Posts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Other places to find me on the web
I have another website (my official "school" site): CLICK HERE
Here's some music I've listened to recently: CLICK HERE
Here is the course syllabus: CLICK HERE
Here are notes to help you with the readings: CLICK HERE
Here's some music I've listened to recently: CLICK HERE
Here is the course syllabus: CLICK HERE
Here are notes to help you with the readings: CLICK HERE
About Me
- Theodore Gracyk
- Minnesota, United States
- Professor of Philosophy at Minnesota State University Moorhead.
Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock
Listening to Popular Music
I Wanna Be Me: Rock Music & The Politics of Identity
Arts & Letters Daily - ideas, criticism, debate
Themanwhofell- asleep's inevitable blog
The Brick Testament
The Critical Thinker(tm)
Dresden Codak
Anderson Brown's Philosophy Blog
Philosopher's Digest
Followers
-
In chapter 2 Carroll talks about how emotions are used to create works of art. He said "Making a work of art is not a matter of exploring, venting or ranting, it is a process of clarification...She works on it, bringing it into clear focus." then ht goes on to say that the artist examines the emotion to find the right or best way to get the emotion across to the viewer.
ReplyDeleteMy question is weather or not it is possible that a great work of art could be created by exploding onto say a canvas by a practiced artist? Who is to know if that first explosion of emotion is better than the later 'exploration' of there emotion which would be more detached from the original emotion and more controlled and thus less true to the emotion?
K.L.
On page 60 (final paragraph) of chapter 2 in Carroll's book he talks about how expressionism came to take form. He describes representationalism was a way of using art to explore and reflect nature around the artists, but they were diminished by the findings of nature that science was exploring and discovering; so artists needed to find a new medium of art - such as exploring their emotions.
ReplyDeleteIs this really how expressionalism took its form? Did artists really feel that they were not fullfilling their artist repsoniblilities of representation so they wanted to branch out into other areas to discover? Or, what seems to be a more logical concept to me, did artists simple tire of reflecting the world around them and decided to start reflecting themselves?
-DJB
In reponse to KL:
ReplyDeleteAlthough the more time spent after an emotion is felt the less you can analyze it later when trying to create an art form of it, but the harder it would be to express it if you can't fully sort out exactly how you felt about the emotion. If you just found out that your significant other cheated on you, some may think it'd be a more sincere approach to calm down and think over the situation for a while before approaching them and telling them off right away - to be able to fully analyze the spectrum and get your priorities of the incident in order before engaging in conflict - as not to portray the wrong concepts. The same mentality applies here; if an artist becomes enraged due to some incident and tries his art medium(be it writing music, drawing, or painting), he becomes too emotional to take care of his work. He blindly works in his rage to try and take direction instead of analyzing the aspects of why he feels and setting a direction before he starts.
Hope that make sense,
-DJB
In discussing the concept of emotion in art and the transference of emotion in general, Carroll discusses greeting cards(pg 62), and how they are not works of art, for the following reason:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps because the emotions they communicate are too general. The romantics placed a high value on the articulation of individual experiences. But the emotional experiences conveyed by a greeting card is not individualized. It pertains, for example, to any dead relative, friend, or even mere acquaintance. But we expect artists to say things that are original and specific, not canned. So let us add to our list of necessary conditions that a work of art is an intended transmission to an audience of the self-same individualized emotion that the artist experienced."
But my question is if a card were made by an individual for that specific occasion to be given to another individual, wouldn't that count for some sort of artistic expression? And if the purpose of that card was to change the mood of someone from an unhappier mood to a better mood, would that still count as some sort of artistic goal achieved, or does the emotion received have to match the emotion given?
M M
Throughout Carroll's explanation of the expression theory of art, I find myself wondering if an artwork does not translate an emotion to all its viewers, considering we all assess emotion differently, would that be grounds to say it is no longer successful art?
ReplyDeleteWe all come from different backgrounds, genders, age, what have you that effects that way we view or analyze. Without any true explanation or artistic description fallowing certain artworks, the emotion may not be echoed or truly understood by everyone in similar or the same fashions. Since the emotion has to be felt by the artist and transferred on to the audience.
sd
In response to DJB:
ReplyDeleteI find that art and artists change or transition into certain approaches or styles for various reasons. First of I do not feel it is only the artists ideas or newly found inspiration or techniques that pave the way for new artistic movements. There is a dominating artistic market that forces artists to shift or adapt to merely gain recognition, a fallowing or simply to survive. Although this may not always be the case but usually throughout art history artists are controlled by what the patrons or what their pupils want. A more modern example would be the powerful art critic Greenberg, who choose to hail modern painting. Because of this huge fallowing it impacted what clients would purchase and thought was good art. So I do not think it was always a conscious by the artists.
sd
When reading Carroll's explanation on expression, he mentioned one theory where he explains that for an artist to create expressional art he must experience the emotion himself. He continued and used Spielberg's movie Amistad as an example of conveying the way he felt to the audience.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering, if an artist sees a gloomy scene as Carroll mentioned, and realizes that it is gloomy but doesn't personally feel that emotion, can this still be considered art if the artist still captures the gloominess? Ordoes this fit another theory?
BM
to SD
ReplyDeleteI think that if the artwork is successful or unsuccessful and conveying an emotion or the artist's ideas it is still art. Like you mentioned, we all have different backgrounds and depending on the image, it could have more of a connection to one person or the other. i find the success irrelevant to the message of the piece. After all, not everyone understand a Jackson Pollock painting or even Picasso.
BM
On page 61 the talk about transmission of an emotion in the expressionist theory. They go and talk about how in art what is transferred is an emotion.
ReplyDeleteIt is said the artist paints something they see and express how they felt when painting it. The feeling is what is transferred to the viewer.
What if the viewer doesn't feel the same way. Isn't art suppose to be open and free and to have no boundaries for the viewer. In this case if the viewer doesnt feel the same as what the painter portrayed then can this theory be true or is the expressionist painters painting not art?
lc
"We can literally attribute expressive properties to artworks in virtue of their perceptible configurations" (102).
ReplyDeleteCarroll argues that weeping willow trees "literally" looks sad to us. Which is to say, entities such as these either 1. physically resemble a human possessed by a psychological state, or 2. have the capacity to inspire such a state in the (human) viewer, or 3. do both.
But can such expressions be called 'literal' on the grounds that what is being referred to are properties that, though physical indeed, resemble those of humans possessed by "real" psychological states?
It seems to me that emotion, proper, can only be defined in one of two ways: 1. as a psychological state OR 2. as the physical manifestation (symptoms) of a psychological state. Anything else--a willow tree, for instance--can reference sadness, but not possess it. For if we extend the definition (of emotion) to include the inanimate on the basis that they "exude emotion", i.e., are recognized via the same criteria "sad people" are recognized by, then emotion is, by definition, in the eyes of the beholder: a metaphor for his or her own "inner experience." Such a definition seems highly schizophrenic, segregating the Universal term from its instances--the latter of which belongs to the human subjectivity (mind of the viewer), the latter--to everything outside of her: be it a person, a painting, or a mirror.
"Thus, ascribing anthropomorphic terms to such artworks should not be misunderstood as a matter of optional, ornamental, metaphorical description. Rather, it is literal" (103).
This suspiciously Cartesian assertion cannot be what Carroll has in mind--can it?
AMS
In response to BM:
ReplyDeleteAccording to what Carroll calls "the common expressionist theory"--the hypothetical artist you've described (as one who doesn't feel gloomy, yet perfectly captures gloom) has not in fact created a work of art.
I know, right?
There are of course other "versions" of expression theory that do NOT include "the sincerity condition"--that ridiculous premise which deletes, yes, even Eliot's "The Wasteland" from art history.
(The sincerity condition, you may remember, requires that the artist have actually experienced the emotion depicted for the work to be counted as Art.)
AMS
In Tolstoy's definition of expressionistic art, he states the criteria for art as being the clear transmission of an individualized sincere emotion in such a way that the audience can understand and be infected by that same emotion. He states that art should act "on people independently of their state of development and educations" and he goes on to include culture or social upbringing as well. Under this definition of art, wouldn't all art have to be understood by uneducated children of another culture? If education, development, and culture should not be able to inhibit the infection of emotion from the artist to the audience, doesn't it follow that a foreign, uneducated child should be able to experience a work of art and be able to feel the exact same individualized emotion as the artist?
ReplyDeleteMore so, is it a reasonable criteria for a work of art to be universalizable? And are emotions universalizable? All cultures may feel emotions, but it does not follow that all cultures represent their emotions in the same way. I don't know about most Americans, but I cannot understand the emotions being expressed in Chinese instrumental music, and why therefore should we think that they can by any means feel the same emotions in what we consider classical music? Similarly, Americans and Europeans have different views on death than other cultures, so when we see a work of art produced by another culture that clearly depicts the artist feeling an emotion at the death of a loved one, why should we think we can correctly interpret the emotion the artist is feeling? Perhaps they are Buddhist and feel in awe that their loved one is closer to reaching Nirvana, while we witness the same piece of art and feel sadness by the death. Tolstoy says that two things are felt by all cultures: the "sonship to God and of the brotherhood of man," and "feelings of common life" such as merriment, pity, sorrow, etc. Is it reasonable to say that these are felt universally? And if so, is it reasonable to suppose that they can successfully be transmitted across cultures via some sort of media although what incites these feelings within us may be culturally dependent?
TAG
In response to MM
ReplyDeleteI think that you are right in thinking that if someone made an individualized or home made greeting card intended for one person, and there goal was to transmit the emotion they had about that person it would be considered art. Because it wold be "an intended transmission to an audience of the self-same, individualized emotion that the artist experienced.
But if the greeting card was intend to cheer someone up but the artist was not cheerful them selves it would not be a true art work because the artist was not feeling the emotion they intend to transmit to the audience.
K.L.
On page 67 the author is contemplating if art is still art if there is no audience.
ReplyDeleteReading what we have read do you think art without an audience is still art? More specifically do you follow Chapter one's transmission theory or do you believe Chapter two and the expression theorists are correct by saying yes, art without an audience is still art.
JAH
“First, the artist must have some feeling or emotion. Perhaps it is directed at a landscape or an event, like military victory. But whatever the emotion is directed at, the expression theory of art requires that the artist experience some emotional state.” Could one then argue that a person could feel emotion for a piece where there never had been the intention for any particular emotion? One could say that a piece of art is an expression piece, yet the artist had no intentions, nor feeling when creating the art work?
ReplyDeleteIt could be easy for an artist to just throw something together and make the claim that it is expression while they never had any point intended or really and emotion towards the piece of art. It’s all within the eye of the beholder, right? A.S.
"In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means of pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life." Tolstoy lays out his conditions for the essential-ness of art, but my question is, is it possible to "correctly" define art? Isn't his theory of utility, which is certainly useful and in a sense 'correct', just one view of art?
ReplyDeleteIt seems possible to me that one could argue the straw man he sets up in the beginning (pleasure is not art's purpose)is false? In the hands of a skilled talker/rhetorician, any point of view can be argued, and Tolstoy's argument is no different.
A.H.
On page 68 the author amends the transmission to an audience by saying "x is an artwork only if it is intended, at least in principle, to transmit something to an audience." Carroll talks about a public audience throughout the book, but does mention that the artist could be there own audience, but that doesn't justify the audience theory. A artwork requires that artist to express their emotion is words, lines, music,...etc. My question is, does a artist writing their thoughts down on paper for the intent of only dissecting and pinpointing their emotion to clarify it. Also this act is done with the sole intent of the artist only expressing the emtion to themselves and no one else. Does this work fit in the amended version of the 2 requirement of the expressionist theory of art? Since their is no public audience to witness the work?
ReplyDeleteBRJ
In response to JAH
ReplyDeleteAlthought art made without an intented audience might not be considered art by some, it would still count for the second theory of art, self expression. The work being made can still be shown to an audience, whether the creator meant for it to be or not. In some cases, the work will be shown later, when the artist wants it to seen by someone, and sometimes it will not be seen until after the person has died. Anne Frank's writing or the last work of Duchamp are great artworks, yet their intended audience was never known. So despite the fact that at the moment there is no audience, there is always potential, and if the creations of the artist carry an emotional resonance, then it should fall under the second theory guidelines.
Mark Murphy
On page 68 it says - First, if someone makes something that is truly incomprehensible to everyone else, it is extremely unlikely that we would regard it as an artwork. Art does seem to require some, if only minimal, quotient of public accessibility. If something created by an artist were absolutely unintelligible to anyone else, why would we take it to be an artwork? Perhaps this is the truth behind the requirement of an intended audience.
ReplyDeleteMy question here is, isn't there different forms of artwork to every different person? Aren’t there different explanations to the art from different point of views or how you would look at it? Just like the saying “one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure”.
-GS-
In response to GS, are there different forms of artwork? I agree with you 100%. Who is it that makes the rules on what qualifies as art? Isn't it all within the eye of the beholder? To me and to answer you on my own point of view, and that which goes against all or any rules, I do believe that anything can be art, even if it was a form of ranting or had no intention to have meaning at all.
ReplyDeleteI think that some things that I consider to be beautiful pieces of art were natural or by accident without any intention at all. These rules that the author explains are rules made up by who and on what grounds? I think it is silly to have rules in art... Art should be free and it should be open to all meanings, to whom ever is interpreting it.
A.S.
In response to AS- I completely agree with you that art is in the eye of the beholder! Some people might criticize on others form of artwork but you could think rainbows are pretty and I could think a statue of cans is gorgeous artwork. It is all within what we feel. There does not need to be an in depth descriptions to make it artwork. It is completely within who is view the art.
ReplyDelete-GS-
In Chapter two, on page 65, Carroll talks about "solo expression therory of art" where I find myself quite lost so to speak on it. It says it drops number two "transmission to an audience" but it stays art so long the creater has clarified her emtional state by means of lines colors and so on.
ReplyDeleteI still have trouble grasping if it would still consititue as expressive if we the audience, can't tell it's expressing anything how are we to know the lines, colors. It would seem symbolic or could come off as confusing or meaningless. I understand its another way of saying it but if the artist themselves "got it" so to speak how would we connect to it? My question is why exactly would it still count as expressive theory if others cat tell if it's expressing anything or connect to it in anyway?
IM
A lot of times when I am looking at art, or evern creating it for an audience, it is taken the wrong way. Sometimes people get a totally different emotion from a piece than the original intent. If the artist fails to transmit their inent, but the audience still gets a reaction from it, can this still be considered art? Art that is supposed to be scary can make me happy because it is so beautiful. I think a piece of art should be rated upon their richness of the reactions from the viewers, not so much the accurate transmission of the original emotional thought. Does this sound like a plausible theory of art?
ReplyDeleteMK
On page 72 it says that transmission theorist assumes that the clarification of emotion is the aim of all Art. In the painting "Nighthawks" would you say this to be true or do you think that a paint like this could be easily misrepresented because there is not a dead give away to its meaning? TD
ReplyDeleteIn response to MK.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that when I look at or create art myself I can get a completely different vibe from the viewers, far from what I was going for. I believe that art can’t be rated by emotion. Emotion is too personal. Simply as both of us have experienced for that statement to be true. The thought you had about art being based on the richness of reactions, over the transmission of the original emotion is a very possible theory. I look at the Buddhist theory of expression… not actually having to go through the emotion to create it. But then that must give correct emotion they viewer should feel... So it works but doesn’t work. Though I did some research and the theory Formalism is something came up stating “the context for the work, including the reason for its creation, the historical background, and the life of the artist, is considered to be of secondary importance.” That may be something you would want to check into. This is a theory where people look at more of how it was made -Visual features and its medium. I have a feeling that we will be discussing in future a theory that would fall under these conditions. If not, It would be a good question to ask under expression discussion in class.
LC
This is a response to TD.
ReplyDeleteIf you keep reading on page 72, it says that this is not true. “Some art is designed to project vague emotions. Symbolist Art of the 19th century is of this sort.”
But to give some sort of answer to your question, I would say that a painting like “Nighthawks” can be misrepresented, but anyone who has a serious interest in art will probably make one of two choices. One, they will take the time to understand as much about the painting, and this includes the context of when it was created (just after the bombing of Pearl Harbor), the ideology of the artist, the movement in which the painting belonged, etc.
Two, they will seek to find their own interpretation of the work, whether it conforms to the aims of the artist or not. This style of understanding art is generally practiced by the archetypal “rogue”, someone who seeks to subvert cultural mores and push the boundaries of acceptable modes of thought.
A.H.
I get the feeling from the readings that there really isn't one sure fire way of explaining what art is or what makes art considered a piece of artwork. The book has given several theories to what makes art art but then bashes them for their loopholes. Can we even say there is a way to determine what is artwork; such as a forumla?
ReplyDeleteNB
In reponse to L.C.
ReplyDeleteCarroll comes up with an explanation to answer the question of, what happens when a viewer doesn't feel the same emotion the artist portrayed? The painter is expressing a very exact and detailed emotion that they have experienced. An artist who creates a work of art depicting a very accute aspect of sadness for example, is trying to get the viewer to feel the sadness. The viewer might not feel the same exact emotion as the artist, but will feel the general emotion that the artist's emotion was derived from. Now if the artist's work completely misses the emotion they were going for, and no viewers are experiencing the same general emotion, then the work under the expressionist theory would not be a work of art.
BRJ
In response to NB.
ReplyDeleteI think this is something we will come to discover throughout the rest of the semester. We are investigating several views and seeing the flaws in them. I don't think we will land on one certain formula that explains what art is. I tend to think that the answer to what qualifies as art is subjective, and it will vary from person to person, so there is no absolute answer everyone will agree upon. There may be something that professional art critics agree on, but never all the observers of art as a whole. Since art is open to everyone, not just those specializing in it, there will most likely be many disagreements. I don't believe one formula could necessarily cover all the bases, that would result in a consensus among everyone who enjoys art. Each person can interpret things differently and in turn have a different interpretation of what makes something a work of art. As for the question at hand, it really depends on who you ask.
Stacy Dahl
In Response to MK. I think you are correct when you say you should be based on your reaction of the painting and not how you interrupt it. That is the how point behind expression art. It is to see how you react to the painting. Like "The Scream" when you first look at it, for me it makes me feel anxious and worried. It is design to manipulate a person feelings. The Reaction is everything not what the think. That is the idea behind expression. TD
ReplyDeleteIn response to G.S.
ReplyDelete"My question here is, isn't there different forms of artwork to every different person? Aren’t there different explanations to the art from different point of views or how you would look at it? Just like the saying “one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure”. "
I would have to say, using "one person's garbage is another person's treasure," that this is true. For example graffiti art may not be considered art to say the Da Vincis of the world, but to some people graffiti art would be considered an art and also an art that has been on the rise over the years. I think there would be different explanations for particular pieces of art through other people's minds. Its all in what audience you are trying to reach.
JAH
In response to JAH:
ReplyDeleteEver since I have heard the question of whether or not art is art without an audience, I have believed it is art no matter what. I think that if an artist creates it for himself only, he is the audience. I think everyone creates art that no one else is meant to see. Even if an artist decides it is not for the public, it is still for their own personal viewing pleasure. Since they are enjoying it, I think this considers it art for sure. As for the second part of your question, I think that I am more connected with the expressionist theory rather than the transmission theory. But I still have not agreed 100% with the theories we have been talking about yet. But I think that art is definitely art if it is not seen by anyone else. If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, does the tree still make sound?
MRK
In response to AH,
ReplyDeleteYou ask if it is possible to correctly define art because many different view of art can be valid. Firstly, if art can be defined it must be possible for it to be correctly defined at some point, because the purpose of stating that something has a definition is to state that the definition applied to it is presumed the correct one. I think your real question is whether art can be defined at all, because you allude to the fact that you think several different views of art may have useful elements to them. My response is that art may be defined not through a strict definition listing the key elements, but, if at all, through necessary and sufficient conditions that must be met in order for it to qualify in the range or works we qualify as art. I doubt that there can ever be a complete or unchanging set of conditions that qualify a work as art because it is possible for new forms of art to emerge that have yet to be done, but I do think that some theories should hold more weight than others in having the most comprehensive views in how to determine what is art for that art which is currently available to us. We may be able to come up with rough criteria that holds for most art, but we cannot have a complete and universal set of criteria because we cannot predict what forms are still to be thought of.
You say any view of art can be argued by a skilled rhetorician, but the key is to critically evaluate those views to see if they have any validity or application. Any number of views can be argued, but only a small number will be argued convincingly, and it is up to our critical analysis of each view to determine which, if any, we accept as being applicable to the concept of what constitutes art.
TG
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