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?