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.