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?