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 our readings Bullough talks about the paradox of art.
ReplyDeleteI am not quite sure what he is getting at. What i get is that some artworks can hit to close to home with a viewer and then that viewer will hate or not like that artwork.
But I do not understand why the personal reactions of that audience member really matters in the long run.
KL
The aesthetic experience that is mentioned over and over is relatively simple. If we have our own experiences with art whether it be good or bad, it does not take away from that experience that the art provides. But what about music? What if a piece has no strong leeway toward a "sad" or "happy" piece?
ReplyDeleteBM
Despite the name of "Culinary Arts", the aspect of food and art is never really brought up since art has many different examples. Aesthetics seem to be suited for this type of profession, but to other fields? Would Imitation or Formalism? And is that a good thing or a bad thing to have Culinary Arts included/ignored in discussions?
ReplyDeleteMM
In the section "Detection or Projecion?" Carroll proposes that aesthetic properties may not be, contrary to popular belief, mere projections made by the subjects perceiving them. The fact that we "disagree" with regard to aesthetic properties more than we do regarding color does not thereby suggest that aesthetic properties are themselves subjective.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, says Carroll, the fact that we have grounds for agument at all is indicative of the properties' objectivity. Our responses may disagree--I may describe a minor chord as "brooding" which my friend would call "melancholy" or even "peaceful"--but insofar as we are able to detect this point on which to debate, suggests that the property does exist in the object, and our point of contention is nontheless essentially the "same" property, but a property which provokes different responses in different people.
Carroll however attributes these differences to interpretation and language usage. While we are in fact experiencing or perceiving the same chord, our responses to it--emotional and/or physiological--differ, by virtue of our possessing differing natures--which says nothing about the nature of the object itself.
"On phenomenological grounds," says Carroll, "it would be arbitrary to say that color perception tracks objective qualities, whereas aesthetic experience does not. Color perception, though response-dependent, tracks objective properties of things. So response-dependency is no reason to categorize aesthetic experience as purely projective, if we do not treat color perception likewise."
Do you think that Carroll's analogy of color, for the purposes of explaining the grounds for aesthetic argument, holds? Can colors, to say nothing of aesthetic properties, be considered objective outright, as Carroll here proposes? Does the fact that MY experience of the color blue remains consistent, and YOUR experience of it remains consistent, and thus can consistently communicate the concept of "blueness"--necessarily suggest that we both experience "blueness" as such? If not, and the color-analogy is corrupt, on what grounds can Carroll claim that aesthetic properties are objective?
AMS
On page 88, Bullough says that Psychical distance “again, it marks one of the most important steps in the process of artistic creation and serves as a distinguishing feature of what is so loosely described as the ‘artistic temperament’”. Does he mean to say that Psychical distance is something that is commonly found in artists, that is a sense of aloofness? And in what way is Psychical distance a “most important step(s) is the process of artistic creation”?
ReplyDeleteA.H.
On page 188 there is a discussion on Design Appreciation. My ideas about art are just this, at least I thought it was but the book gets so repetitive and confusing, it seems to me that the meaning of Aesthetics in art should be simplified. Art to me should be attractive and that is what I got from this chapter, but then it seems to contradict itself. Basically what aesthetic in art is, is something that we find meaning or beauty in?
ReplyDeleteI'm frustrated with this book , I think that it could have been simplified. I'm not an art major, nor a philosophy major. I am a Psychology major and maybe that's why I find myself so frustrated, to me it either is or it isn't... I just want the facts and none of the rest, So I just want to know, aesthetic art is basically something that we find appealing, is it all up to the individual who sees it? AS
Carroll on page 166 is defining the aesthatic defintion of art. Carroll admits under the aesthetic definition of art, it is easy for an artwork to be made. Art is easily made under the the requirement of intention. The intention requirement makes it easy. The capacity of the requirement, the one of aesthetic property makes it fail, if not evident in the work. How is a person suppose to tell if the artist had aesthetic intention? Carroll says the aesthetic intention narrows the definition. How does a requirement that is almost undecernable from an aesthetic one to one of any intention the artist desires narrow the definition?
ReplyDeleteThe discussion is brought up about the unity, diversity and the complexity in work. These elements are giving the work its aesthetic experience to a viewer possible. This is what is stated on pg 170. What paintings, sculptures, and/or works of art would someone give examples of this definition?
ReplyDeletelc
If the distance between an object of art and an individual is so precariously balanced that the individual can easily over or under-distance themselves from the work, and this is usually different from the distance limit of the artist, then can an artist ever make art specifically for an audience that will be appreciated by the audience in the way the artist intends? If this theory of psychical distance is correct, is there always a disconnect between the audience and the artist?
ReplyDeleteTAG
In response to AH
ReplyDeleteNo i do not think that he is saying that artists have to be aloof or distanced from everything. What he is saying is that in order to create art the artist needs to be able to separate them selves from the subject that they are trying to portray and by distancing them selves it allows them to contemplate it all the better. in fact he says "but it does not mean that the relation between the self and the object is broken to the extent of becoming 'impersonal'.'"
Being distanced from the art work or object is the most important step for him because he says that it allows for the artist to truly understand what the can about the object and that it is necessary to create an art work.
hope that helps
KL
In response to MM, i think that culinary arts is a huge part of art. Aesthetically pleasing is the basic idea for food at weddings, in recipe books, television and in the retail of food. Culinary arts has to be visually appealing to sell, as does most art. I was a little confused about what you mean by formalism and imitation in regards to culinary arts, but many times food can be used to imitate something, it can also in my opinion be representational. I guess to me culinary arts is very important to art aesthetically. AS
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to MM, I believe that Culinary Arts is very important to the aesthetics of art. Art and food go hand and hand. People will pay for aesthetically pleasing art as well as food. People pay loads for an artistic wedding cake, something that is beautiful and appealing. As for your question on formalism and Imitation, I am a little confused, But if you are asking if culinary arts fits into that category of art, I believe it does, especially imitation. Food is often imitated. I think that Culinary arts is very much art and fits well into that of aesthetics. AS
ReplyDeleteIn response to BM about music and the feeling of neither a strong leeway to either happy or sad is a bit confusing on what exactly you are asking. If you are asking if music that gives either happy or sad feeling to different audiences and if that is still considered art in the sense of aesthetics I would have to say yes. As you stated a simple definition if whether the feeling you get while taking in art is what the artist did or did not intend doesn’t matter.. but that the feeling that you simply got does. As a fav pieces of mine I listen to is by the APM orchestra- Clair de Lune… now I will be honest and say I am unsure of what they intended for the art to feel, but as I have been in different context with the work I have felt different feelings… this is to me an extraordinary pieces of art.
ReplyDeletelc
In response to KL
ReplyDeleteFrom the readings throughout the book, and through the viewpoints of Carroll art is very much about the audience, and their perception of the artwork. How an audience recieves a particular piece of art is what makes it a brilliant work of art, or a catastrophe. What made imitation and realism popular was people liked how well an artist could imitate nature. Expression and Formalism both make the audience, the intended audience one of the key factors in their theories, if it's not met then it's not art. Asthetics is all about sensory. How you percieve a work of art. The audience is what gives the art its asthetics, since we determine how we feel, react, or judge the work. The artist intends the work to have an asthetic value, but if the audience doesn't matter, than the artwork's asthetic value will not be sensed, judged, and finally formed. Asthetics is about making an audience feel, if there's no audience the artwork does not matter.
This is in response to LC’s question:
ReplyDeleteThroughout Carroll’s whole book, he has been able to help us understand and oppose against different theories in art. I think that when you start to talk about art and the unity, complexity, and diversity it may portray you need to take certain factors in mind. For example the medium the artist is possibly working in can change the connotations of the terms you used.
An example of unity could be Mark Riedy’s Day at the Beach (acrylic airbrush painting). Or you can combine unity and complexity in some of Deborah Mae Broad’s prints, really the possibilities of these terms are endless. Broad’s work is a good example of all three terms, diversity in the mark-making and process she uses as well as subject matter, unity in her compositions and complexity in the entire process. Robert Longo’s series Men in the Cities is another good example of both unity in the concept of the series, and diversity in the particulars of the pieces themselves.
A.H.
In response to LC:
ReplyDeleteI feel like artworks such as The Statue of David or the bronze figure believed to be Zeus would be great examples. Something that shows off the beauty of human beings.
JAH
LC:
ReplyDeleteI feel like artworks such as David and/or the statue of Zeus would be great examples. Something showing off the human form at its finest.
JAH
In response to AS:
ReplyDeleteThe overall summery is essentially that art is to be made to please the viewer, and that is its purpose that distinguishes art from other objects. That is the viewpoint of people who believe in this. The arguements against this viewpoint are that it is either too broad and accepts too many things that look good, or that it ignores things that have meaning but are not visually stunning ala Duchamp's Fountain. Carroll notes that although the viewpoint as a whole may not be totally accurate, that many people still hold aesthetics important when analyzing art.
As for how to read the chapter, it is confusing, but once you figure out the logic behind philosophical writing where every bit of information is analyzed in order to strengthen the argument, then it becomes much much easier. Hopefully you understand it more as time moves on.
MM