Goodbye.

So, Now that my Art and philosophy course has ended, I want to say thank you to all who thought up amazing questions for me to respond too and have responded to my own. Also, this blog has inspired me to write another one. You can find it here http://what-thought.blogspot.com, but be warned, I doubt I will update it frequently. Thanks again for everything, I highly enjoyed the class and I learned a lot, not just about art, but as life as well.
-Griffin

A response to Duncan's response to Denise's response to My response to Denise's response to my question

(sorry about the lengthy title)

Duncan, in his blog post, asked whether or not a work of art created by a small child and an abstract drawing created by a symbolic artist were both art. In my opinion, I would have to say yes. In my opinion (and my own theory of art which you will hear about more in depth later), art is the containment of thought within a creative confines. The child, wishing to put the idea of his family and home onto a creative medium, created that drawing, thus making it art. The abstract artist, wished to put onto a medium the concept of loneliness and depression. Therefore, based on my theory, it is art.

Would an object be a piece of art if the thought behind the piece was imperceivable? 

A response to Denise (again)

Once again, I find myself answering one of Denise's questions. Her most recent question: 'If an artist is unwilling to express [a] point of view, regardless of it's popularity, is he or she really an artist?' Is fairly easy to answer. Yes.  An artists opinions or beliefs should have no influence on whether or not someone should be deemed an artist or not.  Someone who has horrible beliefs can still paint amazing things, although I would like to say that the beliefs one holds do influence the subjects one uses when creating a piece. For example, if one man believes mankind is inherently evil, he will be more likely create art on the monstrosity that is mankind. Same with the opposite.  If beliefs influence the Theme of the art, what would influence an artists artistic style?

A counter to denises response to my question.

Recently Denise responded to one of my blog posts on the humanity of art. (her response can be found here http://denisesphlog.blogspot.com/2010/12/humans-as-art.html)  I would like to raise the point that she did not answer my question. What I asked was whether a Person could be art. She responded by giving examples of tattoos, a sculpture of a man, and performance art that  uses the human body to express visual art. I would like to say that this was not what I meant by human art.
The tattoo on the human body might be considered art, but it would also exist as art on some other form of media. The tattoo is the  inherent art, not the human.
The sculpture of the human body is made of stone, not of flesh. Although sculpture might represent humans, it is not the human body.
The  Performance art was close, but no cigar. The actors used their bodies, but the art was in what they were representing, not in their body inherently. They were the blank canvas, not the art on the canvas, if that makes any sense.
What I want to know is can the human body be the art inherently without it representing some other form of art?

The humanity of art.

I just recently watched a movie where the main antagonist froze people in time and put them on display as art objects. The main people she froze were serial killers who were famed for their murders and violence. She claimed that their violence and emotions made them art. She believed that the acts that they committed made themselves artists, much like a performance artist. She claimed that by creating their artwork, they themselves became art that she wanted to take. This raised an interesting question in my mind:
Can a human be an art object?

A response to Kimberlee.

Do you ever think that people over think things way to much and assume a piece of art work to be much more intentional than it actually is?
The short answer to this question is YES.
The Long answer to this question is YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Seriously though, over-analysis is an incredibly human thing to do. Humans always try to find meaning and intention when there is none, or not as much as one thinks. This is not only limited to the domain of art, but is found in many other areas as well. Religion was founded on the desire to believe that the universe was created with an intention. The human mind just does not like the idea of meaninglessness, or not being able to figure out the meaning behind something.  That idea causes a fear so deep down inside mans psyche that his mind simply refuses to believe it and thus scours his mind and the piece of art for any meaning he could find, even if there was none. Personally though, I believe that art ALWAYS has meaning. I believe that art would not be art if it lackeed at leat some meaning. Can something be art without a meaning?

concept.

So, as any person knows, most art gets conceived in the mind. The author creates his plot in the brain, same with the artist and the painting, and the musician with the music. Now, lets take a moment to think about it. The idea of that piece of art is already lodged in that artists noggin. All an artist does is bring what he experiences in his mind to a physical medium (or auditory in the case of musicians). So, the art must therefore exist before it is brought to the world of the senses. So, my question is, is the pre-existing idea that is lodged in an artists brain art? Take for example this: Suppose that at some point we invent a device that allows us to peer into anothers mind and see in our own heada what they are thinking. Now, suppose we use that device on a painter who has an amazing idea for a masterpiece. Would that mental image of the masterpiece be considered art even though it is not brought into sensory form yet?

Does art need criticism?

That is the question that was asked by my classmate Hannah. And to answer it, I would say that no, art does not need criticism to function art. I believe that art can survive without anybody criticising or critiquing it. Art, in my opinion, is art upon the creation of it. It might be horrible art, but it still is art. Criticism in itself cannot make a piece of nonart art. If an object is concieved, possibly then the critic might be able to decide whether it is art or not, but he would not be able to say "well, this right now is nonart but if you do this, then it will be considered art."
 Is there a 'barrier' between art and nonart? Do thngs have to be one or another? or are things more muddled then that, and can they be mixed?

Denise's question

In her blog post, Denise asked a very good question "What do you consider to be your art?"
Honestly, I think my art isn't very artistic in nature and it might sound very cliche, but I think my art lies in the realm of listening.  I know how to listen to people, pick up on key things that they say and can even infer from what they are saying to problems more complex in their roots. And by using this art of listening, I can then formulate a much better response and am able to help more people than someone who just listens to one's superficial statements.  
In fact all a conversation is, could be interpreted as verbal art. One person speaks, conveying with it imagery and emotions behind each word, the listener then interprets the statement the other makes and formulates a response to it using their own artistic style and flair. The process then repeats.
If a conversation is art, then couldn't a debate be considered a clash of artists?

Imitation

So, it is a well known fact that artists like to imitate other artists styles, or use influences from others in their own work inn order to create their own piece. Musicians and artists do it all the time. But, can an artist imitate their own work? For example, can an author create a book that imitates their own style, but isn't? Or would it be considered just their own style?

Too much quiet.

This post isn't really about art, but this is an appeal to my other students in my art and philosophy class. I have noticed that very few of us actually do end up talking in that class. The discussion always seems to be dominated by a few speakers and everyone else just sits back.  As a student who enjoys the class, I am tired of hearing points brought up by the same classmates over and over. I would like to appeal to my fellow classmates to speak out more. I am sure we all have different points of view and questions that can get our class involved in the discussion and make it enjoyable for all of us. It is no fun when only a few voices speak up. Plus when one is involved, one usually is more entertained than when one just sits there. Think about it.
Question: please?

A response to Denise's Question

In her recent blog, Denise asks an interesting question "If art is an abstract concept, how can we describe it without examples and anecdotes?"  I would have to say that this is indeed impossible and we can not. Well, at least right now.  Art, in my opinion, is as hard as defining the color blue.  One can not possibly describe the color blue to someone who has never seen blue before.  Art is the same way, if one has not seen it, it is near impossible to describe what art is to them.  One could say it is putting ons emotions or intention onto a medium, but they would have no idea what that meant, just like saying blue is a primary color that resonates at a high wavelength frequency means nothing to a blind person.
Although this might be a bit of topic, my question is might art have a more biological origin?

Interesting survey I did.

So, I was curious about what some of my friends thought the meaning of art was, so I asked thirteen of my friends who come from all different backgrounds what they thought the definition of art was. These were the results. I used two letters at the front of each definition are the intitials of the friend that responded to my question.

MF-art is being creative, making something new

BM-art, is similar to music, only pretained to the visual rather than audio senses. Art, is any object that makes an emotional connection when viewed, and may depend on the individual as to whether or not the object can be classified as art.

AR-art is how someone can show their feelings

MC-art is anything you create thats from your heart and soul

JM-art is an expression of yourself

JS- art is the tangible creation of a persons consious/unconcious. it needs to have thought and passion to be art

CW-art is an expression of emotion, or passion that someone feels for something

AB-art is a creation of a product

RVW-art is anything that someone finds to be captivating

SR-art is any visual or auditory medium that shows some sort of complex knowledge of the aspects of it's medium that elicits some sort of emotional response from the observer

OG- art is self expression..of emotions and opinions. things that are hard to put into words...we put into creation (paintings, music...which includes words but melodies help 'paint the picture' as well)

BS-art is an human expresion in terms of taking a medium and useing to produce a item that gives you feeling

AW-art is a way to express emotion. usually resulting in something beautiful or unique

So, my question to you, my fellow bloggers, readers, and strangers is, what do YOU think art is?

A response to Duncans Question

My colleague Duncan Baxter asked a rather interesting question: Do you think it could be said that it is the critics who control the trends and direction of the arts, rather than the artists themselves? I would have to say that this is indeed the case. They might not control 100 percent of it, but they definitely control a lot more than critics, in my opinion, should.  Critics are a lot public than other artists are, except possibly for musicians and actors. Critics also get famous by their critiques and opinions on art, so they have much more of an influence on shaping public opinion on the arts than others do. Although, I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing, I do realize that this means the artworld is heavily influenced by the acts of a few.
Would it be a bad thing if critics did indeed control the artistic world, which they might actually be doing?

Comedy

Comedy, in my opinion is indeed an artform. I believe that comedy is very different from other types though.  Comedy is basically the art of finding humor in a given object, person or situation.  And unlike other styles of art, comedy can only draw upon silliness and absurdity. That in itself makes it stand out because all other artforms can draw on various emotions like sorrow, anger, joy, hatred, serentity, and many others. Comedy in this sense is limited then. another limitation of this style of art is that it requires the audience to be a lot more involved than in other styles of art. If the audience doesn't get the joke the art is lost on them. So therefore, Comedy is a lot more difficult than others as well.
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?

Response to Denises question

My colleague Denise asks a very interesting question. "If art encourages us to break our moral code, should it still be considered art?"  My answer to this question is yes.  Art, in my opinion should not be judged on based on what message it preaches.  As long as the art has good quality and conveys an emotion, I would definitely consider it art. It might not be likable art, but still art, nonetheless. This actually makes me think a bit of propaganda art. Art used in Nazi Germany to produce feelings of anti-antisemitism and  nationalism. Now although I do not agree with these feelings, I wonder, would art made to promote propaganda if it was made by a mass government to manipulate the masses still be considered art?

Can Dnd be art?

So, if you guys haven't figured it out by now, I am a HUGE nerd (Gasp!), and right now, I am sitting down, watching a bunch of my friends playing a popular nerd game called Dungeons and Dragons, and since I haven't done my last blog post my mind was thinking about Art and Philosophy. Suddenly, it hit me: Is dungeons and dragons art? In my opinion, I would definitely view this as art.  Dungeons and dragons (DnD) is a dice based role playing game where players create and play as characters in a fantasy setting and adventure throughout the world. The world itself is created by one person called the Dungeon Master, who not only creates the world, but the people, story-lines, and interacts with the players by telling them the result of their actions in this world. There are many reasons why this can be considered art. The first is that obviously, the world the DM (dungeon master) creates. The world paints a realistic picture in the players mind and can provoke emotions and thoughts as effectively as any theatrical performance can. The second is the players and how they interact. The players, when they play as their characters, with new personalities, and new point of views.  These characters can become just as vivid or real as any character portrayed in a novel or theatrical performance, and people can get emotionally attached to their characters just as much as any reader would get attached to their favorites novels. Thirdly, the story can hold as much symbolism or insights into the nature of the universe as any piece of artwork can. The players are constantly forced to see the harsh reality of the world they live in, have to struggle between good and evil, and have to have their beliefs challenged often in a good world. It can be just as provocative as art.

   If a simple game like this can be art, then what things done by humans could NOT be classified by art.

Response to Duncans question: Why do people need to be told what to think about art in the first place, why do we need critics in our newspapers and online?

A critic's role is wide and varied, It can range from interpreting a piece of artwork to reviewing a new book. I will just get to the point in the matter here. Sometimes people are lazy and impatient. Sometimes people just don't have the time or don't want to spend the time reading a book that might potentially be bad, or go see a movie that sucks. People use critics as a means of convenience, to sort of get a judge of the artform before seeing it. It is not so much as critics telling people what to think, but the people asking for the critics opinion and that piece of artwork.  People can also be very unobservant at times, and when viewing a piece of art, a critics view of the art can help the viewer understand the art easier as well.  Critics who tell people 'this is what you have to think,' in my opinion, are not critics.

Is it okay for a critic to try to correct ones interpretation of the art piece is dead wrong? Like a painting of a butterfly, if a person thinks that butterfly represents eternal torment from Hell, would a critic be allowed to say that the persons belief is wrong?

The devils music.

Can art be bad? Not quality-wise, but ethical-wise? I don't really know what brought this question on, but being a big history and theology buff, I learned that in the middle ages the catholic church censored art that in their opinion, was 'sinful.' They had certain tones on the instrument that one was forbidden to play because they were considered 'the devil's notes,' and even recently in the 1950's people were speaking out against rock and roll music claiming that it was sinful and corrupting.  There were also burnings of 'evil' books, and sacrilegious paintings and sculptures. But in my mind, unless one is a catholic, one should not have a problem with any artwork. So, can art truly be 'evil'? even to a nonreligious person? And is there a difference between 'sinful' art and 'evil' art?

Denises question: what are the qualities upon which we form our standard of art?

Wow, Denises question just opened up a whole can of worms. Philosophers have  devoted Books as to what qualities can constitute art. Some of these are: Style, technique, skill, Artists renown, symbolism, inner meanings, color scheme, cultural values, themes, motives, medium of artwork, talent, contrast, beauty, emotion, and so many more.  And plus, the worst part that unlike chocolate cake (see Denise's Chocolate cake example), Art can can come in so many different styles, medium, or designs and is much more complicated due to it having multiple meanings. So in conclusion, at the moment, no one will ever know.

Will someone ever know?

Strowlercon and philosophy

So, for those who don't know, I went to a convention over Columbus day weekend called Strowlercon (amazing convention, anyone that likes unorthodox and very fun entertainment I HIGHLY recommend you go next year).   Anyways, There were a lot of great folk/mythological/historical singers there, they took old legends and mythologies and turned them into song. This reminded me a bit of what Tolstoy was talking about how art is used to convey emotions, messages and history.  As someone who isn't very artistically inclined, I have to say that I underestimated Tolstoy's view of art and was perplexed on why he would think art like music and paintings held a greater value than words and could express history and emotions better than characters. After heading to Strowlercon I now realize how foolish I was. There were so many musicians there that preserved ancient songs from the middle ages, they weaved musical stories of the old mythologies and histories of olden time. The emotions and the knowledge that was flooding towards me was amazing and I never truly realised the power song had. I could understand the stories and the attitude of the person or event that was described with perfect clarity and I can definitely see why Tolstoy thought why anything that does this constitutes art.
   But then again, I also still believe that this is a side effect of art and not the real definition of art. I think that it might enhance the aesthetic quality of a piece, but emotions do not create artwork. If there is a way to enhance artwork that is.
  Actually, all this is starting to make me wonder though, besides style, medium, and emotions, what else can affect the Aesthetic properties of art?

Response to Denise's Question

As a lazy member of the creative community, I feel that Denis'es question holds a lot of merit. I believe that societal behaviors have a HUGE influence on artwork. Using Denise's example of laziness and my own experience with it on my artwork, I can personally vouch that it has a huge effect on me. But unlike laziness breaching into my art, like Denise would believe, I would believe that what laziness actually does is prevent my artwork from taking off because I am so lazy that I don't have the motivation to actually write any poetry or fiction.  I believe  that societal behaviors don't influence our art really like Denise views though, but it influences one's attitude towards our art, Other societal behaviors like individualism, self entitlement, pride, patriotism, or other cultural emotions have effects on one's perception as well.  Pride for example (something that I unfortunately have too much of sometimes) effects me in the sense that when I create a story or poem, I often view it with a proud eye and ignore critics who could help me improve my artwork, or patriotism might influence what I decide to write about. It is our approach to our art that changes, not the actual style.
  What kind of behaviors would have the biggest impact on our view of art?

Philosophy and books

I love books with a burning passion that probably borders somewhat into obsession and I believe that through books, ideas, thoughts, and new points of view can be spread almost anywhere.  Now, during my Art and philosophy class, I have started to realize that books actually contain two types of philosophies in them and they are presented in different ways.
The first type of philosophy that I see that takes place in books is the aesthetics.  Every book is a work of art that creates a whole world in the readers mind, and provokes emotions in the reader just as well, if not, better than any other type of art, such as music. Just look at the amazing world J.K. Rowling produced. Everybody knows that fictional world. In fact, it was so descriptive that there is now a Harry Potter theme park in Florida.
The second type of philosophy I see in novels isn't as prevalent as the first type, and in fact, some novels lack this type altogether. This is the philosophy that is lain in the words themselves. Many novels have morals at the end on how to live an ethical life, or it goes deep within theology, or the main protagonist of the novel subscribes to a certain set of beliefs. Such authors like Plato, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand use this type of inlaid philosophy to get their ideas on how the world is out there, through a piece of fiction, and I love reading these ideas and trying to figure out the undertones the story has to offer. And I most definitely view this as an incredibly good thing to have in any story.
Question: Are there other pieces of art that can have another form of philosophy inlaid within them?

re-re-response

Amanda's Question: Is it right to categorize art in such a way? Is it right to categorize art at all, if it is all unique?
It is human nature to feel the desire to categorize things. As humans we want things to be neat and tidy so we can pretend to believe that we can understand the universe. So it is natural that humankind would feel the desire to do the same with art. This is actually probably one of the reasons why mankind has felt the need to define art for so long a time; so that they can get that much closer to understanding everything. Now, Is this right? I have no idea, buthaving the urge to categorize art is human instinct and is human instinct wrong?
Now, I definitely believe that if we do ever categorize art and discover what is art, what isn't, what is good art, what is bad art, what is high art, or what is low art, or anything like that, it will take some of the mystery out of it. I am not sure if it will lower the quality of art, but some of the magic an awe of it will be gone since everyone will know how to create great art.
If art ever does get categorized and completely understood, will it decrease the value of art?

My definition of art.

Philosophers, critics, and artists, and college students throughout the centuries have been pondering the great question of: What is Art? So, since all the great thinkers contemplated this, I decided to give this question some thought to see if I could illuminate anything.  What I came up with satisfies me personally, but I'm sure that there are others who will disagree with me.

My view of art is that art comes from the idea of the human desire to capture something and to place it onto some kind of medium. Whether it be capturing a scene from nature on a photograph, or the attempt to capture the images you saw in a dream, these will both be considered art.  Now, the critiques for this theory are probably very similar to the argument from intent, which basically boils down to: If everyone can create art by just attempting to capture something, then anybody can do it. My response to that is: Of course! Art is not something that only great artists can create! Art is something that even the most uncreative can make. If it was any other way then Art would be exclusive and prohibited to the common person, which would be a horrible definition that I would not want mankind to adopt.

So, my question is really more like a challenge to my fellow classmates. Can you find anything wrong in this theory? And if so, can you please tell me what flaws there are? I would love to hear objections to see if I can explain or change my theory.

A response to my dear friend Amanda's question

While reading my fellow classmates' blog, I stumbled upon an interesting question posed by my friend Amanda Olsen. She was talking about Doodles and art, and also how doodling helped her maintain her focus. In her blog she was talking about a mutual friend of ours sketch of a 'what is art?' octopus, and I do have to say, it is really amazing and although I would not call it high quality art, I would definitely call it art. In my opinion, doodles are just a type of crude art, but still art nonetheless because they are a way people express themselves and try to create art.
Now as for the question of whether the Infamous Plato would have agreed with her, In the fact of doodles actually being beneficial, I think he would see no harm in them, because as opposed to other types of art, doodles are mainly a way to vent out your feelings or to occupy ones time when bored. Although he might think there are better ways to spend your time, I believe that even he could see the value of expressing oneself, especially when doodles aren't really for showing other people to try to provoke their unnecesary emotions.
Now, Amanda, my question to you, or anybody else for that matter is, do you think doodles, since they are done for slightly different reasons then other art, can be at the same artistic level as any other kind of artistic medium?

The Future of Art.

In Plato's so called Utopian society, there would be minimal, or no art. Since his society has very little chance of actually occurring, I was curious about what would be the future of art. So I decided to ask around and see what other people think about Art's possible future. When asked about the future of art, my roommate, stated that he believes that countries like the states might end up in an artistic decline while in other countries or small towns, will struggle to keep the arts flourishing.  But since my roommate is no authority on art, I decided to actually ask a professional artist AKA my mom. In response to my question of 'How do you think art will fare in the future of the US?' She said "As long as there are people around art will always exist. But whether or not people can pay for it is another thing...Art is instinctual. It is one of the things that separates humanity from the animal kingdom, because only humans have the ability to make and appreciate art."

I talked a bit more with her about art and similar topics and then hung up. Then I started to think about my own view on art and what is going to happen in these next few decades. I thought long and hard about this. What I believe that art is going to evolve soon. I think that it will start to undergo massive changes. Over the years, I think we will start seeing less paintings and sculptures, and start seeing artwork in more everyday objects and structures, like in ipods, appliances, furniture, fashion, and buildings. I think art will change to a more utilitarian level. And honestly, I have mixed feelings about this. Will this be degrading of art at all? Or will it bring art to the common person and brighten up peoples days and tap into emotions more frequently. Now, I know I have no proof for this theory, so I am not trying to force you to believe this, but this is just what I personally believe.  So my question is though, that If there actually is some truth to my theory, Will other artists comply with this? Or how will the general public feel?

Plato needs to really rethink some things.

So, I just read the first chapter in my philosophy book, and It was mostly an excerpt from Plato's piece "Republic,"and really, for a philosopher that has had such a huge impact on western culture, I have to say that I am disappointed in the solutions he poses for many great questions. One of my main points of dissent is that Plato argues that art actually corrupts the logical mind because it encourages people to use their emotions in everyday society. And Plato believes this is bad because emotions are inferior to logic and reason.
Actually, this reminded me in a way of the whole debate of whether or not video games cause violence or not. Many people say that by playing videogames, you are exposed and desensitized to violence, thus you are more likely to commit an act of violence. Plato is suggesting something equally ridiculous, if not, more ridiculous in my opinion: He believes that by experiencing art, one is more prone to rely on his emotions because in order to enjoy art, you need to use your emotions. Which sort of draws the parallel between Plato's view of art and the videogame conflict.
Now, I might be able to understand that one might use their emotions more if constantly exposed to art, but he then goes on to say that due to this, that person has been corrupted, because as everybody knows, logic is far more important than emotions to the everyday person. Now that, I view as just completely wrong. The emotional and creative mind indeed has much value. Emotions are what causes people to experience life! Logic may be able to analyze life and the universe, but what use are they if one has no passion in life, or drive, or why would you want to live a life without expression?

why do you care?

So, since this is my first blog post, before getting down to business, I would just like to say 'YAY!' I have always wanted to do a blog on philosophy but I have never really had the proper motivation to do it. Now that I am required to do so to keep my grades up, I am absolutely psyched. Anyways, back to art and philosophy, where I can actually vent my thoughts that I have been thinking for a very long time.
So, today in our art and philosophy class, I brought up the question of why does man need to know the answer to what is art? Eventually it diverged into the question on whether or not man can only gain true enjoyment from something without needing to know everything about it. I really enjoyed discussing this topic because I felt that this question was indeed a good one and was in need of being answered. In my own humble opinion (Hah! Humble, yeah right.), I believe that there are indeed many different forms of entertainment, like physical, emotional, intellectual, and so on, but not a single type of enjoyment is superior to the other. Some entertainment can prove useful for later, like reading philosophy, or understanding art, but does that mean that that specific form of entertainment is better due to its practicality? Because I'm pretty sure that many people would agree that dancing in a nightclub can be much fuller and entertaining than going to a museum.
Also, beyond that, we were talking about how one would get a fuller enjoyment out of something if you can understand it clearly, which is why one should learn about what is art. Personally, I don't believe that either, I think that I prefer to understand those things and that is why I enjoy things I understand more, but for other people I know, they can get a lot of enjoyment reading a Twilight novel, which as many people know, no one has to really look deep or understand anything symbolic in that book to understand it.  There are also many superficial things that I can think of that many people enjoy greatly, and sometimes in a way, the statement 'ignorance is bliss' is somewhat true here. You don't need knowledge to gain enjoyment out of life.

Now my question here is 'if learning about the philosophy of art is then considered unnecessary, then what happens to philosophy also?' because if we find that we are content in not knowing the answer, then philosophy can also be deemed unnecessary.