Life Philosophy

So, in class last week we discussed the various different ways that different terms could be organized to help direct a flow to how we think and live. The terms that we had available to us to be organized were as follows: Creativity, Imagination, Knowledge, Emotion, Understanding, Intuition, and Instict. Needless to say, this was not something that was going to be simple, but to help try and make it all a little more clear, I added the terms: Desire, Wisdom, Intelligence and Results.

The way that I have laid out these terms allows for a cycle of repetition that allows the format to be repeated however many times it needs to. The chart when organized looks like this:

~Click to Enlarge~

I like this chart because with the way that it is now organized, it can be used to visually explain how I think when choice making / problem solving thought process's go on in my head. What I am now interested in is seeing how you feel about this organization, do you thinkin the same fashion as I do? do you think that this chart would be organized differently to how you think? Let me know what you think...

Response to Natalie's Post

In response to the post found here: http://npozzetti.blogspot.com/2011/05/paulo-coelho.html?showComment=1305134941397#c4861583029047587684 these are my thoughts:


This "art equates out to miracle" suggestion is an interesting proposition. I do not necessarily agree with the way that this is implied on a few levels of what you have suggested, especially to have come to this conclusion.

The first thing would immediately be that I do not think that art is typically made out of love; for there are various other foundations of emotion that art can be derived from whence being created. In fact I would even argue that love is rarely the inspiration for art that is indented to be witnessed by anyone other than the one whom is loved, thus most art that is grounded on love is something that typically would not be seen.

Secondly, I do not give love the grace of being considered a "miracle". Love is rare, and though it is something that should be meddled with carefully, love is real, love is achievable. I think that looking at love with the title of miracle will forever undermine the real love you have in your life; one must be careful, for the use of a word as strong as love should be considered greatly before applying to another word as strong as miracle.

Which brings us to the most controversial point to me. Art is not a miracle. Viewing art is not a miracle. Art is possibly about the farthest thing possible from a miracle in my mind. It has no ties to the ethereal as it stands by itself. However, one of the best things about art is that it is a portal to the ethereal, the aesthetic universe, the mind and imagination. It is one of the strongest forms of communication, but that does not make it any more a miracle than the fact that you can read this sentence and know what my meaning is.

I do not want this response to come off as offensive, but it is a particular frustration of mine when love and art are used in such an immature fashion. I can’t support the suggestion that having art in our life is a miracle any more than still being able to still see is a miracle.

Response to Kurt's Post

In the conversation of video games as art found here: http://kurtwords.blogspot.com/2011/05/digital-art-part-2-video-games.html?showComment=1304960945781#c7096904235939138875 This is my input:


As I was looking for the response to my post I stumbled upon this on your blog, and let me tell you I am extremely happy that I did. This is an argument that I have been wondering about and have been a part of almost from the beginning of the "consol gamers’ era".

Here is how I would preface my conversation: there are two series of games that I have been following for most of my life as they have been released as consol games.

The first and foremost is certainly the Legend of Zelda series, I have played all of the games that are worth playing that have come out in this series. Having the opportunity recently to do a lot of research on the subject for another class, I would argue that the core games of the Zelda series with respect to the main story that has been posed is something that will forever be archived as part of Nintendo's history. To make sure we are on the same page, the core set that I am referring to is thus:

Zelda -> Zelda II -> A Link to the Past ->
Ocarina of Time + Majora's mask ->
Twilight Princess + Windwaker

The important thing to remember here is the divide in timelines of the same story that comprise the Majora & Windwaker games in this lineage.

However, to keep to the conversation, I think that the sheer girth of story that is made up of these seven games is on par if not cooler than the girth of story that is found in any good series (like Star Wars for example), and can certainly be considered art if the movies are.


Now, to return to the note at the beginning, the other game series that I have fallen into as I have grown up is the Elder Scrolls, to which I have played the third and fourth games in the series extensively (for the first two games were computer based and not part of my life till far past the Xbox). The thing that I have to say specifically about these games is that they are so good that I would be willing to argue that most of my academic interest nowadays can certainly be tied back to things I had been interested in while playing these games.

The notable difference between this and Zelda though is a key factor here in terms of different styles of artistic video games. Zelda poses a story for you to follow with help as to the linear aspect of the game. Where as The Elder Scrolls is a sandbox game that allows you to immerse yourself in the feel of the society in the game and become part of an alternative world that you can explore. This aspect allows you to follow any number of different outcomes in the game if you so choose, to the extent that I rarely even care about the linear game they program into it.


When it comes down to it, I think that the point of a piece of art is to let your mind become a part of the artist’s world for the time that you spend in the presence of it. Thus, if you can get so involved in a game that it sometimes feels like you have been to these other places, and have experienced exactly what the artists want you to, how can it be argued otherwise that a videogame can't be art?

A Map for Collingwood

Having now discussed Collingwood in class, I thought it would be interesting to show what my interpretation of his art concepts were when I read through the description of his thoughts:

T0 help elaborate on what the picture is showing, here is my interpretation of Collingwood. I think that when it comes down to it, Collingwood's most interesting point of conversation is the addition of the "Feeling" into the description of how an artist translates any sort of information via art to an observer. It allows us to focus on what exactly is happening in the head of the artist by pointing out the following process: 1. Artist Conceives Feeling 2. Feeling is dumped into pool of limitless Expression Outlets 3. Artist works with raw expression and a preferred medium to which eventually turn into Artistic Representation of "Expression 1".

Now the next interesting thing is what happens after the artist has an oppertunity to put fourth artwork, as seen by the second process that takes place: 1. The Observer witnesses Artistic Display of "Expression 1" and 2. Interprets the piece as "Expression ?" which can be one of almost as infinite as the infinite pool of Expression as mentioned before;

3. However, if the oppertunity arrises that the Observer may talk to the Artist on the subject of their piece, then the Observer understands the original feeling that is now sugar coated in artistic expression. Thus the best description available to be heard is implimented to the translating of how the artist came to try to explain the original feeling that they experienced; even though they may not even know it themselves as the artist.

I personally think that this is a particularly interesting and clever tool of showing how the various ways of interpreting of art can be put into a chart like this one and not be overcomplicated. I especially enjoy the concept of the possibility that the artist could get the true message across via other means if the artwork couldn't display the perfect thought process everytime. I additionally like the fact that this chart makes it pretty clear just how unlikely it is that we will ever be able to tell exactly what it was that was going through an artists mind at the time of the creation, because its true.

What are your thoughts on this chart? / Theory

Response to Brycen's Post

In response to the post that Brycen created, found here: http://brycen-honorsartandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/04/performance.html?showComment=1303753976831#c2154931601607662769 I wrote:

I read through this post and kim's response, and I must say I am certainly one to lean more towards what Kim has said. I think that the signifigance of either side cannot be declared as better or worse on the whole. It is also specifically important to point out that their differences are the reasons each can be qualified as an interesting an independant for of its own art.

The concept of the live show being more "real" or "imperfect" only allows you to see the actual actions of what the live performers are doing at x,y,or z showing. The recording of their work though is the closest thing that we can witness and experience to what the artist was trying to convey... it is the closest we have to the perfection that they concocted. And when it comes down to it, both sides of this coin are equally interesting and valuable towards our goal of having something to listen to and enjoy as receptors of art.

Do you personally feel that the concept of live show or stagnent art are equal or that one is better... and why?

Artistic Philosophy: Anthology Puns

So I was flipping through my notes earlier this week andI remembered that I had been doing this thing for most of the semester where I would write down the name of the philosopher that we were talking about in any given week, and a little joke about what their standpoint on the subject is. So, in looking for things to blog about, I figured I would show you some of the ones that I could find in my notes:

Bell: -Art is the successful avoidence of Science-

Dewey: -Art is Everything-

Weitz: -Why Define Art?-

Hume: -How good is Good?-

Goodman: -It is Art.... but only for right now.-

Danto: -Art is a club of dedicated persons... did you bring your membership?-

Dickie: -Can we justify some of the people breaking the rules some of the time?-

Piper: -Art is a power that pieces of art do not represent-

Collingwood: -I do not think you see what you think you see-


That's what I have thus far, I know most of them are pretty silly, but I feel that some of them are actually pretty funny. How accurate do you feel these claims are of these philosophers?

The Perceptions Complex

Three people look out into the distance and see a tree. This massive tree immediately peaks the interest of the three traveling men. Noticing one another, the three men each declare what it is that they have seen in the tree:

The first man looked out into the distance and pointed, declaring in a booming voice:

"My, What Beautiful Lumber!"

The second man disagreed, speaking out in his defined and wise voice:

"No, it is but the perfect place for my house!"

The third man disagreed even further, declaring:

"No, this is a magnificent location for me to paint this beautiful tree!"

All three of the men started to quarrel with one another on the subject, trying desperately to prove that they are indeed more correct. While arguing a fourth man approached and listened to their plight. The original three men requested the truth of this old and knowledgable looking man who has thus been innocent to the conversation.

The Fourth man looked out into the distance and laughed.

"I see all of these things. I see none of these things."

Then he walked away....

Response to Gina's Post

In response to the post that Gina put up, found here: http://gmarieexistence.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-more-comment-on-dickie.html?showComment=1303216806160#c8786751146794309360, this is what I had to say:

Yea, I can definately see where you are coming from on this point. I definately was not that fond of what Dickie had to say when we went over him in class. I think that he is a classic example of someone trying to sound smarter than they actually are, and most of his point have been brought up in different conversations about other philosophers anyway.

The biggest issue that I have is that he is horribly vague. Obviously art has to be an artifact, its about the only distinguishing factor between human intereaction and nature. When it comes down to it though, I feel that the classifications of what makes art the art that it is requires more defining, despite how difficult that may be. All in all, I feel that Dickie was just a cheap reiteration from our past genius' and he does not get that much praise in my book.

Improvments on Color Wheel Theory

So previously, I had made a post about my theory on how the color wheel could be utilized in order to help understand how to organize where genre's of art derive from in terms of the hierarchy of original major genre classifications. Alas, as I would only expect, there were some problems with the way that I had laid things out, thus this will try to reorganize a few of the concepts with a better description and some revamped pictures.

So for starters, it is important to understand how the placement of the color wheel idea fits into the entirety that becomes the hierarchy chart that I have just mentioned. The simplistic layout of the hierarchy would look something like this:

Fine and Performing Arts

Color Wheel

Division of Lesser Genre's

Thus, starting at Fine and Performing Arts as a singular title, we break into the three primary figureheads that are the basis of the Color Wheel: Music, Writing, and Art; which can then be subdivided once more into the lesser genres in various ways. I also point out that as of right now, the artistic qualities that pertain to scent and taste are not listed here on the color wheel level, for they would change the rules a little bit with how they relate to everything else on the color wheel.

With this established, we can now take a look at the layout of the Color Wheel, which I have now filled out the Primary (Red, Blue, Yellow), Secondary (Orange, Green, Purple), and Tertiary (RV, BV, BG, YG, YO, RO) positions of Genre's that are unique of each other and combinations of each other:

(Click to Enlarge)

Now that this has been established in a more complete and organized manor, we can begin to clearly see how the first major level within the hierarchy logically divided away from the concept of just "Art" to which I continue to label as "Fine and Performing Arts".

Interestingly enough, this division continues on to a third level, to which we can subdivide the concepts that have already been laid out here. There are however some things that are important to note when observing how this chart progresses to the next stage. First off, it is significant to note that there are many options for how the viewer may need to use this chart in order to find the proper subcategory that they may be seeking. As an example seen in the image below, when taking note of the subcategories that pertain to music, the choices available allow for numerous categorizations that are unique to the major subject of music; when one is chosen, we can observe the specific examples to choose from in describing our goal. To this last degree we designate the concept of the Tone Chart to lay out the various different qualities that the spread of genre's allow us to seek variety with, as seen here:

(Click to Enlarge)

Now the road map of the genre's can become more clearly visible for describing the exact location of where ones interests lie.

The curious thing now though is the reason we would ever even be interested in where we stand in terms of these locations. Well from what I can discern, this is not only a map to the "art world", but this concept also functions in a manor of allowing one to be able to point out the shape that the web creates of one's concept of art. For if it shows the locations of the things that you personally pertain to in the art world, then your definition of art will stand in relation to that webbing of interests, with special consideration to where more or less of the cluttering of interests happens. Thus, the unique shape that person "A" has on this chart in comparison to person "X" becomes what defines art as a whole: The visual representation of what your interests are and how you use them, in combination to how you relate to any singular other person's same understanding.... and in using the artistic representation of the color wheel even makes it fun.

I hope this helps to clarify exactly what is going on in my head... if you have any questions or thoughts on the subject feel free

Response to Andrea's Post

In response to Adrea's post on Hume, found here: http://momenttospare.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-hume.html?showComment=1302575018409#c4058554772067051527,

Personally, I think that the argument Hume poses for us is actually one of the stronger conversations for how to interpret art. The thing that is important to keep in mind when discussing this however is the concept of setting a precedent, which is exactly what Hume did best.

To elaborate on what I am talking about, obviously no single person could possibly be perfect at judging something with the concept of freedom from influence. However, a person can try to take this standpoint while taking in and interpreting a piece of art. By attempting to focus your view of a piece of art from the standpoint of no influence from other art, then you can most accurately attempt to see the beauty of the thing itself without preconception. You don't have to be perfect at it, but the better you are at this, the less convolution you have to fight past when judging art.

Additionally, taking this standpoint with the idea that you are attempting to achieve as close to perfect as possible, rather than perfection, then objectivity / subjectivity becomes arguable. Taking the standpoint of no preconceptions would mean that you would be judging from the standpoint of the people as a whole, thus removing subjectivity from the equation.

Do you feel that this standpoint makes any sense?

Color Wheel Theory

So in recent classes one thing that I had been considering was what the best way to understand what all of the genre's are of any given art form, and how they could be classified amongst other art genre's. Well after trying to just "think" of all of them in relation to how I have thought about them before, I changed the rules a little bit and came up with this:

This is an interesting device that I have been trying to use in the same fashion for what it was designed, with a twist of how it is laid out. The standard color wheel divides up and clarifies where every color visible to the human eye can be placed on a map of how to get there. Thus I concluded it would be wise to try and use it for this same purpose.

The way that the wheel is laid out allows for the most important "heads" of categories to be displayed as new colors that are a result of the combining of other colors on the wheel. This allows for dividing the complicated multi-genric categories in authority position, for when art and music are equally mixed we get Green, or Animation which would be an artistic film with just music.

Then, the next important thing to note is that the Tone qualities of color can be utilized to divide up all of the sub-categories or sub-genre's of the staple title colors. Thus when it is brought up that there are many genre's within "Music" it can be easily clarified that they are just seperate tones, not seperate colors.

What are your thoughts on this concept?

Response to Kim's Post

• In response to the post that Kim put up here: http://kimsartandphlilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/goodman-and-tolstoy.html?showComment=1301843217055#c3368452113288105104 This is what I hs to say:


• This is an interesting question you have brought up about Tolstoy and Goodman being similar in theories. I would say that they certainly do have similar views, but that Tolstoy isn't where we need to stop this conversation. I think that when it comes down to the synthesis of Goodman's concepts into similarities, there are three pillars that he pulls together into one:


• Tolstoy is certainly the emotion side of his theory,


• Plato's argument of the forms comes back into play,


• and Bell's concepts of aesthetics is the final piece.


• With the three of these theories brought together, we begin to see what the inspiration behind Goodman's work is. So yes, I do think that it is certainly a taste of Tolstoy, but I feel that we can't forget the other two in this discussion, for otherwise we begin to hide away from some of the other important things that are Goodman's philosophies.

Some Stuff from my Notes... Part II

When discussing the art philosophies that we have about David Hume, I have been noting the things that one would probably have to do in order to properly understand what the most logical objective vs. subjective solution is. What I have determined is that I disagree with the prospect that the book offers when it says that only one who is free of prejudices can accurately classify what is good or bad art. My though is as follows:

:: One must have an understanding that encompases all aspects of art in order to properly understand what good or bad art is, for only a blending of objectivity and subjectivity is what will lead you to the correct answer. Thus the solution becomes a mission to have an objective view to which we can all agree on the truth that it lays out for us to which we can begin our subjective dismantling of it as a whole.

:: If the entirety of art can be categorized into similarities in the same fashion that programs such as "pandora" or "genius" lay out music, then we would have a basis to which we can display our different taste and interests in art. What one person considers art does not necessarily need to agree with anyone else's in this layout, for being able to see the whole grid would allow to quarrelist's to realize that there are no similarities in their taste in comparison to the whole.


How does this sound?

Some Stuff from my Notes

So when it comes to blogging, sometimes I have trouble coming up with something new to discuss that I didn't bring up in class. So today I am going to put up a couple of my thoughts that I have jotted down during class over the course of the past few weeks.

First off, I have this interesting tab from the days that we had spent talking about Dewey. The concepts that I had been considering was the possibility of animals being able to learn how to communicate with us as humans so that we would be able to learn from them. I thought that this was a particularly interesting thing to ponder, for the vast number of things taht we could take away from different animals based on their opinions would be fascinating.

So, I began to wonder what would ned to be done in order to make this concept a reality. The first thought was that we would have to probably pick a subject that the animal would be able to communicate within, but what would be the most logical to start with? Math? Music? Art?

What would the view of art from a birds perspective be?

The Concept of Pianistic Perfection

When taking note of the video posted on the DKJ phlog, I had originally claimed (silly..ly) that pianistic perfection would have to be that of the Well Tempered Clavier, basing my argument on the concept that the piano would not exist as we know it today without the it.

However, I have since the moment I posted the Well Tempered Clavier comment been thinking about what exactly would fulfill the actually graspable concept of "Pianistic Perfection", and thus far this is what I've got:

:: From the musical standpoint of a flute player, whom has dabbled here and there amongst various categories and mediums of music, I think that the strongest argument for someone who claim's to have perfection on a musical front only has to truly be able to do only one thing, which inevitably has two results. Ironically, this one thing is that you must be able to respond to any given aesthetic desire possible when it is necessary to display that aesthetic to whatever audience it may be that you are attempting to come in contact with.

:: The fascinating thing about this single requirement being that the reason we as musicians typically lean towards a genre at all is that the aesthetics that become inherent with sed genre are the ones that appeal to us most in one way or another. Thus the second result becomes obvious, in that perfection not only display's that you readily understand and can translate any of the aesthetics, but also that you have discovered and display the one that aesthetically represents thyself whenever necessary.

What are your thoughts?

In Response to DKJ's Definition of Art

Amidst the conversation about Professor Johnson's definition of art, found here: http://critojazz.blogspot.com/2011/03/ap-my-latest-attempt-to-define-art.html, I had the following input to be added:

I would certainly agree that Art is all a matter of levels and degrees. It is a complicated path that you have to follow to end with the conclusion of defining art though; for the two most distracting factors are certainly always muddling with our judgment of the final result. These two factors of course being: 1. if it is indeed art and 2. whether your perception of it is based on your recognition in its quality

Definitively, I would say that all of the requirements are undeniably fulfilled in the personal original experience of witnessing 4'33, (being careful to note the original reveal of the surprise is at least a small piece of the overall aesthetic derived from the artistic display to any audience member). Thus, though many people were disappointed by the piece's result, it was at least to some degree fulfilling all of the original requirements and remains as art to me.

As for the conversation of degree's in respect to the definition; I certainly feel that it is important to consider any and all forms of already created, and yet to be created art on scales of continuum's, using the afore mentioned necessities in defining art against the scale of time. For in my opinion, these necessities are in continuous influx based on their time of creation in comparison to what has been created. The primary reason for the continuum factor being that a piece of work may seem significantly less like art to us in this moment than it did to anyone else in their moment; especially to the degree that a requirement may have failed over time (thus resulting in a piece no longer fulfilling at least one of the requirements of art). With this being said, the definition would allow for our hermit in a closet creating art to be a correct statement, in that he himself did experience the art he made in that moment to which we can no longer partake.

So Said the Daydreamer...

So in order to catch up on some of my blogs, I had some interesting things to mention about my thoughts from the section on Clive Bell. The philosophies of Clive Bell were pretty interesting, for in his opinion the concepts of art that are most important are those of the form and how the represent aesthetics properly, thus being a big fan of abstract art.

Now the thing that I found particularly enticing about this concept of his is how what he was interested in about peoples reaction to art can be quantified somehow. To help elaborate, I will talk about some of my brainstorming on the subject:

:: Now in order to figure out what it is that Clive Bell believes in, one would have to fill in the lexical gap that is the descriptor for how one feels when witnessing a piece of art. In other words you need a way of describing the emotion felt when you see something that is artistic and does not necessarily fit quite right under any other title.

:: In his defence, Bell discusses the concept of the Aesthetic Emotion, which is sort of designed as a term to help with the previous problem, but then the new problem that arises is that of how one aesthetic emotion differs from another...

So my question for all of you out there is thus: would it seem reasonable to declare that Aesthetic Emotions are actually just the raw and pure forms of the regular emotions we feel all the time? Thus suggesting that the overwhelming sense you feel about certain pieces of art set off such a powerful reaction in that emotion that we sometimes confuse it for inspiration. What are your thoughts?

Response to Bryson's post about Bell

In response to what Bryson had said here:http://brycen-honorsartandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/02/representation.html?showComment=1299198983406#c3333453850994794858

Alright, personally, I have a lot to say on this subject to which I feel is a particularly juicy debate about art.

First I want to talk about photography as an art, because in our current day and time, photography is much less an art form than what it once was. However, to preface this statement, there are two things that are necesary to point out about photography to which are the different aspects of its art. The first is that photography is an art of being able to capture an aesthetic in its purest form or representation in real life imagery. The second is that it is an art of being able to manipulate the outcome of the final image that you will have. There is one thing that has to be noted about the second art though; and this is that electronic manipulation to achieve the image you desire does not qualify in the true art of photography, for it involves none of the actual strain inherent in achieving your goal. With this being said, photography is certainly capable of being art still, but its really only half art unless you are efficient enough to use a dark room.

Now to answer your second questions, a lot about life is more artistic that one would expect, for I personally agree with the concept of aesthetics being art in their own respect. So technically, there would be a lot out in nature that would appeal to the view of the artist, which can evidently be captured in an image by a camera.

Does this format of looking at photography make sense in the realm of defining things about art?

Response to Kim's Post

In response to Kim's post about Frued, found here:
http://kimsartandphlilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/art-as-communication-using-freuds-view.html?showComment=1298494752680#c5748496592258441370

I think that with respect to Frued's belief's within art, there is more to the concept of releasing repressed motions than he lets on to or even understood himself.

The primary reason I bring this up is that repressed emotion very specifically does not have to be a bad thing. An artistic person may experience something that derives good or bad emotions within them to which they can focus into the creation of a happy image. The thing that makes this most interesting is that to the artist this may be used simply as a cathartic exercise, but with the successful creation of the art it can be of monetary or even simply just emotional value to another human being.

I think that artists being unhappy people is a fairly strong stereotype about artists because the act and experience in creating art is so strong as a cathartic exercise. Typically I would say that the greater portion of morbid artists are artists that have expended to much into their work / focus too long on something that is very difficult to finish. The best example of this being someone who has writer's block; they cannot think of any new ideas and seem to have blown their creativity in the past until something triggers them to do what they are good at successfully again.

A Note About Our Frued Conversation

So to catch up my blogging from last week, I forgot to mention one of the things that I found most interesting about the conversations we had about Frued in class. The topic that I am reffering to is the one where we discussed the comunication and understanding of the subconcious in its relation to how it affects artists.

To catch up on the point that we were making, the discussion was suggesting that the artist must successfully tap into their subconcious to derive the best creative work they can create. To which once we had decided that this is indeed what Frued would say on the subject, we began to talk about how interesting the concept of tapping the subconcious in creation of a piece of work can be. The biggest point deriving from this concept was suggesting that if an artist must tap into his subconcious to create art, that the viewer of the artwork would be exposed and expected to derive meaning from the origin's subconcious. Thus, we concieved the possibility of artists being able to communicate on a seperate level from normal conversation, a level of subconcious thought so to speak.

This was the most interesting to me because I had never considered this possibility previously, and really enjoyed the concept of a secret language between the best of artists. When brought up in class, we initially shunned the idea, but I think that there is some merit here that we are not considering. The key feature to which would be the concept of analyzing art amongst peers. When looking at a work and discussing the meanings and other important information that can be derived from it, we are simply talking about exactly what the artist intended to communicate through his/her subconscious as according to our experiences through art. When really considered like this, I feel that the secret language is at work all the time and frequently goes unnoticed to the bystanders who consistently overlook it when not considering art. Thus in the end I feel that the secret language is more present that we would think and that it may be a key feature to deriving the true understanding of art.

How do you feel about this concept?

An Attempt to Define Art - Continued

Throughout the corse of this class I have been trying to piece together my own little theories about art here and there between my blogposts. After having created the image that I did to help explain my equation from the first week, I tried to help explain one of the variables used in the equation, thus this post is to help explain Inspiration, based roughly on how I thought of it when reading Tolstoy:

In Response to Davion

In response to Davions Post:
http://hartphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/02/with-great-power-comes-great.html#comments

Interestingly enough, I would say that you are right about the fact that art can be one of the most influential things that humans as individuals can create. When it becomes a question of power though, the answer is substantially more difficult to come by. For I would be put in the position to say that Art is only as powerful as we let it become.

Now strangely enough, the thing that makes this conversation interesting is that I feel there is at least one other variable to attend to when considering the power of art. For when you think about it, if we were to assume that this sort of power can be derived from art, then there must be something that seperates one piece from another.

To me, the answer is all about the masses. The dangerous, powerful artist is the one that can create a piece of work that convey's the same emotion to the largest number of people. If an artist can create great pieces of work that influence masses of people to believe in and follow their ideals, then art would be just as strong as any other form of influential communication. This would be a scenario to which the use of art would be to much power for people to control. Once this has been determined though, would we consider things like advertising to be a similar threat?

Response to Kate's Post

Personally, I would argue that perception of what is art has very little to do with the limitations of what can be art. Rather, the perception of art is more similar to the idea of Aesthetics to me. For one who understands their personal aethetic value for something in conjunction to understanding the aesthetic potential of others around them is what leads to art.

Now that being a little bit much to take all at once, to simplify I would say that human's naturally understand what is art to them and to people around them, it is an instinct of sorts. When it comes down to analyzing a specific piece of work, if it cannot be understood then it is an error of communication of one of the two parties involved (either the creator or the observer). These types of errors are the loopholes that crack through society and create the problem of your questioning of your own perception of the whole.

Do you feel that this analysis of perception helps you to follow through with what your original intent of understanding art was?

Defining Art

Today in class we talked some more about a good means as to how we can properly define art. As it turns out we discussed the definition this time in the format of an equation, to which I thought was a particularly appealing idea, so I started working on what I think is my appropriate understanding of art and how it can be defined.

What I came up with was an extention of the equation that we had in class that I feel incoorperates all aspects that I think are necessary in properly describing what art is and why it is important. The equation accomplishes two things: it shows what art is, and also gives an interesting way to determine if art is valued amongst people of the art world, and it looks like this:


How do you feel that this equation does to define art? What differences do you think make it stronger or weaker?

Response to Andrea

To attempt to answer your question and touch on additional things that you mentioned in your post, I have two opinions.
First off, I'll try to answer your question, to which I think that the necessity to try and define art is more significant than it seems. Mostly because if we could come to some sort of concrete answer as to what art is and why, then lots of other things would become certainly much easier to answer by classification. Additionally, it is a frustrating thing to have a word that everyone in the world knows and understands, but can't be truly defined in a concrete manor. All in all, it would be nice if there were some sort of constant that we could agree on and attempt to hold against any formidable question.
Secondly, there is the string of comments that you left in your last paragraph, to which I think are very interesting. I think that the idea of philosopher's not defining words and ideas is incorrect; in fact I almost feel it’s the opposite. To my understanding, philosophy is a practice of unbiased understanding and proving of truth, to which defining art is a paramount example. To look at art philosophically is but to understand what art is and why it is significant to all things that it affects.

Do you still disagree?

Artists vs. Nature

Today in class we mentioned the currently indistinguishable difference between art created by people, and art that is beautiful of its own existence out in nature as to whether these things qualify as art itself. Interestingly enough, we mentioned that artists specifically try to immitate what we know as the world via the skills that they have in manipulating different mediums to accomplish this.
With both of these things having been mentioned, I feel that it is interesting to take note of people who have been studying computer graphics with the intention of making the artistic world that we view much more "beautiful" than our own real life could ever allow. As an example of this, consider all of the work that went into the movie Avatar, this level of artistic manipulation is stagering enough that many people can sit to watch this movie and feel like a part of the environment that has been laid out for them.
Considering this ideal of creating an artistically better world, is it possible that artists are working towards the idea of creating something along the same lines as The Matrix to keep people entertained? Are we going to eventually need to give up our reality with the ideal of art as its replacement to keep ourselves entertained?

What are your thoughts?

Art and Philosophy

Hey there everybody,

So I took the honors Nature of Human Nature class with David last year, and seeing as I enjoyed using this blog so much, I will continue my posts for the Art and Philosophy class this semester through this blog.

Please note that none of the posts previous to this one are relevent within the Art and Philosophy class, but if you are interested feel free to read through some.

Oh, and also, I put a new link on the places to go tab on the right side of the screen, I promise its not a virus, its just something interesting for you to keep busy with that i'll change with every post I put up, so be sure to come back and check it out.

Thanks, and hope for a good semester!

Alex