Response To Gus's "Why are we attracted to horror...?"

I can understand that it is something we don't feel, but I honestly think it is not curiosity but the thrill that returns people to these things. The fear pumps adrenaline through our bodies, despite how scared we are that rush can be addicting, it is why people do dangerous adrenaline filled activities all the time. I think it's that addiction of adrenaline, that high from fear that keep people coming.

Talkin' Walton: Fear and Fiction

No matter what, there is certainly fear felt when something ominous or grotesque happens in fiction, there is a reaction. Walton claims though, that there can be no "real" emotion behind this. That we are telling ourselves it is make-believe and playing along. He claims we can feel quasi-emotions toward them, which are in fact real emotions. This is just a circular issue that the theory can’t get around. I feel real sentiment towards Thor when he appears in the Avengers movie. I feel fear when the zombies come breaking down the door, even if it is quasi-sentiment or not, it is still a real emotional experience. There are some aspects to the theory that make sense in some situations, like that a lot of our emotions come out of some realistic anchor but that does not apply to everything.

Q+A: Walton

Does the pretend theory really work?

Walton’s pretend theory has some merit to it in some situations but not in all. There are plenty of holes. For example, his entire thesis seems to imply that through the entire experience of a narrative piece we must remind ourselves that we are “make believing” and that these thoughts prevail in our thinking. This is not true though. Throughout the entire narrative experience our thoughts become lost within the contents of the book or in the movie or whatever media is being presented. There is not thought process behind it that we actively engage to start the process. It is all very natural to us. We simply know how to become involved in what we read or watch without reassuring ourselves that it is pretend. 

Question of the Week: Walton

Think back to the last time you played make-believe. Compare it to reading a book or enjoying some other narrative art-form. Are they completely the same? What are some similarities? Differences?

The experience is very similar but there is one major difference, the narration. The book, or what have you, guides where the story goes, it creates things independent of us. It takes us where the creator wants us to go, and I feel a lot of times it is a place that is darker than what we would design ourselves. We become attached to characters or things and they are destroyed in the story, something in which we would never do if given the opportunity to. They can also spark emotions we normally wouldn't try to recreate ourselves, like sorrow, fear, etc. There is less control over what we see and it effects us differently.

Free Write: Nehamas

In our discussions in class talking about beauty and our understanding of it. I came to the conclusion that Nehamas was trying to put forward a new understanding of beauty as not the ex post facto feeling of beauty, but as the path we take to get there. Nehamas says it is in the promise of happiness from mystery and therefore it is in the process of our experience with something that makes it beautiful. The problem is what happens afterwards. Without the promise of happiness from something new, then does it stop being beautiful? I don't believe so, I understand the point Nehamas is making, but something is still beautiful afterwards. Something is held as beautiful  with sentiment as well as with mystery. It is not a set thing.

Q+A: Nehamas 2

Why is Nehamas so against Kant’s views? In other words, what is different about their views that lead to such stark contrast?

It seemed this essay was in response to reading Kant's views and there were just many a way for Nehamas to share his view. In example, the mention of Kant's universal aspect to beauty. Nehamas deeply disagreed with this claim as he brought up the issues of trying to convince others that one person’s sense of beauty is the correct one that should be universally felt. It is very hard to back up claims of universality especially with so many different viewpoints and tastes in the world. How do we know that one path is the true one or not? It is impossible to know, so art ends up being left in the hands of the individual.

Q+A: Nehamas

Is there a “rock-bottom” to the conversation of art?

I honestly do not believe so. I honestly think that art will always have different meanings to different people, so really, as long as there are people, there will be something new to talk about. For example, I may have a life experience that makes a painting feel familiar to me. It reminds me of that experience I had before and thus gives the painting that perspective to me. However, someone else could go by and have a completely opposite reminder from the painting and they will hold that meaning up to the painting. The conversation I could have with that person would be very interesting and if anyone else were to come they could add their own definition. The artistic meaning of things can always continue.

Creativity

On the subject of imagination, these were my general thoughts from what I understood:
The three objects of thought, knowledge, creativity and imagination are all very much connected in an overarching of human thought. Knowledge is the understanding of factual things. It is the Justified True Belief in something. It is a constrained thought process. It deals with absolutes. Imagination is our ability to understand things even though they are not justified true beliefs and understand they are not so. It is the unconstrained thinking where anything really can come into mind. Creativity comes from the applied use of knowledge and imagination. It ends with some product that was once only thought but has become fact.

Imagination is a tricky thing since it really has no basis in fact and we can't really share it directly. However, it's application is integral to things we have in our society. The things we have and the customs we follow were made up at some point in someone's imagination, then applied creatively. It is something debated over in how it works, but something used all the time.

Q+A: Noel Carroll

How big a role does art identification play in theories like this one?

Essentially, being able to define art is the defining part of this argument. Without the definition, Carroll's arguments keep reeling back to he creation of art itself. It is not a very practical a theory. The narrative approach to art is this vague understanding that art tells a story and adds to the ever continuing conversation of art. It uses art and history to reflect on the art piece itself. He uses the example of the Brilo box, which has been mentioned before in art interpretation. In it he explains that using the historical context of other art and the deeper meaning of the art piece itself, one can find the artistic aspect of the Brilo box.

Response to Chris's Question 2 on Carroll

In response to what Chris said about failed art, I believe that the competition of art only exists in the artworld in the sense that, despite everything, the artworld is still a market and there needs to be competition for the market to work. I really look at the museums and art exhibits as really the business end of art and if a piece of art is a "failure" it is really only a failure on the business end. I do not think art can truly fail because someone somewhere will appreciate someone's work regardless of whatever the popular opinion is. Art is an ephemeral thing, it is an idea. Ideas cannot fail unless it is acted upon and even then, it was the act that failed not the idea. Therefore no art can fail as art but only as a business model.

Response To Gus's "Is Beauty in the eye of the beholder"

I agree with Gus on the idea of beauty. No one object really holds innate beauty at all. These objects simply have innate qualities about them. These qualities can be interpreted by people and their individual taste and experience. People have aversions to things due to all sorts of things from bad experiences to cultural tradition. I think the whole idea of having beauty innate in objects never had much merit to start with. Things are just things. They are what they are. Beauty is really just something we put into them through our sentiment. Beauty is really only something humans can interpret and thinking that objects hold something that particular that they themselves can't see, is really not that good of a theory.

Free Write: Carroll

http://stuckismwales.co.uk/theory/tblast/narration.php

I found this little article interesting. It's about some of the flaws in the piece Carroll wrote that we read in class.

Free Write: Dickie

I appreciate Dickie's attempt to liberalize the artworld and make it accessible to as many as possible, but he simply goes too far. Without some form of guidelines for art, art loses that special quality that makes it stand out from the rest. Yes art should be inclusive, but it shouldn't just engulf everything and include everyone.

Q+A: Dickie 2

How does Dickie’s core with the core affect his argument?

Again it leaves open this huge whole in the argument that allows for the absorption of all things into the artworld. There is no real line between what is and is not art. There is no concrete definition and I don't believe that to be the case. That is simply ridiculous. Clearly there needs to be some kind of border that art should and should not be able to cross, otherwise we lose the essence of what makes art important, its ability to represent unique emotional expression. The overly general view of the argument is far too broad to accept

Q+A: Dickie

What exactly is the art world according to Dickie?

The artworld is the individuals who claim to in the art world. There is an inner circle within the art world is made up of the actual critics and artists. However this leaves a very open problem with the theory. There is an issue of what really is and isn’t art. If a majority of art critics and artists don’t view a piece as art but someone claiming membership in the artworld, which is true? Where do we draw the line? I personally think that real art is better left to the individual, because in the end, art is such a subjective argument. However, I’d rather leave the artworld in the hands of the professionals.

Question of the Week: Dickie

On page 431 in our book, Dickie claims that institutional formality and rules for art “would threaten the freshness and exuberance of art.” In what ways would rules and formalities do this? In what ways could these things promote and sharpen creativity? Is it possible to conceive of art without a certain set of rules and expectations?

The rules of art and formalities of it restrict the new ways of art being developed everyday. It makes what can be considered art very select and almost elitist. It adds that air of over-sophistication when it comes to the art community. It not only excludes new artists but new members to the art community as well. With all the fomrality and pomp, people will feel like they are too late to enter in on what is happening, that they will not "catch up" to everyone else. They then just drop the issue and go on. If the formalities and rules keep a strict stranglehold on art, then very few new things will enter, wilting art.

Question of the Week: Kivy and Hanslick

What do you think this might be? Do you think he's right, that there is something mysterious and inaccessible to us in music? Does Kivy's proposal of emotional content hold against Hanslick's thesis?

I feel Hanslick is correct on this one, I feel that there really is an explainable event when music occurs that we can only describe through metaphor and such. Music seems to us to rise and fall but it really isn't doing that, it is simply continuing in different tones we put that meaning behind it to the point that we can't explain it outside the metaphor, it is an indescribable experience. On top of that, we, as a species, are sensitive to those changes emotionally and audibly. We hear them and then we react in the proper manner. Musicians use these reactions to convey their emotions through music. The music is really only a translation of the the artist's state of mind while the music was written, the music itself is not full of emotion, just well utilized to convey it. 

Kivy and Hanslick 2

I am an actor, and I've done my fair share of musicals. The issue with musicals is that the songs really only convey one emotion at a time. It really limits the story telling of a musical as huge chunks of the show become simplified. People are not simply, yet although musicals do their best, they can never truly create the ever changing minds of mankind. It hinders the progression of an advanced story. I feel that is better done through the power of regular words. However, in those cases that one single emotion is prevalent, a song may be better to put someone else into that state through music and relation to themselves and the song. Both provide an important way to experience someone's expressions. Plays with story, musicals with music.

Kivy and Hanslick

My own personal opinion of the whole issue of whether or not emotion is inherent to things is this. With music, it is an artificial creation that takes advantage of underlying traits in people to perceive certain emotions from certain things. So the music in a way is inherently sad, in that it is presented in a way that sadness will be what is heard in the music based on those perceptions and underlying traits in people. When it comes to art however, it is almost always open to interpretation to the viewer and artist. Some artists use sad type paintings to get across positive messages and vice versa. So it is much more situational in that regard.

Free Write: Carlson 2

This is sort of a response to Chris Johnson's second Carlson blog. I really don't think there is an alternative to nature, there can only ever be the effort to re-integrate into the environment. Art only supplies a way for us to remember, for us to represent feelings through nature, and for us to want to go back to it. It is not in itself a substitute for nature. Even the emotions we put behind paintings is not from the environment, it is from our own memories and feelings about the place in question. We can never truly lose touch with nature without losing parts of ourselves.

Question of the Week: Carlson

Carlson seems to imply that for each setting there is a "right" mindset to have and way to view the landscape/ flower/ summer afternoon. Is this true? Or is it possible that there are multiple "right" ways to view a natural environment? Or is there no "right" way and perhaps only shades of appreciation?

I would have to agree with the ideas of the shades of appreciation on this one. The natural environment is the natural environment, there is no correct way to observe it. Yes, there are many ways to try and appreciate it for all its perceived, however that too is all personal and entirely based on the person. Even those who don't see beauty in the natural environment may indeed not know much about it, or they just don't care for it, either way it is a valid viewpoint that they are allowed to have. There simply can be no artistic definition of the natural environment, it's there despite us and will be there if we are not. It is not for our artistic approval.

Free Write: Carlson 1

Does knowledge of an experience increase that experience make it better?

I feel that the having knowledge of any experience simply puts people into a bias towards that  experience because they probably wanted to learn about that experience and did. Therefore, no matter what experience there could be in nature, it is subject to the minds and tastes of individuals who experience them. Out of a personal example, I did not enjoy the experience of Shakespeare until I went out on my own to figure it out and I came to really love Shakespeare, but even still, that is my own personal bias, it is not changing the experience at all, it is still the play, but it is more because I am making it more.

Free Write: Danto

Danto was quite a different read, I feel his logic was fairly solid, we cannot 100% understand a piece without the conceptual parts from the artist. These ideas put art on a graph of conceptual and representational. However, I still believe that no matter how representational an art piece is, it may be still something that is a representation of larger concepts in someone's life. It could still be a very complicated conceptual idea, but still representational of objects in normal life.

Question of the Week: Danto

Give an example from your own life in which you only fully understood and appreciated a work of art after it and the theory surrounding had been explained to you. Now think of a work of art you still dislike/don't understand and assess how an understanding of the theory behind it could change your mind.

A few years back, I watched a documentary on Leonardo Da Vinci and all his works. I found out about the technique, his life, what he strove for, it was a very good documentary. In the end I really understood why he did what he did and I could appreciate his art as the wonderful pieces of historical achievement they are. Unfortunately, it's been a long time since it and I don't remember much of what it had said, which is quite disappointing.

Q+A: Danto 2

How does Danto's views reflect on abstract and representational art?

Danto's explanation of the "Is" of artistic identification is really that the only way to truly understand art is to know what is behind the art, the concepts behind it. It becomes a sort of graph explaining that the more abstract a piece of art is, the more necessary a conceptual explanation is needed to fully appreciate it. So a representational art piece of a scene in a field will supposedly require less explanation than a painting of a small red dot on a large canvas. However, I feel that even the representational art can have deeper contexts and meanings that could only be discovered through artist explanation. The painting may seem like a simple scene from a field but may in fact be representational off different aspects if the artist's life.

Q+A: Danto 1

Can there be conception without perception or perception without conception?

As what I gathered from discussions in class, the idea of having perceptions without any real conception is very possible, it happens many times in the art world. We can look at the art without any knowledge about it and make a judgement, even though it isn't a well made judgement. However when it comes to the conceptions without perceptions, that is far more difficult. It becomes an empty thought that has no backing, which is interesting to me, because at first I thought that it was possible because of inventions and original thoughts, then I realized that everything is based of something else, or a need for something, so even inventions are not without their perception. The two are very much intertwined and together they form the base for the true understanding of art.

Free Write: Weitz

Weitz for me is definitely my favorite thus far. He presents a logical and agreeable view of art. Instead of pushing some elitist jargon and criteria upon art, he simply states that there can't be a meaning. It is important to stress the importance of art, but in schools and other places specific pieces and old classics are shoved into students faces and it ruins the entire experience for people. I myself found no love for classics until I went out of my own way to act in a Shakespeare show and it was then, in my own moment of realization that I acquired the taste to see why Shakespeare is so great. "Great Art" should not be pushed, it should be preserved for those like me to find it for themselves. What should be pushed is finding a great art form that people personally enjoy.If in school I was encouraged to bring a book of my own choice to study, I'd find more interesting books and through personal growth, eventually come upon the great books. Instead, schools push high level books with dry, uninteresting ways and it pushes people away. Art should be pushed for, but in better more open ways.

Question of the Week: Weitz

Give reasons for and against the proposal that things, which are not human-made, could be called art. At which point do we call something human-made? (We make sculptures out of marble, but we don't make the marble, so could putting driftwood in a museum be sufficient to be called "human-made"?)

There are many things out in nature that can be arguably called art, like the songs of birds, mountain sides, forests, precious gems and sunsets. These things are all used and replicated in art to the point where it is almost a truth that the things themselves are art. However, even with the prominent use of things of nature in art, is it really art? If there was no emotional meaning behind it put by an artist can it really be labeled art? Art has had a large emotional expression about it in the recent times, however, it is not always been so and yet there was art. So it becomes something that should be observed by someone, art is really what people see it to be, no matter what theory of aesthetics presented.

Q+A Weitz 2

How would aesthetic theory continue without the search for a definition of art?

When it comes to Weitz, Aesthetic theory is used to help define the quality of art and outline different arts. It's the attempts to find a deeper meaning to art that stems these aesthetic theories. The theories then help shape art of the time and attributes the variety in art and culture over time. Without these theories supporting new versions of art and changing old ones, the art world may grow stagnant and may not be able to advance. Weitz suggests that the field of aesthetic theory has plenty of merit and should be continued.

Q+A Weitz 1

Can leaving art undefined be a good thing?

According to Weitz it's the proper course to choose for art. This is because throughout the ages, there have been in-numerous attempts to put down one solid definition of art. Now matter how many artists or philosophers try to put a label on art, it is only going to be edited by future minds and the future cultures that define art differently than the previous ones. So what point is there to put a classical definition of art? Instead of looking for one set of solid overarching criteria, one should look for the the similarities between art pieces and we will understand it as we see it.

Even still, Weitz is a proponent of the aesthetic theories, he believes that they are still very important to the quality and the creation of art. These theories create a basis for art to grow from and develop from, like representational and abstract arts. There should still be the continuing of aesthetic theory but in a way that is more relevant to the art itself then art as a whole.

Free write: Bell

As much as Bell's writing is really just his feelings on art, it has definitely on of the easier reads of the philosophers so far in the course. I feel he is simply trying to convey his feelings that art should bring people together in a feeling of pure joy that everyone should strive to feel and strive to understand so that it is more real. He wants to take the mundane every-day aspect out of as well in order to make it more universal. He wants a universal abstract art world.  However, no matter what he thinks, he can never truly remove it as I said before, art is what people see art as from their experience. One should not strive to remove their emotion from a piece, in my opinion. However, I appreciate his view and I understand why he wished for it.

Q+A: Clive Bell 2

Does the circularity of Bell’s aesthetic emotion and significant form discredit his point?

Bell's aesthetic emotion, as mentioned in an earlier post, is the emotion received from the lines and colors of a piece of visual art, called significant form. Significant form is based off the emotion received as aesthetic emotion. And the emotion is only seen as peculiar and part of real ecstasy. Neither is really truly defined. Neither are grounded in a solid fact and it brings down the theory. How can Bell expect us to believe that his theory is truth if there can be no explanation of what is happening in the theory. Then he explains that there are people who know art truly and understand and yet he is one of them and does not understand. He discredits himself with his vagueness.

Question of the Week: Bell

How does Clive Bell establish that the aesthetic world is a "world with emotions of its own" in which "the emotions of life find no place" (267)? Do you think he explains this fully? Can you think of reasons or examples as to why he is right/wrong?

He never truly explains as how it is different is that the aesthetic emotion is peculiar and that it stands out on its own. How this works can't be deciphered because there is no standard definition of the term. Even still, the emotions people feel from art are based off their everyday lives. What they find in art is a reflection of themselves. Bell however, believes that the true ecstasy of art comes from the complete removal of the mundane from art, but that can never truly be done as what I enjoy in art and look for, comes from my everyday life experiences.

Q+A: Clive Bell 1

How does Bell relate to the Hume and Tolstoy points of view?

Clive Bell has a lot of similarities with both Hume and Tolstoy. Like Tolstoy, Clive Bell believes that the emotion behind art, is what makes it true and that those feelings, those shared emotions will bring people together. Also like Hume, Bell believes that society has been tricked into believing in false arts, for Bell it is representational art. Only people who are sensitive can find the true art, just like Hume's true critic. Bell's aesthetic emotion is a form a pure ecstasy that can come from only pure and correct understanding of an art. Like Hume, Bell believes that what people feel about art is true to them no matter what, however it is not the truth for society as a whole.

Dewey Q+A 2

How does Dewey’s philosophy tie into Darwinian thinking?

It mostly comes into play on his concept that art is needed for the life of human beings. Dewey goes to nature and explains how many creatures in nature need to create to survive, and that the human need to create art comes from that. Art allows humans to allow their emotions out and allow for a deeper form of communication that makes human experience possible. Personally, I see art as the outlet for the deeper parts of ourselves that we either can't or don't communicate in other ways. It allows us to be complete people and allow for stability in our minds. It allows us to live better and more fully and art's presence will always be important.

Dewey Q+A 1

What is the meaning behind Dewey’s concepts of ‘refined and intensified’ experiences?

I understand that Dewey's view is based on the experiences of people and those experiences that are "refined and intensified" these stand-alone experiences are what make things important to people. How can we really define an experience though? What's the difference between a simply odd experience and "an experience"? If one were to get a flood of emotion from a painting, is that art? If one were to enjoy a certain meal incredibly, is it an experience? Is it art? I understand Dewey's policy of the mutual artistic nature of the creator and observer. If the creator made something out of an artistic love and the observer sees it as art, then it is true art. However, if one of those things isn't met, is it no longer art? I feel at this point it simply becomes the "Experience" he mentions before, it becomes an artistic experience for someone and for them it allows an artistic expression, and yet it really isn't art to Dewey. To me, however, it is.

Question of the Week: Dewey

Consider what Dewey has to say about the human experience, emotions, and the influence art has on these. Following Dewey's logic, what implications does capitalism then have not only on art, but on the human psyche and even humanity in general?
Do you think he has a point?


Well the idea here, I suppose is that capitalism would interfere with the idea that art comes from the loving creation off the art, that they have to see it as a part of themselves. Capitalist views allow people to make things that people view as art for strictly economic means. There is no loving creation of the things in question and then it comes to the question of whether or not it is art. If we follow Dewey's view then it is not art because of the lack of loving creation. However, people will still look at the objects aesthetically and who are we to deny them if they feel that way? I am more a proponent of Hume's idea that all sentiment is correct and allow anyone to see their own view of art.

Free write: Dewey

Dewey was an interesting character among our philosophers. He seemed to understand the consequences of having a speed power. He was very intelligent and applied his knowledge to what he knew. He was a man of the empirical approach and I very much respected Dewey for all his work. He seemed to want to continue to his work and edit himself as he went which is something every man science should have. However, I feel his theory on on art was very exclusive as it seemed art wasn't full art without mutual agreement that the object was art, however, it excludes moments of experience that are not mutual. Is it fair to not call it art only because the creator and observer see it different?

Q+A Hume 2

Is art in a way, in a nature vs. nurture debate about what is good art, and if so, does that validate the existence of universal taste?

I feel actually, that this is very similar to my last question. However, this is more of the argument of what does good art stimulate? Is it something that we are educated about, or is it the idea that good art will stimulate the deeper more human, more biological parts of us?

From what I gather though, it seems that art is really a mixture of well educated thought and emotional, personal thought. An educated individual can use his/her art to place several deeper emotions into an art. That way, a multitude of people can experience an array of emotion from a single piece. It gives a unique experience to who so ever looks at it. I feel that is the proper way to make good art.

Q+A Hume 1

Is the idea of universal taste that important, or is this idea more based on the idea of universal empathy and understanding of others opinions and tastes?

The whole point of Hume's arguments is that there are points of universal taste within every person. There are these common genetic instinctual items that attract people to certain objects. He also claims that there are people who can understand the better qualities of things through careful training and observations. He even goes so far as to explain that there are fake critics out in the world. However, is that really the important thing to be ascertained from it?

I personally believe that the idea of universal taste should be an idea that people should be understanding enough to see what people see in other pieces of art. We should be more empathetic and understanding to others opinions. I feel that sense of emoathy can then be used for other situations and that would bring people closer together.

Question of the Week: David Hume

what if Homer's Iliad and Odyssey had been writtten not thousands of years ago, but in this day and age? Disregarding that literature would be very different because of it, and assuming they were written as exactly the same pieces, how would we react? How would we react according to Hume's logic?

I feel Homer's work would have had the same fate as it has, it would be destined for a good future but only to those who come after us. People today would be biased against it, probably, as it is a very drawn out piece if literature in comparison to more modern works. However, the message it gives and the classic nature of the story will keep it alive in the future when the look on it as a work of the past will put less a heavy bias on it against the modern standard.

Tolstoy Q+A #1

Does art have to have one specific emotion or understanding, shouldn’t people strive to find their own individual meaning in the art?

Tolstoy's entire the definition of art is based on the communication of emotion using some medium. However, he never touches on the subject of whether or not a piece of art could have more then one emotion. I feel Tolstoy would say great art would not, because a single emotion will be much clearer for people to grasp and he states in his writing that great art is very clear and understandable.  He claims that the greatest art will be a simplistic and uniform experience for everyone who sees it.

I however, very much disagree with this idea. His claims limit art and does not promote deeper artistic thought. If an art piece can communicate multiple feelings and draw off the experience of the observe so that they can put in their own meaning to the piece, then that is a real piece of art. Any art that allows someone to ponder and apply their own thoughts and feelings is more of an art then a single experience tied to it.

Question of the Week: Tolstoy

How does artistic and creative quality figure in to Tolstoy's definition of art as a means to unite people and their emotions?

There is only one mention of the creative capacity in the art in Tolstoy's writing, which was the creative individuality involved with the art that makes it great. However, this doesn't make too much sense to me. Tolstoy's ultimate at would be completely individual, completely sincere and completely clear. However, is something that individual, would it not then be very hard to communicate emotions? If it were so unique that people would not have much of a reference point to judge and understand the art.

I also don't believe Tolstoy had many art media in mind while making his statements. I believe he know what was art to himself and he clearly forgot the individuality of people beholding art.

Tolstoy Q+A #2

How important is religion truly in deciphering what is art? Can people find meaning in something that isn’t quite along with religious views?

In his writings on Art, Tolstoy begins to discuss how religion is integral to quality of art. I agree to a degree, because he brings up some valid points. For example, no matter how well made a particular piece is, if it depicts something that goes against the society's morals then it will be generally looked down upon by members of that community. Now, this does not mean that community is particularly religious, but that all societies have a moral compass instilled them by the prominent religions of the area long before now. The U.S. has been effected by its Christian inhabitants and the Christian morality has stuck, and thus, people react negatively to things that go against that morality.

However, I fully believe that people can look beyond the religious contexts to find the meaning of art an appreciate it. I'm not saying that people can drop their religions, but when an artist goes against what is the norm and cause controversial reactions, that is usually for a very important reason. It is part of their message. I feel people can go through their initial reaction and then stop and wonder why the artist chose to do what they did and I believe that most people will find out the real meaning and can appreciate the art regardless.

Free Write: Tolstoy

Tolstoy's work is very interesting as it is a very drastic from Plato. He is a very large patron of the arts and it is a far more inspiring thought process then Plato. Instead of art being an engine for degradation of the state, art will bring people together through the experience of shared emotions. I am far more inclined to believe in Tolstoy's thoughts as I am an actor and as an actor I am very much for the idea that art can bring people together through a shared emotional experience.

Plato may not enjoy the idea of enjoying a mutual sharing of emotion, but it is certainly integral to being in sync with our own humanity. I agree that logic and reason are important assets in understanding but the emotional side of humanity is what will keep us human. Our emotions help us understand who we are and without them , or a unsubstantial presence of emotion, we lose a part of ourselves.

Free Write: Plato

There was a discussion that went on in class on propaganda in the state and whether or not it should exist as art and be removed from ideal society of Plato. Personally, I don't see propaganda as a real art, it may be presented through art media but it is most definitively no art. Also, I feel propaganda would have no place in Plato's society as it goes against the idea of free thinking and that there would not have to be any justification for any war as the philosopher king would be making the most sound judgments he could as he would be the epitome of kings and any war brought on or defended against would be only for the just reasons.

Plato's world is an ideal world with humanity at its peak. There would be no need for such trifles as manipulation.

Q+A: Plato #2

 He mentions art not being true but doesn't art have meaning of its own, projected by those who see it? What about the individual truth?"
This is more of a question of whether art has one meaning, no meaning, or am individual meaning. According to Plato, most art will have no meaning at all. It is simply the reflection of nature put into form. He saw it as useless and noneducational. A more modern look at art says that art has meaning in some emotional, personal sense. An artist will put a meaning into art, but others may draw upon more personal connections and attempt to apply them to the art. It can be an fulfilling to search through yourself and finding something to connect to. Plato's view of art is quite ignorant of that. There is unlimited worth in the paintings of artists when applied to the idea that they hold meanings for everyone to better understand themselves and the human condition better.


Also, another thing that Plato doesn't bring up is the concept of individual truth. Something that may be true and part of my everyday life for me may not be true to someone else in the world. He may argue that there is only one truth and our individual truths are skewed versions of the actual truth inside our souls, but I believe that truth in personal sense is brought on by the society and needs to match a person's individual needs.

Q+A #1

"Is it an issue of art being this source of decay, or is it that people cannot put meaning into art?"
I feel Plato is putting too much support behind the innate ability of humans to learn and appreciate knowledge. Plato, in the book, states how corrosive art and other not-so-useful things are and how they have no place in society. However, is this the arts fault, or the people's?

For Plato's day, yes, most art was made to depict something held important at the time. However, there were many cases of art that depicted ephemeral things, like deities and events that they were not there for. There exists imagination. That is something beyond the visual world. There is always a story behind those paintings, a meaning, a moral, somethings. It is in the hands of people to find that meaning. To apply it themselves and try to learn from it. There is a lot to be learned from artists and poets and the like. From them, you learn about the human condition and how could one remove something so vital from the world? Plato does leave room for art if they prove themselves worthy. I believe they have.

On Inventors

Nicole brought up an excellent point. Plato would probably say something along the lines that the person has reached a level of better understanding and can reach into the world of forms. When they reach that point they can access deeper things within the realm of forms. So, from what I know, I believe that Plato believes that the inventor is simply taping into the power of the world of forms and using it to create something from that image he/she receives. It then fits Plato's description of the imitation that he purposes in the book.

However, all this is dependent on how people interact with the World of Forms. Is it an interaction where we pull the ideas out of the form, or does the World inspire inventors to create? Thinkers don't stop and mentally try to reach out into this realm of truth, so there clearly is no conscious manipulation of the zone on the human end. So my theory on what Plato would say is that through the use of logic and proper thinking, one begins to stir the innate knowledge and receives information through the souk. It would have to be the realm of forms throwing the correct ideas into the minds of inventors and that seems to be very illogical. I feel that there are innate ways for people to learn, but know way for people to find an absolute truth through their soul.

Thoughts on the Toolkit

I was very intrigued by the philosopher's tool kit. The terms and the different types of philosophical studies was more varied, yet connected then I had previously thought. I understood that there were many different ways of viewing things, but I did not know what they were. After reading through the listed ones, I realized that those are exactly what came to mind when I thought of Philosophy in general. I would never have guessed how very unique they were to each other nor did I realize how often they connect. There were several examples of how it worked, like how the Philosophy of existence can't truly be understood without the study of value and worth. I am extremely interested in these many different forms of study and how they interact with one another.

I also really enjoyed the Logic portion. I understood the ideas behind fallacies and the different logical terms but I did not know they all had names and that information can definitely help me construct proper arguments as I will be able to spot and name the different fallacies in an opposing argument. The same goes for the other terms for logic. Those terms and understanding what they mean will help me build a stronger argument from the start and have a strong base to build my argument off of.

I really want to see how all of these will be introduced in the course and I am curious how the course will take shape.

Introduction

Hello! I'm Jake Bonenfant, a freshman from Taunton, MA. This is my blog for Professor Johnson's Art and Philosophy Honors course. I am very excited to start the course, it sounds like there will be deep discussions on a variety of topics that are almost entirely what we choose to talk about. It sounds very fun and it will definitely be a great experience.