i beg to differ. someone could be completely ignorant of any information about art, but if they saw something incredible in front of them, they might still be able to appreciate it as a work of art. i don't like how danto identifies the artworld in this way- something that constitutes this institution of information about art without which nothing can be dubbed ART.
what would someone like tolstoy say about this? what hope does man have to ever communicate any kind of emotion to the rest of the world if others lose grasp on the "artworld"?
i have hope that, even without having a factual base in artistic knowledge, anyone can participate in valuing art if they have an open mind and heart.

QUESTION?!!!!?!?!?!?!
what if information about art history is misconstrued- can someone still take part in the artworld and try to identify works as art?

response to misty: my fav kid's book

2010-04-25T19:13:00.000-07:00

i'm going to have to say Snow Day, only because of the way my dad would get excited about reading it to us whenever it would snow. it was more about imagining myself in the snowy town the book described. it's so true- that book invited me to participate in something much larger than what was on the pages.
i agree with what you're saying about the difference between child and adult creativity. child creativity is based in the process of acquiring brand new information, while adult creativity involves reflecting on the understanding of that information. for example, where a child would focus on drawing a house for the purpose of showing that they understand what a house looks like, an adult might consider aspects of the house that represent some sort of larger idea.
i'm so with you on tv&fb not offering the "same intellectual profit that reading does" (misty's words). this is why i want to be a high school english teacher- to present reading to teens in a way that shows them its value as opposed to the instantly gratifying gadget du jour.

do you think our society is slowly eliminating the need for art through the use of technology?

it's not WHAT is art, it's WHEN is art... but by when, i really mean what...

2010-04-18T19:37:00.000-07:00

opinion: goodman proposed that we consider when is art, not what is art. and when he describes what he means by "when is art," he explains the process by which we associate elements of art (emotion and stuuuuff) with elements of other things, thus making objects art when they are in the act of symbolizing.
so the way i see it, he's proposing that we stop asking "what is art?" and start asking "when does an object become art?" which he defines as "what makes art?"

a message to us from goodman: stop asking what is art and start asking what makes art!
...
i see no difference.
i think that he's contributing more to an argument against formalism than to a development in the definition of art.

question: how is goodman contributing to the definition of art?

IS THERE NO GOOD IN THIS WORLD

2010-04-11T19:32:00.000-07:00

so here's a sneakpeak at 4/5 of my schedule this semester:
Art&Philosophy: currently discussing the lack of ethics in the world
Peoples of the World: currently discussing the lack of ethics in the world
Reading in the Content Area: currently discussing the problems with education
Teaching Adolescents with Special Needs: currently discussing the lack of ethics the education system has when dealing with the disabled

class after class, week after week, EDUCATION IS MAKING ME DEPRESSED.
as a prospective educator, i'm trying to learn how to teach in a way that will lead our youth toward more ethical lifestyles through the themes and messages of literature. how does art and philosophy collide in a way that can change the future?

a limerick.
art class has made me depressed
that ethics are tainted at best.
i find it pathetic
that art and aesthetics
have gotten me flustered and stressed.

reponse to lisa: ethics and aesthetics

2010-04-11T18:44:00.000-07:00

lisa's question:
"Has society always been so largely dependent on aesthetics as a basis for judgments? If not, what do you believe has changed throughout the centuries that caused us to become so judgmental?

i'm going to argue that yes, society has always been largely dependent on aesthetics as a basis for judgments. however, i don't think that makes society more or less judgmental. it shows that society looks for grounds to make judgments and finds aesthetics to be a reliable scale. and it makes sense- especially since ethics has so much to do with social acceptability. hey! i want to make a judgment. since i have little knowledge on the subject, i'll find out what other people have to say about it. oh, others find it pleasing. therefore, it is safe for me to say that it is pleasing to me as well. easy, isn't it? of course.
so if making ethical decisions based on aesthetics is easy and superficial, how the heck are we supposed to make honest, genuine ethical decisions?!!!?!!??!
WELL. here's my stab.
we really can't make judgments until our ethical decisions are free from the influence of others. is this possible? do we form standards for ourselves based on the standards expected of us from others? would any of us care about anything without social standards to determine our actions?! or are we merely alive to meet the expectations we enforce upon each other???!?!?!?

missing week

2010-04-05T09:36:00.000-07:00

to dkj, as he grades this a month from now:

i put off blogging all week, then when i finally had time, i couldn't bring myself to sit alone and blog.

today in class you mentioned that ethics do not exist without the interaction with others.

i did our class a favor by not blogging because i couldn't have possibly written anything worth reading.

therefore, by helping others, i did the ethical thing.

2010-03-28T20:28:00.000-07:00

those last two blogs were for the week of 3/22... for all you keeping score... hope sunday night isn't too late...

response to dkj: on the importance of defining art

2010-03-28T20:20:00.000-07:00

so dkj highlighted a passage from kenneth lansing, criticizing morris weitz.

i think it's important to consider the consequences of lacking a definition for a field of study. however, i don't agree with the examples lansing brings up. just because there's no definition applied across the board doesn't mean new students will be confused and have no reason to make art. honestly, that's silly. but there could be consequences in defending art if we can't specify why it's necessary for humanity. this is why i agree with weitz, but would stick with a different definition.

what are other consequences of not having a set definition for art?

weitz and definability

2010-03-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

after rereading what weitz has to say about the definition of art, i'm changing my view.

before, i thought he meant that art is simply not something to be defined. i was in agreement, maybe only because i'm sick of all these art definitions.

then, i thought about how art changes over time, and, according to weitz, this is why we can't define it.

so i was thinking- the part where he describes art as "X" and blah blah algeblah- is really similar to the way we've been putting definitions into mathematical equations in class. so what if we stuck a variable into the equation that accounts for how the definition applies to a specific time period?

sounds good to me.

question!!!

are there any definitions we've discussed in class that would apply to one time period but not another?

just a friendly reminder

2010-03-13T12:44:00.000-08:00

IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO RESPOND TO A BLOG ENTRY, PLEASE POST A COMMENT ON THAT ENTRY TO NOTIFY THAT PERSON THAT YOU PLAN TO RESPOND.

I'VE BEEN POSTING EACH WEEK THINKING THAT NO ONE IS READING, BECAUSE I HAVE NO COMMENTS. AFTER BROWSING OTHER BLOGS, I HAVE FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE.

I WANT TO READ YOUR RESPONSES! TELL ME THAT YOU'RE RESPONDING!

where the wild things are

2010-03-13T12:23:00.000-08:00

i just watched "where the wild things are" with my dad and my 15-year-old twin siblings.
the teens were hung up questions like "is he dreaming or is this really happening?" and "why is he wearing that costume?" and "why doesn't he just leave?"
at the end of the movie, they were left puzzled and a little weirded out, while i was left with a pile of tear-soaked tissues and the painful nostalgia of growing up.

questions.
- at what point does one learn to ignore those initial questions and embrace the deeper meaning?
- do people understand a work of art because of (1) their personal experience that allows them to identify with it or because of (2) their ability to interpret the meaning of works of art?
- how would i explain "where the wild things are" to my teenage sibs?

response to andrew on remixing: when does an old song become a new song?

2010-03-13T12:04:00.000-08:00

check out andrew's post
^definitely with you.
however!
i think it's important to consider that one aspect of art is taking things out of context to be appreciated/thought of in a different light. when an artist remixes another song, this is essentially what they're doing. it can go in one of two directions:

1. parts of songs are combined or altered with different background sounds or different melodies playing over them. it makes the new product more recognizable and puts a spin on the old product, making the overall result more pleasurable to the listener.
2. a new song, with its own intended meaning, uses an existing song to compliment its meaning. it could also be presenting the old song to provide an ironic twist and further highlight the meaning of the new song.

i'd say that, while scenario 1 can be interesting, it's not necessarily art. i'd argue that scenario 2 is art, as long as the artist is not relying on the meaning of the old song for the new product.

question: do we have to blog over break?
also, can a song be a new work of art if it's simply a cover of a pre-existing song?

response to DKJ: can art save the world?

2010-03-06T16:47:00.000-08:00

DKJ posted on his "phlog" the article "can art save the world"-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-moulden/can-art-help-us-save-the_b_478416.html

the article describes a woman singing amid the destruction after the earthquake in haiti. it delivered a message of hope to all it could reach. it then goes on to describe the forum "art matters," discussing the effect art has had on creators and receivers.
after having read this article, i rethought the claim that it's the artist's "innermost secret" to create art that conveys a specific emotion. this article provides a recent, relevant, and in my opinion, very genuine example of art that conveys a specific emotion without involving some type of secret mechanism to do so. furthermore, it's a type of art that should be remembered and celebrated for its effect on others.

on a separate note, i think this is an important article for our class to read because it verifies both tolstoy and bell's notions that art is necessary for humanity.

question(s): was the woman singing in haiti an artist? if not, what if her singing was recorded and released?

response to jillian about symbolism in dreams

2010-03-05T15:52:00.000-08:00

jillian asked a question about dreams after our discussion of freud the other week in class.
Q: Are yours generally good or bad? How do you interpret the meaning or symbolism in your dreams? Do you take them seriously?

I think that dreams are messages from our subconscious mind, so they should definitely be taken seriously. mine tend to be things i'm missing, ignoring, or not attending to.

a personal example: i had two dreams a couple weeks apart. both involved deer.

in the first dream, i was in a house with many other people. i noticed there was a baby deer walking through the house, looking lost. i tried to ask someone what to do about it, but no one could see it but me. i knew i had to help the deer, but there was nothing i could do. i woke up frustrated and confused.

in the second dream, i saw a deer looking at me from the woods on the side of the road. then, i saw a bear (or some kind of woodsy beast?) about to attack the deer. i started making noises so the bear would get distracted and the deer could get away. then, i found myself running from the bear, and awoke nervous and frantic.

i tried to take the themes in these dreams and apply them to myself. i realized that, at the time, i had a fear of being vulnerable. i had been trying to confront this fear, but my mind simply suppressed it. those dreams may have been that fear resurfacing. once i reflected on what had been bothering me, the dreams stopped.

CONCLUSION:
if real art can teach me something about my subconscious mind, sign me up.

QUESTION:
if i had seen paitings that depicted the same events of my dreams, could i have interpreted the symbolism the same way?

response to mary on freud and childhood

2010-02-27T17:18:00.000-08:00

mary: so true about freud and the whole woman's intention thing...

so mary posed this question: how can art originate from a childhood impression if the artist is a child or doesn't remember his/her childhood?

this is an interesting question because freud claims it's the artist's "innermost secret" to bring out this childhood impression on the viewer/listener/whateverer. but how can an artist know how to do this if they can't reflect on their own childhood?
for the child: i think this is why older folks are so interested in kid's art, because we want access to what they're going through.
for those who can't remember childhood: i don't think it matters if they remembered it, because their current state of being and thinking still derives from their early developmental experience. however, it might be more difficult for them to possess that "innermost secret" to create art, according to freud.

new question(s): would freud say that other professions require a certain "innermost secret"? what drives some people toward certain professions?

freud and child development

2010-02-26T15:22:00.000-08:00

at first i was skeptical about freud's theory that art is derived from the ability to manifest childhood impressions. but then, after today's class, (this is starting to sound like an advertisement) i had some new thoughts about it.

the claim that art is derived from childhood seems to devalue art, making it less serious. if the creation of art is merely the desire to continue or substitute childhood play, it has no place in the professional world. i don't like this. art is more important than some type of outlet like that.

however, i think that freud's theory can play a role in our overall understanding of art. i don't think art is JUST communication or JUST imitation of form- there's also a level of play involved- playing around with connections between people, images, and ideas- much like what a child does while make-believing. for example, i don't think a novel would be as enjoyable if it didn't create a world of make-believe.

question: what if art catches our interest by arousing a childhood impression or emotion, but its main purpose is to convey a hidden message or metaphor? is it still art, or does it fall into a different category? or is it just sneaky art?

QUICKBLOG!

2010-02-20T16:12:00.000-08:00

so this is going to be my sad attempt at getting credit for two blog entries- i have 5 minutes before i have to leave so this is verrry last minute. rich with spelling and grammar errors. enjoy.
ummmm THOUGHT:
is providing something beautiful for viewers "communicating a specific emotion"? is seeing something beautiful and being shocked/intrigued/pleased an emotino?
wait, different thought:
in my poetry course last semester we talked about poems where "the need for the poem to be written is evident within the poem itself"- i think this relates to tolstoy's idea of communicating a specific emotion. it rules out "frivolous" (spelling?) works. i wonder what these kind of things (shel silverstein poems, silly illustrations, etc) are categorized as. i think they're still important to society, even if they're not art.

wow. great post! haha.
i'm so sorry if you read through that.
:-)

tolstoy and porn?

2010-02-16T19:45:00.000-08:00

"...the view of art as the manifestation of beauty, and of beauty as that which pleases (without awakening lust)."

at some point in class discussion, we considered what sets art apart from pornography or obscenity. i think that this quote (which, to clarify, was not meant to define art) from tolstoy is a good distinction. once a work inspires some type of lust- sexuality, violence, greed, relief from boredom, etc., it is no longer a medium of communication, but instead is a medium of lust or gratification. for example, a film becomes porn when it awakens sexual lust. words become obscene when they encourage violence. a song isn't a work of art when it inspires various degrees of grindin' on the dance flo'.

this is an important concept in a world that seems to lean (increasingly) toward self-gratification. we are so attracted toward things that please us by satisfying our lust for excitement and stimulation. this distinction reveres beauty as something that is pleasurable without satisfying that lust. if we don't hold onto this idea of beauty, eventually our society will be bored of sunsets (just an example of something typically beautiful) because a sunset doesn't awaken some form of lust.

question: (playing devil's advocate...) but what is lust? isn't seeing something beautiful exciting, and therefore awakening some form of lust?

response to shawna's "utopian society" post

2010-02-10T14:37:00.000-08:00

i was thinking about this after monday's class too. in the republic, plato describes what he feels would be a more ideal society than the one he lived in. a utopian society is, by definition, one that is ideal for everyone. however, the pursuit of utopia (in literature, at least) often involves a movement of change. in order to change a whole society, many detailed rules probably need to be put into place in order to ensure a smooth transition. once the utopia is formed, strict rules won't be necessary since everything runs flawlessly. the result is a society which is pleasing to everyone and efficient as a whole. "dystopian" novels like 1984 and fahrenheit 451 are set in societies that aimed for utopia, but ended up in oppressive condtions or "dystopia."

where would art fit into a utopian society?
individuality would thrive in utopia. creative ideas fostered through artwork would be appreciated and encouraged by all.
plato suggests that artists should play a small role in the ideal society. i don't necessarily agree with this, unless efficiency is held above individuality. however, "efficiency > individuality" sounds more like a characteristic of dystopia.
where would art fit into a dystopian society?
since efficiency is valued above individual expression, art would not survive in a dystopian society. the novels mentioned above are both set in societies where art and other forms of expression are not only discouraged but outlawed.

question: which society needs art more? would artists/creative minds need to express themselves if everything were perfect and ideal already?

plato on art as imitation: what happens when we skip or add a step?

2010-02-08T21:14:00.000-08:00

lame, i know. sorry.
after today's discussion about plato's idea of the relationship between the universal form, the craftsman's product, and the artist's product, i've been thinking about exceptions to this relationship.

1. skipping a step
your kindergarten teacher asks you to draw a monster. you start thinking about what qualifies as monster- big, angry, green, furry, wild, etc. you're only pulling these ideas from what you've been told and what you fear about a potential monster. soon, you have a drawing of a scary monster. this is an imitation, but only of the universal form of "monsterness" (DKJ lingo). this applies to a lot of things that don't actually exist, but are things that we have ideas about.
the monster is a simple example. what about a poem about an object or idea that's based on the universal form, not one particular existing object? or a song that conveys a universal emotion?
i guess this depends on whether our understandings themselves are imitations of universal forms. but if not- aren't these examples of how we skip over that middle step and go straight from universal form to artist's product?

furthermore, can we add a step? can there be an imitation of an imitation of an imitation?

time and art

2010-02-04T18:52:00.000-08:00

i'm not sure who brought it up -possibly andrew?- but i really liked this idea: art differs from nature in that it captures one moment, or a series of moments (consider a film), in time.

some thoughts:

BEAUTY IN ART = THE ABILITY TO CAPTURE TIME?
i remember going to see an edward hopper exhibit at the MFA in boston a while back. i found it amazing that i could tell what time of day it was by looking at the light in his paintings. i included one of this paintings in this post (hopefully it shows up). there's something about that moment- the time of day, the emotion she's feeling at that time- that makes it beautiful.

impressionism is another example. the emphasis is on how an image was impressed upon a particular artist at a particular time. i think that, in this case, it's beautiful because we can relate to a time that a similar image rendered a similar impression at a particular time in our lives. for example, we may recall a time we looked at an intricate field of flowers, but were overwhelmed by splashes and blotches of different colors and textures.

do other forms of art capture time? music? dance? poetry?

response to katherine on golden ratio/jessica simpson

2010-02-04T18:12:00.000-08:00

i thought katherine's post was interesting because i've heard of the golden ratio before. her post got me thinking about symmetry/mathematical relationships in relation to our class's discussion on beauty in art.

maybe i'm just a dweeb, but back in high school there was a certain satisfaction that came from wrapping my mind around equations. i think it runs deeper than just being happy to figure something out enough to get an A in algebra- i think there's something in human nature that makes us look for mathematical relationships. we want things to make sense- to fit into a form that can be applied across the board. does the golden ratio imply beauty? i don't know- i think jessica simpson (who, according to katherine's post, fits the golden ratio) is about as pretty as any other generic made-up proactive-advertising superstar.

but consider a sunflower- perfect circles of brown seeds and then rows of triangular yellow petals on an upright green stem, leaves at right angles. there's something just great about it, aside from the bright colors or the happy thought of a field of sunflowers in a meadow. i think it's undeniable that mathematical relationships contribute considerably to our concept of beauty. i think the only reason some people (myself included) don't find golden-ratio-certified faces attractive is that the media's been shoving "beautiful people" down our throats for way too long. We look for more unconventionally pretty faces, like people with huge eyes or glossy lips. in fact, i'd go as far to say that, for some, the concept of beauty in faces has changed and diversified over time. however, there is still an element of mathematical beauty that hasn't changed, like the sunflower.

i'm not sure if that's any kind of answer for katherine's question.

but here's a thought:
it seems to be the general concensus in our class discussions that art and the collective image of what is "beautiful" has no doubt changed and evolved over time. but that's easy for us to say- what would ancient artists say about today's art? would it be symmetrical/golden-ratio-ish enough for them? and most importantly, would they think jessica simspon was hot?

response to tyler's "tree in the woods" post

2010-01-28T12:01:00.000-08:00

the cliche question is "if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"
i don't like this question. to answer it, as tyler did nicely, we are forced consider other questions like "what is sound?" which really have nothing to do with the concept of truth. do things happen if we're not aware of them? of course they do. the question here is, can we know that they happened?
so, i'm going to rephrase the question to answer it in terms of what we've been talking about in class:
if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, can we say that it made a sound?
1. correspondence says YES
since trees make noises when they fall when someone is around, they make noises when no one's around, because that's how we know the world to be. therefore, it would be true to say that the tree made a sound.
2. coherence says NO
since no one heard the sound, it's impossible and untrue to say that the tree made a sound.

in reponse to the porcupine argument- i think the question implies that there was no one around, including porcupines. empty forest. however, if porcupines were around and received the soundwaves, i don't think that changes anything, unless a trustworthy porcupine could somehow communicate to us that a sound was made.