Final Blog: Defining Art

I resist defining art because it is too subjective. This stems from the fact that people, as a whole, do not see the beauty in everything, and as the cliché goes: one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Society focuses too much on defining art instead of recognizing that almost anything can be art. Which is another reason I resist defining art – almost anything can be art. Some argue that there are certain levels of creativity necessary, as well as a certain skill level, needed before becoming art. This implies untrained children cannot be artists, nor can the average person. This also puts power in the hands of society to define who is an artist and who is not. If someone makes something and believes it is art, then it is; or if someone observes something and believes it is art, than it is.

Essentially, I agree with George Dickie, who believes that anyone who wants to be included in the art world is absolutely entitled to, without prerequisites. My belief also goes along with Morris Weitz’s view, who believes when something is art is more important than what art actually is. Arthur Danto, on the other hand, believes people shouldn’t talk about art, or anything else, unless they are completely informed on it.

It can be argued with my lack of a definition that I am providing one when I say art is whatever people want it to be. I may just beating around the bush like many of the philosophers we looked at.

Response to Sean

Sean asked the question on his blog:
Do you think the audience plays a role in how good a piece of art is? and if so how much influence does te audience have?

I do not think that the audience can say how good or bad a piece of artwork is, since art is completely subjective. However, the audience will definitely influence the public opinion on the art. If the general public does not like a piece of work, than the public opinion will be that it is bad. However, this does not make it so. I believe that in the end, if the artist is happy with the work, then it is a good piece of artwork.

Should the artist decide if their own work is good, or will they be too biased?

Response to Kurtiss

Kurtiss posed this question:
Should works created using drawing programs and other computer-based means be considered art?

I do not see a reason not to include such works into the art world. It takes skill, talent, and imagination to create these computer-based works, and they end up being aesthetically pleasing in the end. So yes, they are art. Saying that they are not is like saying that photography isn't art, which I don't believe either.

So I guess my question for you would be: will the art world ever have limits?

Response to Kim

Kim asked on her blog:
Why do you think people enjoy horror?  

I think people like to fantasize about it all. I fell like it's that whole deal with car accidents, and people slow down to look at them because they are nosy. This might be more relative to the gore, but I think that it is a part of horror, and people like to be scared by what they perceive as the impossible. Also, I think it makes people feel better about themselves when it is happening to others and not them. It is an interesting topic, and I don't know if it could ever be fully determined. 

Response to Josh

Josh asked on his blog:
Do you believe that art can be ranked by which form is better?

I do not think that this could happen at all. I feel that so many of our topics relate back to the "good vs. bad" issue, and this question happens to be one of them. Art is an extremely subjective topic, and ranking which form is better than which is really hard to do, if not impossible.

Will we ever find a solution to the subjectivity of art?

Artist Vs. Audience

Many say that the artist must convey something through their artwork to an audience, and it usually has to be another person. However, this brings up the point about those who create only for themselves, and never display their work for anyone else. Does this mean they are not artists? I don't believe that this is true at all. Those who create for themselves are both the artist and the audience; there does not have to be anyone else involved in this at all.

What do you think?

Emotions

Art and philosophy can be so confusing for me, and have a hard time wrapping my head around a lot of theories, just because it is not the usual way that I think. However, it still intrigues me, especially on the topic of emotions.
Everyone talks about how emotions are such a big part of art, and even some of our lovely philosophers argued that art needs to convey an emotion from the artist to the audience. I get this to a certain point, but how do we know when we are feeling something, especially from a specific work? Can Also, do we have to feel it right away, or will it still count if the emotion is delayed? Do emotions have to be conveyed for something to be art? What constitutes an emotion?

Food

Culinary arts came up in a discussion during class, and it made me want to make another post about it. Previously I asked if the process of cooking was the art or if the final dish was the art. This time, I am going to address whether or not the culinary field is actually art.

Many may argue that it is not such, because it can be consumed and it is gone quickly. However, it requires a certain skill, and it is still aesthetically pleasing. There are more aspects to the aesthetics of food, however, since all five senses should actually be used to appreciate the art of it all.

So I guess in the end, the culinary arts should definitely be included into the art world, no matter how "simple" the dish.

Do you agree?

Einstein

"I'm enough of an artist to draw freely on my imagination, which I think is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." -Einstein

I really like that Einstein was mature enough, as well as ok with himself, that he could admit this. I feel like it really shows that he actually understood the world outside of science, and recognized that you don't have to be a genius to be successful in this world. How smart you are does not determine happiness, nor does it determine where life will take you. Einstein was a lot wiser than people give him credit for sometimes, which is awesome.

Magnificent Artwork

Natalie asked the question on her blog:
What is the most magnificent work of art you have ever seen? Why?

For me, this would probably have to be the Trevi Fountain in Rome, Italy. I saw many amazing works of art when I traveled to Europe and visited Italy and Greece, but this was definitely my favorite. I saw it at the perfect time (nighttime) and with some of the best people. It amazed me that it even existed in the first place, and how absolutely magnificent it truly is. In fact, all the sites I saw while in Europe absolutely amazed me, especially with their size and detail, and just everything. The whole trip amazed me, and it was partially due to the history of it all, as well as the absolute beauty.

Does the history of something play a major part in why people enjoy art?

Response to Kurtiss

Kurtiss asks on his blog:
Can everyday objects we find be considered art?

This is such a hard question to answer, and I'll be honest I don't know if my response will even make any sense. However, if you take say, a candy bar wrapper as an example and ask if it is art, this is a similar situation to the gristmill stone Kurtiss wrote about. I don't think that the actual object is the art, but the design and creation of the object is the art. The original idea is the art, but once it is made into that "everyday object," it loses its connection to art.

What do you guys think?

Response to Kim

Kim asked on her blog:
How do you feel about art as a form of competition?

I do not believe that this is necessarily fair to any piece of artwork or artist. This goes along with the ongoing conversation about good art versus bad. The instance Kim talked about is much like essay contests. The human race is obsessed with competition, and has been since the dawn of time. Art competitions are just another example of the human necessity to be "better" than someone else. I am not a competitive person by nature, but there are always those instances when I get obsessed by the competition myself. I have always thought about sending in an essay for a competition, but since there is no way the judges could be completely subjective, I find it unnecessary. I do not believe that someone can really be "better" at an art form than someone else, their skill is just different. I will forever keep this view and try to get people to understand this and, hopefully, believe me as well.

What do you think? Can someone be better at an art form than someone else? Or is the skill just different?

Response to Christine

In Christine's blog she talked about Taming of the Shrew and how the final product was different to everyone, depending on how they understood it. She then asked the question:
How well can we gauge the success of a work of art if it really exists in the mind?

This is an idea that goes along with Piper's ideas, and with this example, I finally get it. I get what Piper was trying to say, that no matter how any kind of art form is presented, everyone will see it differently, and the true art is in the mind of the creator. With Taming of the Shrew, the art was in the mind first of Shakespeare, and then in that of Mary, the director. Each director of any play, not just Shakespeare, has a different vision of how the play should go, just as each choreographer has a different idea of what I dance should look like for a particular song.

To answer Christine's question though, I guess only the success could be measured by if each individual person is happy with the final product. Obviously, each person will have a different opinion, and success will not really be able to be full measured, but it can be measured on the individual level. Also, if the artist who had the vision and created is happy with it, I believe that it would be a success, even if it does not gain overall success to the world.

However, is success even applicable to art, if it is so subjective?

On Collingwood...

I had so many questions when we were discussing Collingwood, that I don't even know where to start. So I guess for starters, he basically argues that you cannot express your feelings unless you fully understand them. So intsead of trying to explain how I understood him, I'll just post my questions I had during class, since there were way too many for me to pick even one.

• Do you have to understand your feelings before you can make art?
• Can you create before understanding? Is creation a step to understanding?
• Is art created for the satisfaction of the artist or the audience? If no one "sees" it, is it still art?
• Do you have to physically create something to become an artist?
• Is the art the expression or the final product?
• Is there one "right" interpretation of artwork? Can people actually be right or wrong about it?
• Do you have to understand your own artwork?

Response to Josh

Josh asked in one of his posts:
Do you believe that the need to express the emotion to the artist is greater than to the audience?

This is a bit like Brycen's question which I just answered. I do, in fact, believe that it is more important for the artist to express themselves than for the audience to understand what exactly is going on. Art can be a very personal, and sometimes private, thing where the audience is not always necessary or important. Art is about expressing the artist's emotions, and as we have talked about in class before, the emotion understood by the audience will never be exactly the same as the artist's anyways. Even if the artist views their piece again, it is not guaranteed that they will have the exact same emotions again as they did when they were creating.


What do you guys think?

Response to Brycen

Brycen asked in his blog:
Can art be an expression of ideas without being able to communicate to the audience? 

 I believe that this can be true in certain instances. Some artists create just for the purpose of themselves, and whether or not other people "get it" is irrelevant. For some, art is about personal expression, and sometimes it never actually sees an audience. I know people who write poetry or draw, just to get out emotion and ideas they have, and then never tell other people about what the created or show them.

What do you think of those who create art for the soul purpose of showing other people?


 

On Piper...

Piper was one of those weird chapters to deal with, where you know she is a really intelligent woman, but she has a hard time writing about her thoughts in a coherent way. Anyways, she believes that the world fetishizes art way too much, meaning that we believe that it should speak to us, otherwise it is bad art; we give art more power than it actually has.

She also believes that the artist is just as important as the art, which is true. A piece of artwork, whatever form it is in, would not exist if there was no artist to create it.

One idea of hers that confuses me a bit is that music, for example, only actually exists in the mind of the composer, and that no matter how intelligently and intently people listen, they will only hear a representation of the true music. Do you agree with this or believe that this could be true?

Response to Brycen

Brycen asked the question on his blog:
Is performing art in a sense better because it has the ability to change unlike non performing art?

This question could be argued a variety of ways. However, I believe that it is not better, it is just different. No art is really better than any other. This brings us back to the issue of good art vs. bad art, and there really is just no such thing. There is so much in art that is subjective, that trying to say something is good or bad, better or worse, is a never ending argument.

My question for you is: why do we insist on trying to say art is good or bad? 

Response to Sean

Sean argues that Dickie is wrong, and that artists should not have the power to determine whether their pieces are art or not.

I do not believe that this is true. I believe that while Dickie may give the rest of the world too much power, he is not giving artists too much power. If they like something their make and believe that it is art, why shouldn't it be? They have the title of "artist" for a reason, even if they are not famous, or first time artists. If you are to argue that artists should not determine whether they make something is art or not and leave it up to other people, then you are basically saying that art is subjective, and if someone doesn't like a piece then it is not art. This is not fair to the artist.

What do you guys think, though?

Duchamp's Fountain

This piece was the subject of a huge debate in class last week, even sparking my interest when I usually find it hard to get engaged during class. The debate was on whether or not Duchamp's Fountain is even art. Some argues that there is no way that it could be art, it took no creativity and he did not intend for it to be art, he just wanted to test the art world and see how many people fell for this.

My argument is that those reasons actually make it art. It looks like it took no creativity to just put some words on a urinal and display it, but in order to come up with the original idea in the first place, it would have taken some creativity. And the fact that he was testing the limits of the art world makes this piece art as well. Just because some people do not like or understand the motives of this piece, does not make it art.

My question for you is whether or not you think Fountain is art? Does the fact that people test the limits of the art world make their pieces lesser or not art?

On Danto

Arthur Danto argues that people should not talk about what they do not know, art in particular. However, this leaves out a gigantic population of people, and basically says that people are not allowed to enjoy things if they don't have a certain base of knowledge. This is a very pretentious view, and can be argued against in many different ways. There are obviously some people who agree with this, but if the world were to accept that only educated people were allowed to talk about art, then either one of two things would happen.

1. people would decide it isn't worth the effort, and they would get mad
2. people would decide they would have to become extremely educated in art they would stop being interested in other things just so they could appreciate art

Obviously these are not the only two scenarios, but they definitely show the two extremes of what could happen.

I guess my question for Danto would be: how much do you really have to know before you can talk about art?

Response to Kurtiss

Kurtiss asked on his blog:

Does increased knowledge of a topic, such as art, close off any ability to find future gratitude in the subject?

I do not believe that this is true, at least not for all people. Some people believe that because they know so much about a subject, when a new idea comes along, they are unable and/or unwilling to accept or understand it. These people are very closed-minded about these things, and do not understand that the world is ever changing and evolving, and in order to keep up so do people's ideas and beliefs. However, there are also those that even though they are already very knowledgeable in their field, are always open and welcome to new ideas. The human mind is very curious, and new ideas peak our interest all the time. It is just the fact we have to get past those who are unwilling to change.

Is it the ideas of the old or the new that determine what is art?

On Goodman

Goodman was a little different from other philosophers, in the sense that he asked "when is art?" rather than "what is art?" This may seem a little strange at first, until you actually understand his theories. He believes that everything has an original purpose, but that this can change when it is used differently. His example is a rock is just a rock until it is picked up and displayed as a work of art. He believed that defining how and when something is art in turn defines what art is.

Do you believe that this is a proper stance, though? How can you replace "what" with "when", when the object never actually transforms with its new function?

Response to Sean

Sean posed this question on his blog:
Do you agree with Goodman that something could be art at one time and not another?

I do believe that this is somewhat possible. Everything has its own purpose and main use, but sometimes that can change for a period of time. The example used in class was a painting being used as a blanket. While no one would confuse a blanket and a painting, a painting could serve a different purpose at times, therefore not really making it art anymore but a blanket. However, once the purpose was served and the person was done using it as a blanket, the painting would go back to being art.

Everything can be used in different ways, and while that does not always "do away" with the primary purpose, it does change it for a period of time.

Do you think it is ever possible to permanently change the purpose of something?

On Hume

Hume argues that one must be free of all influences in order to make an objective judgment on art and such. This is a little bit ridiculous. For one, that is completely impossible. In order to be free from influence, one must never actually live; all experiences add influence after influence to a person's life to determine how they think and how they view the world.

Second, how can any judgment ever be objective? The word judgment in itself includes judgments of its own, and there is no way to escape them. Hume's theory is impossible to ever achieve, not even he himself could.

If this is the case, why would he ever make such a claim?

Response to Christine

Christine asked on her blog:
Do you think people enjoy art more when they can relate to it? 

I definitely think this is true. The conditions for "relating" to the art are not whether they completely understand the artist's intentions or what it exactly means, but whether the artwork can evoke some sort of emotion and/or reaction in them. People don't like art that bores them or doesn't make them think or wonder. People want art that they can always remember, relate to how they are feeling about something, relate to a situation in their life, anything that can connect them to the artwork, even if it is not the original intention of the artist.

Why are some people so obsessed with finding the true meaning of a piece of artwork instead of being content with their own reactions?

Repsonse to Brycen

Brycen posed the question on his blog: 
Therefore a question arises, the fact that art is so mysterious without a definition; is that what makes it appealing to people?

I think to a certain degree, this is true. I think the mystery of art is very appealing to people, but I don't think it is because there is a lack of a definition. I think it is more because the art world is so subjective, and who knows what is and isn't art, other than to themselves. It is a mystery every day what someone will claim is art, and how the world will react to it. Also, the art world is ever-changing and evolving, so what is art today may not be tomorrow. I think people like to guess what will happen, and to see the world change around them.

On Weitz...

So the week before vacation I lacked on the blogging - it was a busy week for me. Anyways, here are my thoughts from that week...

Weitz is an interesting man. He hates the question "what is art?" and refuses to actually define art, claiming it is too vast to ever fully define. He says one shouldn't even try to define art; it will just make you look like a fool. I agree with this to a certain degree.

It is understandable that art as a whole may be very difficult to actually define, since there are so many components and there are so many genres of art that must be included. It is also hard to define because since art is so complex, the definition must actually be very broad, and could end up being the definition for many other things as well.

However, I do not think that art can never be defined, and I still think that people should try; it would be silly to just give up.

So my question to you is: why is the world on such a mission to have a definition for art?

Responding to Sean

Sean asked on his blog:
When something is seen as completing the harmonious self; is it forever art? Is this piece of art supposed to be art to everyone and how does the viewer represent their qualifications to say what is harmonious?

There are things in this world that are supposedly seen by everyone as "art", but obviously not everyone agrees - even on these "universal" pieces. This is most apparent with the "classic" novels; not everyone enjoys or appreciates them, even though they are supposed to be amazing and everlasting.

I don't believe that something can be "forever art", however. The world's notion of art is forever changing, especially with the multitude of opinions of what would even be considered art.

Responding to Natalie

On her blog, Natalie posed the question:
If humans were without a soul, would art exist? Do you agree or disagree with me?

First, I don't believe that animals do not have souls, which is an argument she makes. True, they do not act like humans, but that does not mean they don't have a soul. What even constitutes having a soul? Animals create beautiful things, whether on purpose or just for the pragmatics. Not everything done by an animal is instinct, however. Also, it must be determined if animals are different from nature, because if they aren't, than neither are humans.

Now, to answer Natalie's question. Instead of with a yes or no, I will say that I do not believe having a "soul" is totally necessary to creating art, as long as one has the instinct to create.

It was stated in class today that animals do not understand the concept of art, even though they make it. What do you think of this statement?

Child's Play

In class last week our discussion was rolling around the topic of child's play and adults using art as a means of expressing their so-called "inner child". Why is this? Why must adults pretend to be these mature beings that don't roll around in the mud or finger paint or build with blocks? What I want to know is who the heck came up with the idea that adults have to pretend that because they are older, they cannot enjoy the same things as their children any longer. That is totally not fair.

And what is even funnier is in college, it becomes acceptable to do all of these things again. It becomes ok to color with crayons in a coloring book, or to go puddle jumping in the Quad and roll around in the mud and rain, or to have sleepovers and wear footie pajamas.

Our society has set all these standards and rules that make humans as a whole less fun and more boring. And the fact that the only socially acceptable way adults are allowed to "play" is if they call themselves and artist and make something.

A question I will leave you with, though, is if art is supposed to be the adult's way of expressing their "inner child", does this mean that children cannot create art?

Response to Sean

Sean brought up some good questions last week in his blog:
Should artists be censored? Should kids in school be taught to make sound decisions? Also could art be a dangerous tool?

Censoring art has always been a very touchy subject, and one that is forever being dealt with. It is hard to say that people are free and do and say whatever they want, and then put restrictions on that. It's easy to say that certain things can harm a child or really mess them up in their thought processes, but they will eventually learn to deal with these things. Because of this inevitability, I believe instead of censorship, children should be taught to deal with things and how to look at or listen to things critically. This will benefit them in the end, giving them better judgment on many things.

Sean also asked, though, if art could be a dangerous tool. He used the example of rap artists saying President Bush hated black people after Hurricane Katrina.

Art can most definitely be used as a dangerous tool, and not only in this country. It can be used to rally people against someone or give a group of people a negative opinion against someone or something. Art itself cannot make anyone do anything, but it can most certainly put the idea into someone's head.

Why do people do this, though? What is the satisfaction in making people feel this way? Or is it unintentional?

Response to Gina

Gina asked in her blog:
Is it better to repress our emotions for the sake of societal standards, or should we express ourselves freely through the medium of art?

It is a shame that some feel it is inappropriate to express feelings, and that the only way to constructively express them without receiving ridicule is through art. I do believe that art, in whatever medium is your choice, is a great way to let out feelings, and I am not criticizing anyone who feels it is their way of expression. However, I do not believe that it should be the only way to express oneself.

I think that emotions should be expressed freely in whatever medium necessary, whether it be an art form, or a physical display. There is obviously a time and a place for everything, but in the end, no emotion should ever be repressed for the sake of society.

So my question for all of you, then, is why are there so many "rules" and "expectations" of society, and why has art become an escape from society?

Response to Brycen

Brycen asked in his blog:
If 90% of the iceberg is under the water can one argue that about 90% or just a large part of the unconscious mind is completely unknown?

I'm not sure if a specific number could be put on how much of the unconscious, or rather the subconscious, is really known; it is probably different for everyone as well. Also, once it starts to be discovered, it is no longer the subconscious anymore, but rather part of the conscious mind. So really, I think all of the subconscious is unknown, for everyone.

I think the iceberg analogy goes better with the whole mind than just the subconscious. Only about 10% of the whole mind is probably known, and the rest of the inner workings will remain hidden and a mystery.

Thoughts?

Emotions and Art

Tolstoy talks about how art must move people in an emotional way in order for it to truly be art, and successful art. My problem with this is how many people does it have to "move" for it to actually be art?

Can it just be one person, or a group of people? Does it have to be a large group? Does it have to be displayed as art in order for it to fully serve its purpose?

There are a lot of faults in this theory, as discussed in class, and a lot of holes in the theory as well.

Also, I am curious to what Tolstoy would say if a piece of artwork, whatever kind of art it may be, affected someone emotionally, but not in the intended way. Would it still be considered art? Or failed art? Or is it just not art to that specific person?

Cooking and Art

Something I have always wondered was whether cooking was considered an art form, or just the way it is displayed? Many call cooking "the art of cooking", but when art is talked about, cooking is rarely mentioned. 

My thoughts are it is the process to get to a final art form. So cooking itself may not be art, but the final product is. Just like painting is not art necessarily, but the final picture is.

What do you guys think though?

Is this art?

Or is this?

Response to Brycen

Brycen asked on his blog:

Will a clear cut line ever be drawn on what is art and what is not; without regard to aesthetics, or will works of art just become more and more ridiculous and simplistic as time goes on?

I don't think a clear line can every be drawn; what can be hopefully defined is what categories to include. The biggest one is it has to be man-made, and usually with the intention of art. 

Brycen used an example of a man gathering a bunch of sticks from a tree, dropping them on the floor and calling that art, as a way to exemplify how ridiculous art can be sometimes. 

If we take the general definition of art, however, than this intention will in fact be art. This brings us back to the question of whether or not opinion of observers makes something art or not. I don't think that this can ever be the case simply because there are too many opinions in the world to make a concrete decision such as this.

And so Brycen, I don't think art will ever be truly defined, unfortunately, as long as there are the millions of different opinions in the world.

My question to you though is: is this really such a bad thing?

Immitation

The topic this week has been imitation being the basis for art. To me, it makes sense that art, at least in paintings or sculptures, is an imitation of something. However, does this mean that everything imitated is art? Does that mean mocking someone can be considered an art form? And what of music? What is music imitating?

It was said that art is an imitation of an imitation of an idea or a "form". Where do these ideas and "forms" come from, though? This may be a lot of questions to ask at one time, but sometimes asking questions is more important than making statements; questioning is more important than acceptance.

I understand Plato's reasoning on imitation, but as Alex was saying in class, I believe that not all art forms are an imitation of an imitation, but the imitation of the idea. I think is is especially true when it comes to music, because I believe music is more an expression of emotion than anything, and even if it is imitating emotion, that emotion is the original form.

Maybe Plato's thinkings and ideas are more prudent to his time and less relevant to ours?

Good vs. Bad

In class we touched on the subject of mastery, skill level, and good vs. bad art.

Some argued that if one masters a certain aspect of art, then they are "good" at it, whereas a child or someone with less skills creates "bad" art.

I don't think that art can ever be good or bad. Art is simply art. That is why I do not understand the reason many people go to school for art. It is one thing to gain more skill and to learn different techniques, but I don't think that learning these things makes you any better of an artist; it just means you know things you didn't use to. It's like taking classes on drawing where you are taught how to draw, but in their style not yours.

Does knowing different techniques make you a "better" artist, or just more skillful?

Responding to Kim

Kim posed this question the other day, and it intrigued me:

When determining what is art, would the views of the creator or the viewer be more important? 

I liked this question a lot, Kim, and I think one could go so many places with it. However, I am going to give my opinion as an answer.

First, I believe that it is certainly the intent of the creator that makes something art. It is not the audience's position to determine if one thing is art and another is not. The biggest example I can think of is why on earth do we put ancient pots and other such artifacts into art museums!? These were not created with the intent of being art, but simply with utilitarian usage; it doesn't matter if they were painted all pretty and such, they were not meant to be displayed as works of art. I understand why they would be put into history museums, but not art. 

It would be like putting one of the tables from the townhouse living rooms in a museum...why!? They are just there to be used, not displayed. Or even better, it would be like displaying a display case...what the heck is the point of that?

Anyways, sorry for the little rant. Basically, it goes back to the discussion we were having in class, just because something is beautiful, doesn't mean it's art.

After day one...

So the purpose of this blog is to think and write about thought provoking ideas that I have in class and to continue the discussion outside of the classroom.


So to start off with, we only discussed part of the introduction for class. The main question was how can we look at art philosophically? Anyways, it turned into more of a discussion about aesthetics and such. I was not terribly into this part of the discussion, more off in my own world thinking about art itself and how can things be art.

Art is obviously changing and so is the definition, if there even is one for art. What is art? No one really knows. I say it's a purposeful expression of...something? Maybe? Who knows. The discussion in class was not focusing on anything in particular, other than aesthetics for a while and trying to determine what that even means.

Something I really wanted to delve into though, and tried but was unsuccessful was the fact that to look at art philosophically is not to determine what art is; instead it is a matter of looking at how others see and define art. Philosophy is not about defining things, it is about determining how others look at things and how it affects their lives. Therefore to try and define art in our class seems very against the whole premise of philosophy and its ideals.

A final question I will leave you with is: why are we on such a mission to define art?