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.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)