Was Kant Racist?

     While reading Immanuel Kant's Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, I also noticed something interesting in Section Four of the book, which is entitled “Of National Characteristics, so far as They Depend upon the Distinct Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.” At one point, Kant describes a situation in which a white man accused a black man of “haughty treatment toward his wives” (Kant 113). The black man replied, “‘You whites are indeed fools, for first you make great concessions to your wives, and afterward you complain when they drive you mad’” (Kant 113). I believe that Kant’s response to this situation is a bit racist because he states, “And it might be that there were something in this which perhaps deserved to be considered; but in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid” (Kant 113). As with my last post, I am curious if anyone agrees or disagrees with me when I say that Kant's comment was racist.
 

Was Kant Sexist?

     For my book review, I read Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime by Immanuel Kant. In Section Three of the book, entitled "Of the Distinction of the Beautiful and Sublime in the Interrelations of the Two Sexes," I noticed something interesting. At one point, Kant stated:
          A woman who has a head full of Greek, like Mme Dacier, or carries on fundamental controversies
          about mechanics, like the Marquise de Châtelet, might as well even have a beard; for perhaps that
          would express more obviously the mien of profundity for which she strives. (Kant 78)

In my opinion, this remark comes off as a bit sexist. However, I am curious to see if anyone agrees or disagrees with me.
     

Who Should We Trust?

Question:  Wouldn’t it be more accurate to ask someone who actually lives in a culture of “primitive” art what their concept of art is, rather than trusting the theory of someone who just studies the culture?

After our discussions in class, I have realized that this question is not very relevant, because the issue at hand is not who to trust. It is whether or not there are multiple concepts of art. Although I agree with Denis Dutton for the most part, I also believe that Larry Shiner makes some good points. Overall, however, I believe that these "primitive" art objects are just examples of craft, which is a type of art. Although the functionality of these objects may be the most important factor for their creators, they are still crafts, and therefore works of art that are aesthetically pleasing and share certain criteria needed for something to be considered art.

Designs With Functions

Question:   If certain objects were created not to be considered art, but for the sole purpose of their functions, why would the creator bother to make beautiful designs on the objects?


After our discussions in class, I have realized that in the case of some works, such as cave paintings, the designs are crucial to the functioning of the work. For example, if the function of a cave painting was to tell a story, detailed designs would be necessary to adequately achieve that function. The more detailed and beautiful the designs, the better the story will be.

When I came up with my question, I wasn't thinking about works like cave paintings. I was thinking about something like a vase or bowl to hold things, such as water. I was wondering why the creators would bother to put designs on these things if their only function was to carry or hold something. However, I suppose the designs on these objects could be symbolic and therefore have a separate function themselves. While coming up with my question, I no doubt should have considered how it would apply to a variety of objects, such as cave paintings.

Why Are We Such Snobs?

Question:   Lessing’s essay discussed how most people would take an inferior sketch by Picasso over a superior landscape painting by an unknown artist. Why do we do this?


     After our discussions in class, I have concluded that we perform this snobbery for multiple reasons. One reason we might do this is for financial reasons. Obviously, the sketch by Picasso would be worth a lot more money than the landscape painting by an unknown artist if we were to try and sell it. This is unfortunate, but it is the way our society works. People will pay for big names. 
     
     Another reason people might prefer the Picasso sketch is for that reason exactly:  they prefer the big name. They want to own something made by such a famous artist, no matter how aesthetically pleasing it may be. They would probably pay big money to even have one of Picasso's socks, or some other random object that he owned. 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Autographed-Stihl-MS-660-Chainsaw-by-Sarah-Palin-/110981910198?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19d7098eb6

^  For example, the link above leads to an ad on eBay, in which a chainsaw autographed by Sarah Palin is being sold for $570, which is clearly a ridiculous amount of money to pay for a signature on a chainsaw.

 

Can a Style of Art Be Forged?

Question: Is the act of painting in the style of another artist but with different content matter considered forgery?

After our discussions in class, I have concluded that the act of painting in the style of another artist but with different content matter is not considered forgery. The only way this would be considered forgery is if the content matter was the same. However, this act of painting in the style of another artist can be seen more as a tribute to the artist, just like a tribute band honors a famous band by playing their music. Painting in another artist's style just means that the artist appreciates the style, and finds it very aesthetically pleasing. For example, many people make pop art even though Andy Warhol was the creator of this type of art. 


http://www.popartists.com/

^ Above is a link to a website that displays pop art of many pop artists, including Andy Warhol.

Is Imagination Voluntary or Involuntary?

     Question:  In reference to my first question, is imagination a voluntary or involuntary process?

      In class, we discussed how imagination needs to be intentional, therefore meaning that dreaming is not imaginative. However, I'm not so convinced. I am still undecided on whether or not dreaming is imaginative, but I don't believe that intention is always needed for imagination to occur. I feel as though using one's imagination is not always a voluntary process. For example, people daydream all the time without even realizing it. Does this mean their thoughts while daydreaming are not imaginative? I don't think this is the case.   I don't think we always use our imaginations with the intention of being imaginative. Sometimes we just automatically imagine things, without thinking about it. I am not denying that imagination is voluntary, I am just stating my belief that sometimes, imagination is involuntary and automatic.

Are Dreams Imaginative or Creative?

Question:  Would our dreams be considered imaginative, creative, or neither because dreaming is an involuntary, biological phenomenon?

After our discussions in class, I have decided that dreaming is definitely not creative, because it is involuntary. In order for something to be creative, it has to be voluntarily created. We have to use our imaginations to create an end product. With dreaming, however, we are not voluntarily creating a product. Everyone dreams, whether they remember them or not. Dreams occur automatically during REM sleep; there is no intention there. 

However, what about lucid dreaming? When someone has a lucid dream, they are able to control their dreams because they realize they are dreaming. If this is true, wouldn't their dreams be considered creative because they are using their imagination to create an end product? I believe that in this case, their dreams should be considered both imaginative and creative.

Are there other concepts comparable to the complexity of art?

Question:  What are some other concepts that are so complex, we have trouble defining them?

After our discussions in class, I have found a few other concepts, in addition to art, that are so complex, we have trouble defining them. One concept that we have trouble defining is time. Time is very hard to define because in defining the word, we can't use the word in the definition. For example, one might define time as, "A specific amount of time." This would not work because "time" is used in the definition, and if the reader does not know what "time" means, they will not understand the definition. This would be particularly confusing if you are teaching someone a new language because they would not know what the word "time" means in English, and it would be really hard to explain the concept to them if the teacher did not know the equivalent word to "time" in the person's native language. It is quite difficult to try to define time without using the word in the definition. Time is a very complex concept, making it very hard to define. Therefore, there has been a lot of controversy over the years on how to define it adequately.

Another complex concept that is difficult to define is love. I think one of the reasons it is so hard to define is because it involves many different emotions, that are hard to put into words. It is hard to describe in words a feeling that feels so powerful and significant inside. Another possible reason for its complexity is that there are different kinds of love. One feels different kinds of love toward their parents, spouses, children and friends. When someone says "I love you," to their children, it means something different than when they say the same thing to their spouse. I wouldn't say that these are different levels of love, because one can love their parents and family just as much as they love their spouse. Rather, they are different kinds of love. Consequently, people have also debated over the years what the adequate definition of love would be. 

Do we need definitions?

      Question:   Some would argue that certain concepts, or objects, do not require definitions because they have certain known characteristics that distinguish them from other things. For example, we know the characteristics of a cat; therefore we no longer need a definition for it. However, wouldn't definitions be necessary when it comes to teaching and/or learning a new language, especially if the concept is specific to one culture, and therefore does not have an equivalent in any other languages?

      I have concluded that yes, definitions would be necessary in this situation because if teaching someone a new language, we would need to describe the characteristics of new words, therefore defining them. By describing the characteristics of the new word, we are giving a definition, whether or not it is exactly the same definition that would be found in a dictionary. Definitions just list the characteristics of the word, or the necessary and sufficient properties that something needs to have in order to be called that word. 

      If we didn't have definitions, listing necessary and sufficient characteristics, we wouldn't be able to discriminate between different objects. For example, if we didn't have a definition for the word cat, we wouldn't be able to discriminate between what is and what is not a cat. People could start claiming that dogs are cats, and it would be justifiable because there is no definition to act as a reference. We also need these definitions to be specific enough to make sure that things that do not belong are not being included in the definition. For example, if the definition for a cat was, "an animal with four legs, eyes, ears, a nose, a mouth, and a tail," then we could claim that many reptiles are cats because they meet these characteristics. Therefore, not only do we need definitions, but these definitions must also list necessary and sufficient characteristics that are specific enough to exclude any objects that do not adequately fit the term.

Fear of Roller Coasters

Question:  Some people are afraid of extreme roller coasters. They usually act on this fear and avoid them. Are these people genuinely afraid because they believe the roller coaster is actually dangerous? Or are they “afraid” of the scenes involving roller coaster disasters depicted in horror films, such as Final Destination 3? In addition, many people who have fears of roller coasters describe their fear as being afraid of the roller coaster itself. Although the roller coaster does exist, are they really afraid of the roller coaster, or just the situation they would be in if the architecture failed in some way?

In regards to my first question, I guess I would say that these people are genuinely afraid that the roller coasters are dangerous, although scenes in movies such as Final Destination 3 could very well add to their preexisting fears. I have come to this conclusion because disasters have happened in real life involving roller coasters, therefore these claims that roller coasters are dangerous didn't just come from the movies that depict them. Another thing that makes this fear legitimate is that people who are afraid of riding roller coasters almost always act on this fear by avoiding them.

In regards to my second question, I would say that these people are not afraid of the roller coaster itself. Rather, they are afraid of the situation they would find themselves in if the architecture of the roller coaster failed in some way. The roller coaster only poses a dangerous threat if the architecture fails, therefore these people must be afraid of the situation, rather than the roller coaster itself.

Fictional Reactions?

Question:   In many horror films, someone is sitting or standing at the edge of their bed when something suddenly grabs their ankles and pulls them under the bed. Sometimes when I am sitting at the edge of my bed, with my feet dangling off the side, I think of these scenes. I know perfectly well that there is nothing under my bed. However, I still pull my feet up onto the bed. I am aware that there is no real danger, but I react to the fictional threat anyway. Why do I do this?

After our discussions in class, I have concluded that I must be just playing along with a make-believe game when I react to these fictional threats. As I stated in my question, I know very well that there is no real threat under my bed. I know that if I leave my feet dangling there, nothing bad will happen. However, my reaction to move my feet seems almost automatic, like a reflex. Perhaps this has happened so many times that I just automatically move my feet when the "scary" thought crosses my mind.

I think that although I am aware there is no real threat, I move my feet in order to put the thought out of my mind. Does this mean that I am afraid of the thought of something being under my bed? I am not sure, because I might just be moving my feet to get the thought out of my head, not because I fear it, but because I want to get the annoying thought out of my head and focus on something more important. If I don't move my feet, and keep them dangling, then I might start to think of it as a test to see how long I can leave them without getting "scared". I probably wouldn't be able to think about anything else with that challenge in mind.

Overall, I still do not have a positive answer for why I do this. Maybe I am just afraid of the thought itself. However, I still agree with Walton's theory for the most part. The only thing I can be absolutely sure of is this:  next time I find myself in this situation, I will definitely be thinking about this week's topic, and this blog in particular.

What About Making Molds?

Question:   My first question regards another form of art, one that is not very similar to photography or painting. My question is what Scruton’s opinion would be on the act of making molds of objects—whether the molds are made from clay, plastic, wax, plaster, etc.

While first pondering this question, I thought that Scruton would not consider this art because it is just making a copy of the original object. However, it isn't that simple of a question. Making molds isn't as comparable as photography to holding a mirror to the subject. A mold isn't just an image of something on paper, it's a whole new object.

      However, Scruton might argue that making molds isn't art because it just makes identical copies of the original object, so only the creation of the original could be considered art. However, the copies of the object when using molds don't all come out exactly the same. Some might have new imperfections. I suppose the degree of similarity to the original object depends on the type of material used to make the copy. If the mold is filled with melted down metal, or plastic, there will probably be less imperfections than if you use clay or plaster. However, Scruton would probably argue that just because the copies are slightly different than the original, doesn't make it art. He might argue that imperfections are just one of the inevitable results of mold-making.

      On the other hand, Scruton argues that photographs can't be representative because you can only appreciate the subject of the picture, not the actual picture itself. He says that with paintings, you can appreciate the actual painting itself along with the subject because you can appreciate the texture of the paint, or the way the paint looks on the texture of the canvas. So with mold-making, shouldn't the same apply? If you use different materials in the mold to make copies of the original object, the different materials will give the finished product different characteristics, such as texture. If you make a mold of an apple, for example, and then fill one mold with liquid metal and one mold with clay, or plaster, the two finished apples will be very different.You could therefore appreciate each one aesthetically for different reasons. 

A Painting of a Painting

Question:  My second question is whether or not Scruton would consider a painting of another painting to be representational.

After our discussions in class, I have decided that Scruton's opinion on a painting of another painting would depend on the intentions of the artist. If the artist painted a picture of the painting with the intentions of making an exact copy, then Scruton most likely would not consider that art, or at least not complex art. Although the painting would not be exactly the same as the original, the artist intended for it to be. 

On the other hand, if an artist's intention is to paint a picture of a painting and by so doing so, send a new message about the painting, or portray something other than what the original painter portrayed, then I think that Scruton would consider this art. For example, if the artist purposefully alters the painting in some way, they would be trying to send a new message. I think Scruton would appreciate this as representational art because the artist isn't simply holding a mirror up to the painting, they are trying to show something new about it. 

Nature Trails

Question:  On many nature trails/hikes, there are signs that give small descriptions about the surrounding plants, trees, etc. Similarly, on safari tours, tour guides give short descriptions of the various animals that can be spotted. According to Carlson, would these descriptions be sufficient enough for one to adequately aesthetically appreciate the surrounding nature?

 After our discussions in class, I have concluded that these descriptions would not be sufficient enough, according to Carlson, for one to fully aesthetically appreciate the surrounding nature. He might say that by reading the information cards one could somewhat appreciate nature, but not fully appreciate it. He would probably claim that the descriptions given are far too simple and short to really educate the reader on the nature of the object. I do believe, however, that Carlson would at least appreciate the fact that the information cards are there, rather than there being no information available to the observer at all. Carlson would probably encourage the observer(s) to do some research on their own about the object and continue learning about it, in order to aesthetically appreciate it more fully.

Is Ignorance Bliss?

Question:  What if some people who support Carroll's view on the aesthetic appreciation of nature choose not to learn more about nature because they believe that ignorance is bliss?

Carlson claims that there is a positive correlation between knowledge and aesthetic appreciation of nature. He believes that the more knowledge you have of natural science, the more fully you can appreciate nature aesthetically. My question, however, is that what if some people would rather not know why certain things occur in nature that they view aesthetically?

Carroll claims that people do not need knowledge to appreciate nature aesthetically. He believes that people can appreciate nature just as fully without knowledge as people with knowledge about natural science. In class we discussed how in many cases, people might not be knowledgeable about nature, but after becoming very interested in something in nature, be inspired to learn more about it. This means that people could start out supporting Carroll, but then attain the desire to learn more about something in nature, thereby supporting Carlson's view.

However, what if someone doesn't want to learn more about something they are interested in because they believe that ignorance is bliss? For example, someone might aesthetically appreciate the bright colors and patterns of an animal. However, if they find out that the animal is brightly colored because it is poisonous, they might appreciate the animal less. This would mean that in this situation, there is a negative correlation between knowledge and aesthetic appreciation. The more knowledge one attains, the less they appreciate the object in nature. Another reason why some people would rather stay ignorant to natural science is because they believe that learning the reason why some objects in nature are the way they are would ruin the magic for them. For example, a lot of people aesthetically appreciate they way the leaves change color in the fall. However, if they learned the reason why they change color, they might not appreciate the leaves as much because there is no longer any mystery to them. People who believe that ignorance is bliss have a more romantic approach to the aesthetic appreciation of nature, while people like Carlson have a more rationalist approach.

Scruton's Preferences

My second question is whether or not Scruton ranks certain forms of contemporary music superior to other contemporary forms, or if he just ranks all contemporary music as equally inferior to classical music. For example, he could dislike rap music even more than he dislikes rock music.

Although I could never be sure without actually asking Scruton, I do believe that there are some forms of contemporary music that he would believe to be more acceptable than other forms. As I stated in my previous blog, I do not believe Scruton bases his judgments solely on the time period in which certain music is popular. He bases his judgments on the quality and complexity of the music at hand. Therefore, I can't really say that he would prefer, in my opinion, music from a certain decade over music from another decade. I can't say that he would probably prefer the music of the 1980's over the music of the 2000's. That would imply that he is judging music based on the time in which it was produced. He just believes that music has a tendency to decline in quality and complexity as more time goes by. He believes this is just an accurate, negative correlation.

I can, however, say that Scruton might prefer one genre over another. In my question, I said as an example that maybe Scruton prefers contemporary rock over contemporary rap music. I am not claiming that this is true, but it very well could be the case. Scruton could claim that rap is far too simple compared to classical music to be considered "good" music. He might claim that rap music doesn't have harmony, melody, tone and rhythm. It might have some, but not all of these characteristics. He might prefer rock music because at least most rock artists use musical instruments.  

In class, we discussed how some contemporary music incorporates orchestras into their music. We discussed whether or not Scruton would enjoy this type of music. I believe that although he might not consider this kind of music something breathtaking, he would probably appreciate it at least somewhat. For example, the song "Bittersweet Symphony" by the British band the Verve incorporates an orchestra into its performance. Although I have a feeling that Scruton would definitely have some critiques about how repetitive the violin is, I do believe he would at least somewhat appreciate this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-p7h2ANRsk
^ "Bittersweet Symphony" by the Verve, live on BBC Television

Mozart v. the Beatles v. Nirvana

         My first question is where Scruton draws the line which separates good music from bad music. For example, he compares Nirvana to the Beatles, claiming that the Beatles are superior. However, would he claim that Mozart is superior to the Beatles, because the Beatles are contemporary compared to the music of Mozart? 

     
      After our discussions in class I have realized that yes, Scruton would claim that Mozart is superior to the Beatles. However, I don't think he discriminates solely based on what year the artist started making music; he discriminates based on the quality of the music, in his opinion. For example, if a contemporary orchestra performed new and original music with the same style as classical music, I believe he would have no reason to consider it inferior. If the new music has tone, melody, harmony and rhythm, he would really have no reason to dislike it. 

      Therefore, Scruton doesn't claim that the Beatles are superior to Nirvana just because the Beatles started making music in the 1960's and Nirvana the 1990's. He believes the Beatles are superior because their music is superior. He believes they do a better job than Nirvana in incorporating tone, harmony, melody and rhythm in their music. He believes the music of Nirvana is less complex, and more dehumanizing. He also dislikes the fact that contemporary music forms idols of the artists. He doesn't like how Kurt Cobain is idolized by so many people, and thought of so highly. He would prefer people to praise the actual music more than the artist performing it, and he believes that most contemporary music is too simple for people to idolize it, so they idolize the musician instead.

The Composer's Opinion

Question:  Would the original composer of a musical piece be flattered to see other musicians performing their work, or slightly annoyed? For example, I wonder how musicians feel about their tribute bands, if they have any.

From what we have discussed in class, I have realized that different musicians will no doubt have different opinions about other musicians performing their work. I would like to believe, however, that most musicians would be flattered, rather than annoyed, by seeing people perform their work. I also wondered in my question how these musicians feel about their tribute bands, if they have any. I think the musicians should be, and probably are in most cases, flattered by this. They are called "tribute" bands, after all. They are performing as a tribute to the original band, which they must truly idolize to put their time into forming a tribute band. 

As we also discussed in class, some musicians might even believe that some covers of their songs are actually better than their original versions. In class we discussed an interview with Paul McCartney. When asked how he felt about other musicians performing his music, he said that he enjoys it, when it's performed well. If it isn't performed well, however, he doesn't enjoy it. Overall, if someone as successful as Paul McCartney is flattered by musicians performing his work, then I assume most other musicians don't mind that much either.

Song Covers

Question:   When musicians “cover” songs by other musicians, are they usually trying to make the piece authentic or are they more concerned with interpreting the song in their own way and putting their own spin on it?

Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that although some musicians do think it's important to make songs that they are covering somewhat authentic to the original, they usually are more concerned with interpreting the song in their own way. The cover of the song might not be as successful if the artist covering the song tries to mimic everything about the original piece perfectly. It would not be viewed as creative. Different artists also have different interpretations of pieces of music, which is why they want to cover the song in the first place- to show what it means to them, personally. 

I do believe that some artists that cover songs by other artists will try to make the piece as authentic as possible, and I see nothing wrong with that. However, I think these artists are most likely more interested in creating successful performances than authentic ones. After all, most artists that are covering other artists' songs are trying to become known as musicians themselves. Therefore, it might be a technique of theirs to cover other musicians' music in order to be recognized. Audiences might be more apt to give these new artists a chance if they recognize the songs they are singing, and appreciate the creative spin they put on it. If the audience is already familiar with the song, they can sing along and enjoy it. If they aren't familiar, they might not pay as much attention to the new artist.

Personally, I enjoy a lot of covers of original songs. I almost always enjoy the original song as well, but I appreciate the differences in the two versions. For example, if the original song is slow, and the cover of the song is faster, they are both enjoyable for different reasons. Another factor for me is that sometimes I hear cover songs before I even hear the original. Usually when this happens, I tend to favor whichever version I heard first. This is probably because I'm just more used to that version. However, I usually end up enjoying both versions, just not equally.

For example, I first heard the song "Mad World" at the end of the movie Donnie Darko. "Mad World", the cover by Gary Jules, played at the end of the movie as the credits began. I fell in love with the song and its creepy style. I didn't find out until later when I looked up the song online that the version I loved was a cover of the original song by Tears for Fears. I listened to the original and enjoyed that version as well, just not as much as the cover by Gary Jules. I like both versions, but I still favor the cover by Gary Jules, both because it's more haunting to listen to, and because I heard it first. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFsHSHE-iJQ
^ "Mad World" by Tears for Fears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4&feature=related
^ "Cover of Mad World" by Gary Jules

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

We mentioned in class how different pieces of music can be made with the same notes or chords by making slight changes. I just think this video is a good example.

The Art of Food: Part 2

My second question regarding Telfer's essay on the art of food was whether or not food has to be expensive to be considered art, or to even give an aesthetic reaction. I wondered if cheap, unhealthy food, such as pizza, would even be considered. After our class discussions, I have concluded that food like pizza, or fast food, would not, in most cases, be considered art. The reason for this is because cheap, unhealthy food is almost always being created with the predominant intention of it being eaten, not appreciated as an art form. The other predominant intention this type of food is usually being created with is to make money. I do, however, think that there can be exceptions. If something is made out of cheap food, but is predominantly intended to be viewed aesthetically, then it would be considered art, although a minor form. For example, someone could make a sculpture out of cheap food to make a statement about the eating habits of Americans. For example, the pictures below show two sculptures by artist Christopher Chiappa. Both sculptures are made entirely of fast food. Both sculptures are edible, but it is clear that the predominant intention of the artist was for the sculptures to be viewed aesthetically, not eaten. Therefore, I would consider these sculptures as minor forms of art.

Sculptures made entirely of fast food by artist Christopher Chiappa.

The Art of Food: Part 1

My first question regarding Telfer's essay on food as art was whether or not a piece would be considered art if it was made entirely out of food, or meant to be edible. For example, if someone makes paintings using chocolate as paint. From our discussions in class, I have concluded that yes, this would be art because the piece was predominantly intended as art by the creator. The fact that it is also edible is just an added bonus. I would, however, consider it a minor art as opposed to a major art because I don't think all types of edible art could evoke such emotionally aesthetic reactions such as fear, as major art forms could. For example, the picture shown below is a chocolate painting done by artist Sid Chidiac. The painting is edible, but the predominant intention of the artist was for this piece to be viewed aesthetically, not eaten. Therefore, I would consider Sid Chidiac's chocolate paintings as a minor art form.

Portrait of Barack Obama painted entirely with chocolate

by Sid Chidiac