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.