A better Idea

This course has helped me better understand the concept of art as whole. While, theorists have much work to do to appropriately incorporate a definition that doesn't narrow the possible contemporary creative genius that can be found in art, the general idea is a misrepresentation. There are however specific features that have to be adhered to for it to qualify as art. What I suggest is that society adapts a contemporary way of viewing art universally. This way notoriety and and bias opinions can be disassociated with the concept of art.

Beauty not what it seems

The judgement of beauty is supposed to be based purely on the values of aesthetics but our society fails to broaden its narrow views on the conception of art.  This way of viewing art is not fair because art doesn't have a singular universal view. Different cultures have different perspectives on what they view as art so one form of art shouldn't be deemed better or more sophisticated because of its origin. If art is to be so disinterested when engaged in, why does engagement in the arts appeal so much to our interests? I think putting people and stature before pure beauty and conceptual aesthetics is Western societies downfall and to truly appreciate art they need to step outside of the "art being non-functional" bracket and realize that art in itself is function, and should be judged by certain characteristics that help better define what arts function is.

What is Key?

All art has an overall function to evoke some kind of emotion (usually beauty). The misnomer, is mistaking the distinction between function and functionless. Art is supposed to be created for the purpose of being not because of its function, but the beauty of a piece ties into its function. So the matter of distinguishing between the two cancels themselves out and leaves one main principle. The making of such artwork had to be intentionally created for the purpose of being considered art. If it is not, then the matter of it being a function or functionless piece is irrelevant in my opinion.

Who are You ?

I dont understand how the western world sees it fit to define and characterize art on such a narrow scale. If the work isn't up to our standards or dont follow our norm its shunned. Seen as less than art. Dutton gives a list of characteristics that can help maximize the scope of what can be considered to be art. I think his opinion is a better choice rather than hold everything to the standard of fine art. This view adds an international interest.

Is forging a crime?

Should the fact that it has turned out to be a forgery matter to you aesthetically?
Lessing argues no while Dutton argues yes.
Lessing sees no difference between forgery or authentic when dealing with aesthetics. However, a forgery lacks originality as far as Lessing is concerned. The fact in the matter is that there most likely might be no difference between the two.
On the other hand Dutton sees aesthetics to matter as well.
The problem with forgery is that it misrepresents artistic achievement because it gives us misleading information about the origins of the work in question. This hinders us from correctly assessing the achievement it represents. Which is why Dutton suggests it can affect our legitimacy of aesthetically appreciating art.

Fact or Faked

Can a work of art that is not predated be considered a forgery?
Lessing would argue that the origin of origination for the art work doesn't matter because pure aesthetics cannot explain forgery. However because the origin of this work is unknown it cannot be considered a forgery. A critic wouldn't be able to tell what period it was made from. So therefore it would have to be compared to works that are similar in style. But what does forgery matter in art for anyway?

The Relationship is...

Kieran suggests the central relationship between art and morality is the artistic devices that mediate the representation of events portrayed and the state of affairs that are represented be kept at a distance so that we cannot actually intervene. It depends on how the work is meant to be perceived, not what moral principle is relevant in the work. What should be looked at is the arts coherent imagery, complex development of themes and vivid style. An intelligible response to the work is what matters.

Morality Counts?

Do we not read a book because the protagonist is a murderer, and murdering is morally wrong?
 Do the moral principles within that work get ignored?
For us to completely ignore a moral value in a work, we would then have to completely ignore the artwork itself. Although moral character is seen to be irrelevant in art the connection between the two is there, its just minimal.
How then do we identify the central relationship between the two?

A Promise of What

Nehamas sees beauty as a promise of happiness, but why? Since Nehamas sees beauty being provoked by love, it is an ultimate promise of happiness because love can be provoked by anything. He says that beauty is wrenched from aesthetic value because of how it is now defined. It regulates beauty where senses and appearance from value in art require critical intelligence.

Confused

The whole Nehamas reading was a bit confusing. He spoke in circles and half the time I couldn't figure out if he was actually for or against what he was writing about. It was clear to me that beauty is seen by him as the most discredited notion because it is not fully allowed to be considered an open concept. But then a question I would have is how then do we describe beauty?

Unity

I never really classified which had more importance. This is because I would agree that knowledge grounds imagination which sheds light to creativity. They all work in unison. Without the basic concept of knowledge imagination wouldn't have anything to start from and branch off of, people would lack the ability to become creative. Without imagination, everything would probably be so dull and who would want that? Each concept is essential to the other.

Importance

Which is more important, knowledge or imagination? Knowledge is based off of experience, what you learn from what is observed. Where as imagination is limitless. Some people have different opinions on which holds more importance over the other. While other say it is pretty hard to determine that because one is essential to the other.

Define art

I agree with Weitz and how he feels about the definition of art. I think it's true that you can define sub-domains of art all you want but to add a general definition to art isn't the answer. Although there are some necessary conditions needed to be able to classify something, even at rare times those conditions are disregarded and an object can still obtain the stature of being considered art. We can't seem to come up with a definition that doesn't exclude certain things. This is the reason art should remain an open concept.

"Philosophy is BS"

I was in the cafe today and this guy asked me my major. I told him I double major in Philosophy and FPA with a concentration in theatre, and he asked me why? I told him because I like the idea of rationally investigating the truths of being,knowledge or conduct. He told me I was a bullshitter and that philosophy was bs and not needed in everyday life. I thought back to one of our previous classes that we had discussed evolution in. I've spoken about this in more than one class and it baffled me that this kid could be so oblivious to what he was saying about philosophy.I asked him what do you know about biology or the human body? He told me that human beings went thoroughly the process of evolution. I asked him did he believe that? He told me yes. I laugh at him and ask do you know that evolution is a theory? It isn't actually facts but it cannot be disregarded. You learned about that in school and you believe it. So how can philosophy be bs? I didn't get a response.

Neill

I like the fact that Neill disagrees with Walton at a point. Unlike Walton, he allows the opportunity to look at the situation from different point of views. He believes that emotions are triggered by beliefs. Although he agrees that we cannot fear what we know to be fictional he leaves room for engagement. If a person involves their self imaginatively they can be able to respond to that fiction adequately.

Fiction

I don't understand how Walton or Neill could say that you can't actually feel what isn't real. How should someone feel about UFOs or extraterrestrial creatures? Do we even know if its actually fact or fiction? I feel like the reason people have the reactions they do isn't a matter of understanding that what they are witnessing isn't "real" .. I believe that what you feel towards fiction may in fact be genuine emotion.

Scruton

If Roger isn't dealing with real photography how can he begin to represent it? I just dont understand how he can label photography casual because of the point to point relationship between the photograph and the subject and not be able to see that art can be looked at the same. Granted a photograph maybe an exact copy of something but would the subject that was captured be worth observing if the photograph had not been taken? I feel like Scruton should have broadened his claims a bit more because something is missing from how he defines photography.

A little help please

On friday I wasn't able to stay in class and be apart of the discussion but I would really like to clear a few things up. If Scruton believes that photography cannot be representational why doesn't he address the fact that some works of art done by painters can also be described the same? How can a photograph not be appreciated aesthetically? It is understandable that photos are simpler in composition than a painting but I believe that some photographs have greater value than paintings at times.

Reflection

The other day me and my friend was driving up route two and the view was beautiful. We pulled up to that hotel that looks over so you can have a better view and we were in awe. The sun was hitting the mountains perfectly and the sky was orange my friend said it took her breath away. Then I started to think about what we spoke about in class, and how we are "supposed" to appreciate nature. Neither my friend nor I knew anything about why everything looked so nice the way that it did and yet we still embraced it. Were we not suppose to? According to Carlson we weren't supposed to, but then I thought about what Malcolm Budd argued, it isn't completely about what is known. Nature should have the ability to be interpreted freely with or without knowledge. Even though that can help the situation it is not necessarily needed.

Nature

In class this week talking about the appreciation of nature was very interesting. It had opened my eyes up to the fact that without knowledge in the least bit it would be rather hard to fully appreciate nature. However, that knowledge doesn't change the opinions and reactions that some people have towards nature. There can be appreciation without knowledge to a certain extent. A person has to know something about what they are appreciating in order to give it correct appreciation because aesthetic appreciation is different between nature and art.

Imagination

I do believe that music exists in an imaginary space. The only reason I believe this is because when you listen to a song it can make you cry but you are not actually sad it just evokes emotion. So is the music actually making you feel a certain way? I don't believe so, I believe that the music triggers familiar emotion that overcome a person when a specific song comes on. Just because you listen to an Adele song doesn't mean your sad, it simply means that your feelings can correlate with the emotions being expressed in that particular song. The same with music that makes you happy,hype, or calm.

This week we spoke about rock music and culture. Scruton argued that there has been a decline in musical culture and he is not completely wrong nor is he completely right about the matter. Both Scruton and Gracyk both agreed that there is a value of power. I feel like Gracyk has the upper hand on the matter because he strays away from a euphoric state where as Scruton strives for that. Music that lacks that and order isnt really music worth listening to to Scruton. Scruton fails to realize that not all music is meant to put you in a euphoric state as long as it has intent, melody, harmony, and rhythm; that should be what matters.

Davies vs. Young

I feel like to a certain extent both Davies and Young make sense in what they are saying. An authentic performance doesn't have to exactly replicate a piece from the past if it is ideal. Young however doesn't agree with terms in which "authentic" is used. A piece instead should be successful, Davies fails to bring in the audience which makes his claims of authenticity bankrupt. Just because acoustics are right and conditions are matched does not mean that a piece is authentic because it must first appeal to the contemporary listeners. If Davies were to take out authenticity his definition would be much more plausible.

Is it Authentic?

How can something be considered authentic if it cannot obtain the specific characteristics it had in the past?

 One definition of authentic is not false or copied; genuine; real, with this definition anything that isn't originally created wouldn't fit in the category of authentic. That however, shouldn't mean that a performance cannot be recognized or has no value. The value in the performance lies in its success and how the listener at the time is effected by what they hear. Authenticity rests on a flimsy foundation based on assumptions that people haven't changed but throughout history not only people change taste does too, making the authenticity of something pretty hard to achieve realistically. 

Confused no more...

Before I wrote my last post I was still totally confused about why food couldn't be a more complex art form. I came up with a question for my Q&A that asked, would food art be considered a more complex form of art if someone took a picture of it? My answer to my own question would be yes and no. Yes because the picture will last for generations to see and no because the content of the picture is not permanent a picture doesn't give you a scratch and smell or lick and taste
 sticker. The two would become decoupled and take two different categories in terms of being classified as art. One being more permanent than the other.

Is it art?

I was reading the article (The Muse Dialogue) that Professor Johnson posted on his blog and I came across a certain part that interested me, it said,"Often the argument against food as an art form is its temporal nature, but this is likewise the case with live performances of theater and music, both of which have long been considered some of the most aesthetically important forms of art." 
So i guess my question would be if live art has a temporal nature like food how can it still be considered as a more complex art form?
Then I began to think about the differences between the two. A performance can be recorded and thus become permanent but the experience of being at the actual performance is one of a kind. Food however can be recorded but you cannot taste or smell video. I mean you can but that wouldn't taste very good. Now I understand why food lacks the ability to become permanent.http://musedialogue.org/other-arts/vol-1-no-12-food-as-art/the-aesthetics-of-food/