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.