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?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
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?
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?
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?
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?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
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?
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?
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?
Monday, March 21, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)