"2. Does there need to be knowledge (content) in art?"
Good art should have some sort of content. In regards to imagination and creativity, it is all well and good if an artist successfully and masterfully created a work relying on their skill, but if there is no content, it does not have the same sort of meaning. Even the imagination and creativity should be based off of some prior knowledge and understanding, so even if there is no meaty content, there might be a little bit of content in regards to, for example, the brushstrokes. I think the content in the artwork, and by that I mean what its trying to communicate, is as important as the creativity executed in it and the imagination portrayed.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Week 10 Q&A 01
"1. Is it possible to imagine without any prior knowledge?"
I don't think it is possible to imagine anything without some sort of base knowledge. I believe that our imagination roots off of things we have already somewhat experienced. A person who cannot see color cannot fathom color unless they saw it once. We need certain knowledge in order to understand. A person who does not have the ability to smell cannot truly understand scent in a story. They might get the effect, but not fully. Our prior knowledge and experiences shape our imagination. If one can conceive of it, if there was a person who was unable to sense anything going on in the world around them, would they be able to imagine any thing at all? I don't know if they could imagine a fraction of what we imagine.
I don't think it is possible to imagine anything without some sort of base knowledge. I believe that our imagination roots off of things we have already somewhat experienced. A person who cannot see color cannot fathom color unless they saw it once. We need certain knowledge in order to understand. A person who does not have the ability to smell cannot truly understand scent in a story. They might get the effect, but not fully. Our prior knowledge and experiences shape our imagination. If one can conceive of it, if there was a person who was unable to sense anything going on in the world around them, would they be able to imagine any thing at all? I don't know if they could imagine a fraction of what we imagine.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Nehamas - Beauty and Pregnancy
While writing my blogs this week, I was thinking about Nehamas' definition of beauty, how it can be applied to non-artifacts, and pregnancy. It is interesting to think of pregnancy in these terms. I've heard that each pregnancy is different from the other, and the mothers are surprised at what they learn from each one. I think therefore, beauty being the promise of happiness and everything, it could be applied to pregnancy. If no two are the same and there is a seemingly endless things to learn about it, then it is not a stretch to call it beautiful. Some might thing childbirth is disgusting, but "I might find beautiful what other find disgusting." (Nehamas). It does not carsickness have to be the same kind of beauty that we find attractive.
What are other human acts that could be beautiful?
What are other human acts that could be beautiful?
Week 9 Q&A 02
"2. If something beautiful has something more to offer, are some of the things beautiful about it outside the scope of human imagination?"
I think I was misunderstanding Nehamas when I wrote this question. If we find something beautiful, in Nehamas' opinion, we see or envision a promise of happiness that has yet to be fulfilled. Maybe the thing we are trying to discover about it is hard for us to understand. What I find interesting about this definition of beauty is that it can be applied to non-artifacts. Many find pregnancy and childbirth to be beautiful, and it is not (arguably) a work of art. There is so much to understand and learn about pregnancy, no one person can learn everything about it in their lifetime. We might not understand it all, but I don't think its outside the scope of human imagination.
I think I was misunderstanding Nehamas when I wrote this question. If we find something beautiful, in Nehamas' opinion, we see or envision a promise of happiness that has yet to be fulfilled. Maybe the thing we are trying to discover about it is hard for us to understand. What I find interesting about this definition of beauty is that it can be applied to non-artifacts. Many find pregnancy and childbirth to be beautiful, and it is not (arguably) a work of art. There is so much to understand and learn about pregnancy, no one person can learn everything about it in their lifetime. We might not understand it all, but I don't think its outside the scope of human imagination.
Week 9 Q&A 01
1. Is it possible to be finished with examining any work of art, beautiful or not?
I think when Nehamas said that "beauty is the promise of happiness," it doesn't necessarily have to mean that it will fulfill that promise. We could possibly exhaust viewing a painting. We might have seen everything that we can see in it that the artist meant for us. But, if it's truly beautiful, we feel this attraction, this hold on the painting, that we continue to examine it. As Nehamas said, it might disappoint us. It may be a fruitless endeavor, but if we find it beautiful, it will remain beautiful to us. Something that isn't beautiful, such as an attractive couch, may be mistaken as beautiful, but eventually, we'll stop noticing its attractiveness. Truly beautiful things are not like that.
I think when Nehamas said that "beauty is the promise of happiness," it doesn't necessarily have to mean that it will fulfill that promise. We could possibly exhaust viewing a painting. We might have seen everything that we can see in it that the artist meant for us. But, if it's truly beautiful, we feel this attraction, this hold on the painting, that we continue to examine it. As Nehamas said, it might disappoint us. It may be a fruitless endeavor, but if we find it beautiful, it will remain beautiful to us. Something that isn't beautiful, such as an attractive couch, may be mistaken as beautiful, but eventually, we'll stop noticing its attractiveness. Truly beautiful things are not like that.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Week 8 Q&A 02
"2. What does Dickie mean by “candidate for appreciation by some person?"
By "candidate for appreciation," Dickie means that it may be considered to be viewed as art. Once a person sees something and says "that's a work of art," then they may view it as such, but others will judge it accordingly as well. Anyone who's a member of the artwork can judge something as a work of art, but whether or not that really is is up for debate. Especially if it's being judged by someone who doesn't really know what art is truly, then it doesn't have to be art. It works well as a safety measure to protect the artworld from being a free for all.
By "candidate for appreciation," Dickie means that it may be considered to be viewed as art. Once a person sees something and says "that's a work of art," then they may view it as such, but others will judge it accordingly as well. Anyone who's a member of the artwork can judge something as a work of art, but whether or not that really is is up for debate. Especially if it's being judged by someone who doesn't really know what art is truly, then it doesn't have to be art. It works well as a safety measure to protect the artworld from being a free for all.
Week 8 Q&A 01
"1. Does Dickie mean that any person who wants to be a member of the artworld can?"
I think by that, he means that the artworld doesn't have to be closed off to those who are "gifted" or expert critics. If someone wants to know more about art and enjoy it, then they shouldn't be looked down doing so. However, while Dickie might consider them a core member of the artworld, he thinks there is another core within it. That core includes artists and critics. I think within that core, they happen to be more right than the first core. They have a wider knowledge than someone who just goes to a theatre sometimes. But by saying that anyone can be a part of the artworld, it shows the artworld as more accepting and open.
I think by that, he means that the artworld doesn't have to be closed off to those who are "gifted" or expert critics. If someone wants to know more about art and enjoy it, then they shouldn't be looked down doing so. However, while Dickie might consider them a core member of the artworld, he thinks there is another core within it. That core includes artists and critics. I think within that core, they happen to be more right than the first core. They have a wider knowledge than someone who just goes to a theatre sometimes. But by saying that anyone can be a part of the artworld, it shows the artworld as more accepting and open.
Response to TA's question 10
"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?"
I think that it's very hard to imagine art without a certain set of rules and expectations. If we say there are no rules to art, then anything goes. I do think, however, we tend to close off art and try to define it. Then, at times, we see something and know it to be art, and we realize that the definition has to be expanded to include it. I do believe there is a stopping point, but we have trouble conceiving it because we keep trying to close it off and define it.
I think that it's very hard to imagine art without a certain set of rules and expectations. If we say there are no rules to art, then anything goes. I do think, however, we tend to close off art and try to define it. Then, at times, we see something and know it to be art, and we realize that the definition has to be expanded to include it. I do believe there is a stopping point, but we have trouble conceiving it because we keep trying to close it off and define it.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Music
While I'm sure the music that Kivy and Hanslick were discussing in their essays was fine, classical music, I was wondering where that left the music that a lot of critics wouldn't think highly of. They seemed to suggest that there was some sort of content in the music. But many people who enjoy music that isn't classical music would say that they can be profoundly touched by songs. They may not be able to explain how they feel about their music. Would that be the same sort of content? Or does the music have to be considered "true" music to have such content, putting the rest of the music in a category where it is just tones and sounds?
Response to TA's question 09
"Kivy seems to propose that the subject of music is the emotional quality it brings forth in us. This seems to contradict Hanslick, who holds that only things we can voice in words are content and the emotional/aesthetic qualities of music do not belong in this.
Hanslick seems to imply, though, that there is something in music that we simply cannot put into words. 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?"
Music affects us in a profound way. Sometimes, it affects people differently, but I don't the qualities we perceive in music are actually in the music itself. Whether we feel happy or sad when listening to something is something I believe that we pick up. I think the composer knows how to affect us. We derive the content from the music and decide it.
I do think that there might be something we might not be able to ever understand in music. The feelings we experience when we listen to music are not wrong, but they might possibly be a hint of something that we're not fully understanding. For us as we are though, we base the content of the song on how it makes us feel.
Hanslick seems to imply, though, that there is something in music that we simply cannot put into words. 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?"
Music affects us in a profound way. Sometimes, it affects people differently, but I don't the qualities we perceive in music are actually in the music itself. Whether we feel happy or sad when listening to something is something I believe that we pick up. I think the composer knows how to affect us. We derive the content from the music and decide it.
I do think that there might be something we might not be able to ever understand in music. The feelings we experience when we listen to music are not wrong, but they might possibly be a hint of something that we're not fully understanding. For us as we are though, we base the content of the song on how it makes us feel.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)