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.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)