Posts
THIS IS WHERE YOU USE THE "COMMENTS" LINK TO POST A QUESTION DURING JANUARY 24 - 30.
THEN IT IS WHERE YOU POST AN ANSWER DURING JAN 26 - FEB 5.
If you've never done this kind of posting before, and don't know how to get started, look just below this posting, where it says "Posted by Theodore Gracyk" -- To the immediate right of that, it says "comments." CLICK THERE. A white box will appear on the screen. Type your question in that box.
Put your name at the end of the question or, if you don't want to use your name, put your initials. (If your name is Terry Sputnik, you would put the initials T.S.) Next, in the pull down menu, choose "anonymous." After that, click on "Post Comment." You will now see a WORD VERIFICATION box. See the red word or phrase? Type that into the white box. Click on "Post Comment." Your question should now be posted!
Return to the comments section during Jan. 26 - Feb. 5, select a question that has been posted by another student in the class, and post a comment, answering that question. MAKE IT VERY CLEAR which question you are answering! (Simplest method: start by saying "This is in response to so-and-so."
Again, if you don't want to put your name at the end of the comment, put your initials. You cannot answer a question that's already received a response unless ALL of the posted questions have been answered and there's no other way to post an answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Throughout Aristotle's rules for "artistic success" he stresses consistency of character. What if the situations or circumstance change the character? That would have an element of surprise and charge pity or fear.
ReplyDeleteLoop hole?
Take for example Homer, characters not only physically alter but also mentally throughout their personal quests. And he praises Homer.
SD
Near the end of the section on tragedy in his "Poetics," Aristotle differentiates between the poet and the historian, deeming the former's work "more philosophical" and thus "higher" than the latter, in that poetry "tends to express the universal, history the particular."
ReplyDeletePhilosophy, in accordance with this account, is the "highest" form of expression, it seems--by virtue of its ability to articulate Universals.
Is Aristotle suggesting that poetry's goal is to derive a "universal type" from the particular instance--thereby generalizing it? Or is it, rather, to UN-abstract "universal concepts" by way of instantiation? The latter interpretation implies a movement not toward, but distinctly away from, philosophy.
AS
On page 24 of Carrolls' book, he talks about dance in relation to the imitation theory of Art. He says that in postmodern dance "ballet divertissements does not imitate, rather it explores the possibilities of human performance."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you could call modern Ballet imitation because it is the human body in motion and isn't the human body in motion the imitation of a human body in motion and that different motions or dance moves put together can evoke and emotional response, thus it could be called Art under the imitation theory of Art?
K.L.
Throughout chapter one Carroll discusses imitation and what was thought of art in different periods. On page 21 He starts to discuss that even some major works of art have not been imitated and have been successful pieces.
ReplyDeleteMy question really is that this argument seems to be a waste of an argument. Art, whether it be an imitation or something original can either fail or be brilliant. No matter how hard we try to be different, original, or absolutely boring someone is going to imitate that and it is no longer "one of a kind". Everything in life is going to be imitated and in my opinion the original piece of art wasn't always any better than the imitation. So why does it matter whether a piece is an imitation piece or original? Doesn't it matter more that something is an attractive, fun piece of art?
A.S.
In the readings it brought up the issues about Duchamps art, emphasis in his readymade pieces. Reading the material I am still unsure of why they do claim his urinal with a fake name on it a pieces of art- “Fountain”- compared to the everyday urinal. He buys them in a store - just like anyone else would - but puts a title on it. Is it the titles that gives this urinal significance or is it in my understanding that it is about ness… what do they mean about ness? Is about ness the same as them saying with neo representation it’s just about accepting it? That’s what we do, so that’s why its art. We just accept it?
ReplyDeleteLC
In Carroll's book in chapter one, is the only real difference between Imitation and Representation is what is simply put forth and how well does it relate to what it could be imitating in nature?
ReplyDeleteAn example could be when Carroll's talking about music on page 23, "music could imitate beautiful sounds in nature...more importantly it could imitate the human voice". Imitating nature in this fashion seems to wipe away almost everything in an orchestra. But there's more to nature than simply the sounds it makes that can be re-created. There's emotion in nature, you see a sunset and it strikes an emotion. You can play a trumpet to REPRESENT the emotion that comes to mind while seeing a sunset, and therefore is IMITATING that sunset (with no visual involved). Is this trumpet simply JUST representing a sunset, or in some way also imitating it? Can you imitate something with a representation or just represent something with imitation?
-DJB
In Vasari's discussion of Leonardo da Vinci on Page 9 he discusses the Last Supper. It is one of da Vinci's best known works. His attention to detail on the heads of the Apostles was extraordinary, but he left the head of Christ imperfect. What do you think the symbolic representation of the imperfect Christ was?
ReplyDeleteAH
In chapter one the author talks about and explains neo-representational theory is the correct theory of art. The author on page 27 explains that all art to be considered art has to have aboutness. The author defines aboutness about making a comment which says something or expresses an observation. Giving the defintion of the neo-representational theory, is this why certain individuals are trying to find symbols in Da Vinci's artwork? To find some sense of aboutness, so the work can still be considered art?
ReplyDelete-BRJ
In chapter one on page 31, Carroll discusses the flaws of neo-representationalism theory. He states, "Suppose a piece of pure orchestral music is sad. Is this really what it is about? Does it truely have a subject, sadness, about which it expresses something?" He goes on to say "it's strained to say so" but my question is why? A piece of music can be sad yes, but what is the piece trying to express with the sadness? Most orchestral pieces aren't just wrote to be only an emotion. So why is neo-representational successful? It follows the "x is an artwork only if x has a subject about which it makes some comment (about which it says something, or expresses some observations)". For example a song could be about the death of a friend but not blantely say it in the title so you only get the sadness in the piece. Why is this not a sucessful theory towards orchestrated music?
ReplyDelete- IM
On page 20 the author mentions that people learn from imitations. If Duchamp's Fountain and other works are representative of something, what can we learn from it/them?
ReplyDeleteBM
Starting on page 21 of Carroll, the concept of art as imitation is discussed. Something that is an imitation of something else is considered "art", according to the imitation theory. We all can feel that there are levels of artistic success. For example: there are photorealistic works of imitation by artists like da Vinci, and then there is the kid's drawings in an attempt for imitation. My question is (according to the law of imitation): At what point does a piece of art fail to be a successful imitation? Even if it is a poorly done painting, is it still considered art, just simply by the fact that the artist was attempting to imitate something? Is there a rule about skill level and degrees of artistic success before it can truely be a work of "art"?
ReplyDeleteMRK
(Carroll p.19)
ReplyDeleteSo Plato is against dramatic poetry because of the emotions it stirs up, this leads to an unstable citizen. But Aristotle says that drama helps the audience connect to the subject matter and learn from dramatic imitations that are represented. Meaning people should be able to relate to these events and be able to use these in day to day events in order to predict the outcomes because drama is an imitation of life.
(Saying I'm correct, then;)
Q. Was dramatic poetry/drama considered an art in Plato's time, since in that time art was considered anything that required skills to master and what we consider to be an art; is anything that imitates real life, under those prerequisites could dramatic poetry/drama be considered an art?
Nathan Bergeson
On page 25, according to Carroll, the theory of representational of art is a representation of something that is intended to stand for something else and that is recognized by audiences as such. However, the representational theory of art excludes too many important examples of art from the architecture category and other genres as well. My question is what type of art would fit into the representational theory if it remains unsalvageable, because many works of art are not representations in this sense?
ReplyDeleteMorgan A
In Aristotles piece from Poetics of Artistotle on page 4 ouf our book he mentions that the audience viewing the tragedy, should be invoked to feel two emtotions, fear and pity. Why is is that he picks these two emtotions specifically and leaves out any of the other possible negative emotions? Why couldn't he incorporate other emotions such as sorrow, hatred, or digust?
ReplyDeleteStacy Dahl
In the first chapter on art as representation, Noel Carroll criticizes Aristotle and Plato's theories of what constitutes art as being too narrow. As support for his assertion that the view of art as necessarily imitation is flawed, Carroll cites artists like Mark Rothko whose artwork contains no imitation of real life but is still considered art. Carroll goes on to explain how Aristotle and Plato constructed their theories through the types of art that were available to them, and as such only through hindsight can we see that their theories were too narrow. If Aristotle and Plato came up with the best theories that they could with the art that was available to them, and their theories weren't discounted until new types of art emerged, then how can an all encompassing theory of art ever emerge when all that is needed is a new art form to disprove any theory built off of current styles of art? In the 1800's, before Duchamp, there were acceptable theories of art that satisfied the art that had been created up to that point, but those theories had to change when Duchamp and the Dada movement changed the classifications of what we think of as art. Unless we can make the claim that all types of possible art have already been done, would we not have to admit that any theory of art could not be complete or universalizable because forms of art not anticipated could emerge and falter any definition based on the art that is currently available? Or similarly, would it even possible to have a theory of art not based on art as it is but on some general principle or classification that would still hold no matter what new forms of art emerge?
ReplyDeleteTAG
On page 27 the last paragraph states:
ReplyDelete"Because Duchamp's readymades are artworks, whereas ordinary urinals and snow shovels are not."
My question is:
If someone that wasn't established as an artist would have thought of this readymade system before Duchamp do you think they would have had as much success with it as Duchamp himself had?
JH
This is in response to AH, why is Christ’s face so imperfect. I tried to find what I could online about this piece and it just seems to be one theory after another with no known truth behind any of it. My ides however are that we really didn’t know what Christ looked like, so how can we paint an image of someone that has no known face and features? I watched a series on Christ a few years back and it discussed this painting as well as what Christ may have looked like. This film argued that the image of Christ that we know isn’t what he should have looked like. Maybe da Vinci had put some thought into this while he painted the image. There were also rumors that da Vinci was a lazy painter and Christ’s face was the last to be painted, or that he left it for us to wonder over. I suppose it makes for a more interesting piece if there is mystery behind the work of art. A.S.
ReplyDeleteThis is a response the question about DuChamp's readymades and if a different artist would have had the same sort of success with a similar idea.
ReplyDeleteI don't think someone else would have had the same sort of success that DuChamp had unless they were as well known. It seems though people follow the ideas and the examples put fouth by those in the spotlight, like they know better than we do. People trust in what celebrities and other well-known people say and take it as authority. We idolize these people and so we put a lot of stock into what they say and do. If a regular, unknown artist were to try such a stunt I think he/she would be laughed at, and the idea would not get NEAR as much attention. Because DuChamp established himself as someone who knew what they were doing beforehand, the public then trusted his judgement to tell us what art is. The value goes up just because his name is on it. Just like designer clothes and accessories. The material isn't any more quality than something similiar made by someone else but because it has a certian label on it it is worth more. I find this concept absolutely ridiculous, but it seems to work. Celebrities make a lot of money simply by putting their name on someting. We rely on those people in the spotlight to tell us what's what. If someone isn't in that position of power, people often don't give them a second look.
Stacy Dahl
This is in response to BM's question about what we can learn from works such as Duchamp's Fountain.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Duchamp's intention with the piece was to get people thinking about the act of art. Not just the technical details such as the fine points of painting or sculpting, but thinking about the act of creation which is inherent to all forms of art. He showed that any act of creation can be art, and this is an important concept. A definition of what is or isn't art will always pose problems because art is about creation, which by definition is growth. It is constantly changing, so its definition will constantly be changing. We are only limited by what we can conceive, and many modern artists like Duchamp try to get people to open up their ability to see what is conceivably possible.
AH
In response to TAG:
ReplyDelete"only through hindsight can we see that their [Aristotle's & Plato's] theories were too narrow."
True. And until our Sun burns out, or Andromeda dismantles us, there will always be new, if reactionary and/or referential, forms of art-- as will there always be errors to commit, fallacies to swear by, theories to come to detest in hindsight. Assuming all this, the question becomes:
"would we not have to admit that any theory of art could not be complete or universalizable because forms of art not anticipated could emerge and falter any definition based on the art that is currently available?"
i.e. is a timeless, universal theory of art--possible? Given our current dimensions, it seems that it's not. The question THEN becomes: what implications does this have for art? Without a model to create by, a standard to measure against, is the artist as worthless as his worth is, relative? Moreover, if we accept the claim implicit in TAG's question--that so long as time and its passage is a fact, the potential for an all-encompassing "theory of art" is obviated--is this cause to abandon the task of art criticism?
It seems that theories of all sorts--but namely those of art--function first and foremost to preserve past movements by incorporating their aims into those of the current age, thereby creating a platform for forms not yet beheld--be they theories, or ready-made art, or scientific models. Those theories we discount become our grounds for "progress," while the commitment of theorists to the search for the perfect, or hitherto all-encompassing, criterion--secures for movements-past their place "outside of time."
AMS
This is in response to K.L.’s question on modern dance. I feel that modern ballet could be included in the imitation theory of art. The dancers’ bodies are imitating human movement and also animal movements. According to page 23, in Carroll’s book, he states that theorists advocated that dance as art became imitative. The result for them to join the modern system of arts was the ballet d’action. According to answers.com and Britannica Online Encyclopedia, John Weaver started ballet d’action. It is a ballet that designed to tell a story. The steps and gestures were used to describe the characters’ motives. Those steps and gestures seem to imitate the characters’ motives; therefore I think that modern ballet should be apart of the imitation theory of art.
ReplyDeleteM.A.
In response to A.S. question of does it really matter is if a piece is imitated or original, I feel that this argument can come from many directions, but personally art that is imitated usually seems to simply bring a new era to the original pieces. Not making either or better, but just something new.
ReplyDeleteNow in the 20th century we go to museums and see many works of art that are blobs of color, yet very “fun, abstract, modern” (new era terms) works that give no imitation to anything of the sort but are claimed as art.
As it states on pg 21 that that in defense to this theory – primary examples of art in Plato’s and Aristotle’s day were imitative. That is what they knew to be art. Imitation in what they saw, so that is what they do. I would simply have to then agree with you saying this argument now in our day is a waste of an argument As now we have been taught by our teachers to explore and step out of the box. Only to imitate is not what is taught. The original is what guides us, but an imitation may just so happen bring a new light.
LC
In response to Stacy Dahl,
ReplyDeleteI think that Aristotle found that through negative emotions, the sum of them can be expressed through variations of fear. As HP Lovecraft stated "the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear", because what we are afraid of motivates us to avoid such unpleasentries. Trying to express such things in a play the audience gains some kind of experience in the emotion that they learn from. Characters show sadness when faced with their fears, they become angry, in denile, or even hysterical.
I also don't think Aristotle completely thought of pity as a 'negative' emotion though. If you think about it pity kind of coincides with empathy and sympathy towards characters. Developing a pathetic fondness for certain things and a distaste for others.
Aristotle thought that drama should emotionally effect the audience in one way or another, and with fear and pity you open to yourself to alot of options out of basic bland things such as just "sad" or "happy" but added more depth.
-DJB
This is a response to AS in regards to Aristotle on Poetry and History. The question posed was if Aristotle is suggesting that poets instantiate the universal, or if they un-abstract universal concepts.
ReplyDeleteI took the reading to be that Aristotle would affirm the former as opposed to the latter. First of all, by universal Aristotle means all the possiblilites of action that can be taken by a person when following the known laws of necessity and probablility. Aristotle thinks that poets, when they write characters, do so according to these laws of how certain types of characters would act when put in certain situations.
Since Aristotle writes about univerals as conforming to the laws of probablility, this means that he is not talking about universals in as metaphysical a way as we might think. Universals are not being seen here as existing in a metaphysical space, but are instead the possiblities that exist due to the actuallity of how we behave. In a way, Aristotle would say that poetry instantiates the universal in the way that it takes the possiblity of how a character would behave and instantiates it through having that charater exist in poetry. In this way it is a type of instantiation of a universal, but I don't think it is an instantiation in the way AS was origianlly meaning when the question was asked. Furthurmore, I don't think un-abstracting the universals can be the answer, because the universals aren't so much abstracted as they are possibilites of the realities in which we exist.
TAG
On page 29 it states 1. all arwork requires interpretations. 2. If anything requires an interpretation, then it must be about something. 3. therefore, all artworks are about something. When it comes to talk about the interpertation of music would you believe that music back than and today would fall into this category? TD
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to JH. I think you are right in your assumption is correct to say that if a random person off the street was to enter a shovel as he did into the showing that the would be laughed at. You also have to remember when Duchamp entered in some of his early work he was turned away as well. I think that art is in the eye of the beholder and to me I personally don't see it as a piece of art and would have probably turned him away. TD
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to LC's wondering on Duchamps art.
ReplyDeleteDuchamp's readmades seemingly make you wonder of it's "aboutness" because it causes the viewer to make an interpretation the way I see it, as it's stated in the book. On page 28, it states, "we presume that they are about something and that an appropriate response to them is to determine what they have to "say" or what they imply concerning whatever they are about." I think people just began to accept it because they assumed that his readymades were commentary or saying something. The titles play a role in accepting because he did not just name it "urinal I bought" he gave it a sort of life with the name "fountain" in which gives it more life than just a urinal which has a use but is not about anything.
-IM
This is a response to BRJ's question whether neo-representational theory, is why certain individuals are trying to find symbols in Da Vinci's artwork.
ReplyDeleteI think some individuals want Da Vinci's work to contain something more, a hidden meaning, or hidden symbols. But as to his work still being considered artwork, it will be considered works of for some time I believe because of the detail in his paintings and stories that can be interpret from his artworks. Because they contain much more then say clouds painted on a kids room, which one may not consider artwork because of the context of the painting of the clouds but say that the person who painted them becomes a famous painter then those clouds take on a new meaning because of who painted them.
It hard to say why some are trying to find symbols in Da Vinci paintings.
Nathan Bergeson
This is in response to TD's question.
ReplyDelete"On page 29 it states 1. all artwork requires interpretations. 2. If anything requires an interpretation, then it must be about something. 3. therefore, all artworks are about something. When it comes to talking about the interpretation of music would you believe that music back then and today would fall into this category?"
According to the law of neo-representational artwork, a piece of art includes an interpretation. I think when philosophers or artists speak of an "artwork" it can mean many things creative. An artwork isn't always a painting, it can be an action such as dancing for example. Music can definitely be felt emotionally, and can be interpretted by everyone. Something such as dancing can also be interpretted. Any creation or action that includes a meaning can be considered art, because in fact, it has meaning. So I believe that music from the past and from now can be considered interpretable.
~MRK
Morgan A
ReplyDeleteYou are asking what type of art is representative of something but can't be saved? I think that those works that don't represent anything in particular and fits with the theory is work that abstractly is representational. By that I mean the concept behind the work is what the true representation is and not solely on the image itself, which is an abstract representation. So to answer the question as far as what type of art...i would say something along the lines of Abstract Expressionism. That is if I understood the question correctly.
BM
In response to Nathan Bergeson's Question:
ReplyDeleteUsing what you are saying I would have to say that drama/ poetry would have been considered art back in Plato's day. I did a search online to look for dramas around his time. They are definitely there. But also using what you said, I would have to say just about anything back then should have been considered an art. "Anything that required skills to master," could be taken in an entirely different direction by saying just about anything in life requires skills to master.
JH
This is in responses to MRK:
ReplyDeleteI too had a problem with the imitation theory; mainly because it evokes a vast amount of "imitations". So many things can be interrupted in so many ways and represented due to their foundation or origin. Such as cultural, gender, age etc all effecting how we imitate. So where does it end. I don't think it would if it was encompassing these ideas.
There are cultures or histories that disincline to honor some of their pottery as art. Greece for instance treated the pottery as “disposable” objects just because it was cheap to make and functional, but painted upon their shape imitated mythological or cult figures. I think this imitation theory is accepting to a lot, which is less rigid than other terms.
sd
My question pertains to Hanslicks On Beauty in Music on the very bottom of page 37. He states that "We may, therefore, use those adjectives as directly describing musical phenomena without thinking of the ethical meanings attaching to them in the psychological sense...." Why do you think it is that we do this? Why is it that we don't think more throughly about the music and how we describe it?
ReplyDeleteStacy Dahl
Mmmm....interesting....must share that
ReplyDeleteMmmm....interesting....must share that
ReplyDelete