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.