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 5, Carroll proposes a model for identifying artworks that emphasizes "the importance of historical narration" (266) and thereby avoids falling into the definitional trap of the theories discussed in all previous chapters, while at the same time avoiding the problems inherent in Neo-Wittgensteinian, Institutional, and Historical-definition models.
ReplyDeleteMy question, is whether it could be possible, i.e., non-contradictory, to use Carroll's theory as an "umbrella theory" under which others still hold, but are subservient. This may sound redundant, in that the aspects of art that are emphasized in the theories we've addressed so far (expression, representation, form, etc.) are all encompassed in the model Carroll's proposed--but what I have in mind are the tighter, albeit definitive, restrictions which the other theories afford, and which can serve to "hone"--if only temporarily--our understanding of constitutes a given genre, or medium, of art.
It seems conceivable that certain mediums lend themselves more readily to formalist ideals than others; ditto, representation; and so forth. Would it be contradictory, then, or otherwise unfeasible, to employ said theories on a cultural, temporal, mypopic level, while granting that they aren't the "be all end all"? Or would their definitional criteria, however malleable, cancel out the goal of Carroll's model?
While I agree with Carroll, in theory, regarding the problem of trying to define, and thereby limit, art--I can also see where NO clear descriptions, however imperfect, could become problematic for a culture. It's as if ARTISTS benefit from, and even require, the fluidity of structure that Carroll's model offers, while the audience or viewers need a sturdier one--if only to understand the works they are looking at/reading/listening to.
AMS
The family resemblence theory of Wittgenstinianism is the justification of what is art by seeing how the work relates to past works of art. The theory is quite sound is its justification, but there is an objection to it. The objection is that the family resemblence theory is to slack, because they claim that anything can be related to something to a certain degree. My question is, should there be a limit imposed on how many degrees you can move away from accepted artworks so the work to be considered art? If there should be a limit on the degrees you can move away from art, then what should the limit be?
ReplyDeleteThis chapter, for the most part, makes sense to me, and is probably a godsend to people who were irritated by the many rules of the other theories. However, one thing that bothers me about this theory is the idea that there are things listed by Carroll that are deemed artworks by everyone-Midsummer's Night Dream, Pieta, ect. Wouldn't this theory seem more flimsy compared to the others since there are less guidelines in definition-as opposed to formalism, where art has form, or expression where the work is to transmit emotion, these pieces have no guideline, they have just been deemed art through time. And in the Institutional theory, the idea of naming people artists only if they stay in that social level, but what of people inhabit other levels who create works of art inadvertently-who didn't strive for being an artist but stumbled upon it, free of the rules of the the art social level? Do these people still count as artists?
ReplyDeleteMM
Carroll writes about value in a piece of art, how is the aesthetics of a piece a part of the value? How can one determine the value of art? Now, one of my favorite artists prices her pieces determined on size and what the viewer asks for. Si I guess that would go with what Carroll says about "aesthetic experience" The viewer will value a piece that is made for them, but how is art valued if it is just a shovel or fountain? Are people purchasing the name of the artist and not the piece of art itself?
ReplyDeleteCarroll writes about value in a piece of art, how is the aesthetics of a piece a part of the value? How can one determine the value of art? Now, one of my favorite artists prices her pieces determined on size and what the viewer asks for. Si I guess that would go with what Carroll says about "aesthetic experience" The viewer will value a piece that is made for them, but how is art valued if it is just a shovel or fountain? Are people purchasing the name of the artist and not the piece of art itself? AS
ReplyDeleteCarroll writes about value in a piece of art, how is the aesthetics of a piece a part of the value? How can one determine the value of art? Now, one of my favorite artists prices her pieces determined on size and what the viewer asks for. Si I guess that would go with what Carroll says about "aesthetic experience" The viewer will value a piece that is made for them, but how is art valued if it is just a shovel or fountain? Are people purchasing the name of the artist and not the piece of art itself? AS
ReplyDeleteIn response to MM:
ReplyDeleteAbout the people who accidentally stumble onto creating art. If something they create gets thrust into the art social level I feel they would be considered artists. Even if this one work of art was all that they ever created. In their daily lives they would be normal people. But when talking about what they created they are most likely considered artists.
JAH
In response to BM, I think that the value of a piece is more about what the artist put into the piece. I have a friend who is an amazing artist and I think that she prices her pieces to fit what it is that she put into the piece, the size and time she spent on the piece. Some people can price a piece high because of who they are. Like actors and their autographs, their signature is what people are paying for. I could draw a dog and it has no value, but President Obama could draw the same dog and someone would pay a bundle for the piece. I think that value is all with in the eye of the beholder. What does it mean to the viewer, not so much to the artist and if the artist knows they can price something high, I am sure they will. AS
ReplyDeleteIn response to AMS
ReplyDeleteTo have a model that encompasses all the requirements of past theories would contradict Carroll's model. The problem with trying to define and constrain art to definitive restrictions, is that it limits what art is, and what art can become. Throughout the book Carroll shows that new theories are a response to changes in the art world. The defintions were created to pull works into the artword, so they could be acceptable as art. Art should have no restrictions to how it is created, or who created it. People can recognize art when they see it, and if they don't quite understand what they are looking at, or why it was made, then so be it.
In response to BRJ
ReplyDeleteTo have limits set would be missing the point. The drawback to the theory is that there is no stopping the grouping of objects, so after a while anything could be limited to art. If you were to have limits they would be destroyed anyways by artists who push boundaries and aim for more avant garde approaches as seen in newer works of art. So despite what could be a sound approach, the rise of new styles and mediums of art tend to destroy old conventions and force the viewer and the art world to reapropriate what is art.
MM
Response to AS
ReplyDeleteI see the monetary value in art as the price that generates from the time and materials that are put into the project. It is just like any job where you get payed by the hour but the rates vary for the artist in order to make a profit. Things like the shovel are a reflection of the thought and originality put into the "artfulness" of the object. And of course the one-of-a-kind factor helps in jacking up the price.
BM