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?