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?