Emotion

Today in class while discussing the concept of the connection between Knowledge, Imagination, and Creativity, the idea of Emotion was brought up. Emotion was said to be the single factor that pulls all of what was mentioned with regards to Knowledge, Imagination, and Creativity together. That made me think a little more about the power of emotion in things. Emotion or emotions are the driving or pushing force behind every single thing that we do in life. Emotions, when in the right state of mind can cause one to finish a task at hand when it seems that it will never get done. For example, once while I was completing an assignment for my Historiography class I became very tired and lazy and did not want to complete the assignment. I figured, well I've never skipped this class before, why don't I just go to bed considering that it is 4:00 in the morning and do it some other time. Realizing that was a stupid reason to skip the class my emotions pushed through and I finished the assignment.

Now a question I pose, can emotions be the driving factor in everything in life, from art to leisure activities?

Talent

Today in class we discussed the concept of the difference between talent and skill. To some a talent can be anything from juggling juggling balls on a stage in front of an audience or singing a song in a musical production. To others, a talent can be being really good at a particular subject such as math or science or just having a tremendous amount of perserverence and sticking too something when it seems like nothing will ever make the task at hand worth it. A skill is recognized by some as an ability to do something exceptionally well but not really needing a tremendous amount of talent. A skill to some is being good at a craft such as making bird houses and other things of that nature. Basically, to some a skill is a hobby. Therefore, a strong definite definition of a talent is something that is innate and almost second nature to some and a skill is something that is learned and takes time to perfect.

Now a question that I pose is could something that is ones skill also be something that they are talented at?

Knowledge

Today in Class we discussed the connection between Knowledge, Imagination, and Creativity. Knowledge is everything around us. Everything outside of our own stream of consciousness. Imagination is internalizing everything that we have learned from the knowledge. Imagination is making the knowledge that we have learned our own thoughts and ideas. What makes Imagination so special is that it is our own unique thoughts. Creativity ties all of it together into one tangible idea or thought. Information is out there, it becomes knowledge when we make it our own with our own imagination. The creative aspect of this is each and every single idea or thought that we use knowledge and our own imagination to create is unique. Uniqueness is something I personally feel ties these three together as well. Doing something that nobody has ever done before, or thinking up something that nobody else has ever thought up before makes us unique. Allowing our imagination to flow and comprehend everything that we have thought up and make it our own is what makes us unique as living species.

Now a question I pose is, is there an in between step between knowledge becoming our imagination and it still being just knowledge?

Music

This week in class we discussed the idea that music, as an art form is a harder art form to understand. One can say that one does not hear music unless they themselves listen for it. They may be able to hear a few notes here and there but they are not really hearing and appreciating the music for what it is; a work of art, unless they are listening to hear just that. Music, to the artist, and anyone who appreciates art for the beauty that it is, is not just a collection of notes on a page of sheet music or coming from a particular instrument. Music is the imaginary tune inside the artists head. It is there artwork and there message that they are trying to covey to the audience. If someone were to recreate the tune, they can too experience music as an art form. For something to be art for the viewer they must be undistracted then they can recreate what they artist was imagining.

Therefore a question that I pose is, what makes or qualifies music to be an art form? Is it the fact that someone is creating a unique piece that has never been done before or what?

Dialogue

This week in class we discussed the idea that art can communicate to people. As mentioned, art has the ability to communicate emotions, feelings, and ideas to people or groups of people. To look at this from another angle, one can see that diaologue is vital in this expression. Diaologue makes something complete by conveying what the artist was feeling or felt to the people or the audience through their work of art. This is a very special ability because any other type of profession where you create something does not have the ability to communicate directly with its audience. The artist can tell there deepest darkest fear to their most craziest dream through their work of art. This is important because some think that art being able to create ideas for the people viewing it creates diaologue between it and the audience because it causes them to think. No, monologue+monologue does not equal a diaologue.

Therefore, a question that I pose is can art be an expression of ideas without being able to communicate to the audience?

Expression

This week in class we discussed the expression of emotions by means of communicating emotions and feelings through art. We have already discussed that art; or at the very least good art, should be able to convey aesthetic emotions to the audience from the artist. However, Collingwood argues that art can communicate emotions, feelings, and a message to the audience. He argues; however, that one cannot just feel the emotions or feelings that the art is conveying. One does not have an emotional state unless they are able to tell themselves what they emotional state is. They have to become more aware of themselves emotionally and non-emotionally to be able to comprehend what the emotions they are feeling from art. In other words, you cannot express that which you do not know. I agree with this idea for the most part because it applies to everyday life as well. For example, one cannot teach someone how to do math or any particular school subject that they themselves do not understand. It would basically be teaching without actually knowing what they are teaching.

Therefore, a question that I pose is, can one appreciate art if they themselves do not understand it?

Performance

Today in class we discussed the idea that performance art brings something unique and different to the table that other types of art do not. Performance art is when an actor is performing in a play or a band is performing in a concert. Performance art is so unique, first and foremost because there a living, breathing people involved. People can reach out and grab the audience while conveying a message in a way that non performing art can not. An object may exude a particular emotion, but it can not reach out and sometimes literally grab the audience. People are unique and mysterious. People are ever changing. An actor delivers a line in a play for three nights in a row for the the run of a show or musical. Every single night the actor can change the inflection of their voice, changing the message they are trying to convey. Non performing art cannot do this.

Therefore the question that i pose is is performing art in a sense better because it has the ability to change unlike non performing art?

Idols

Today in class we discussed the idol of Idol worshiping when it comes to the art world. The example that was mentioned in class today was based on Justin Beiber and his crazy pop culture following. How every time there is anything with Justin Beibers face on it or there is a new song with him in it, people go crazy! They want it and must have it. The same can be applied to the art world. With performance art, people will go out of their way to go and see the actors or the singers from shows or concerts. The performers may not be doing what they are so famous for, but the fact of seeing them in the flesh makes it all worth the while. For example, say a person hears that an author will be doing a book signing at a local book store. The person really likes this author, for they have read countless numbers of their books. The author is not writing a book at the book store, nor are they reading some of their works. They are merely signing the books. This does not show their talent nor does it really do anything besides over popularize the author. But the fact that the author will be there, draws people in to worship their idol.

Now a question i pose is how do idols get created?

Economics= Art?

Today in class we discussed the concept of Marginal Utility when it comes to art. Marginal utility and Marginal Satisfaction are two terms that mean increasing or decreasing satisfaction or pleasure. I am familiar with these terms from my high school economics class and to hear them in an art class seemed strange to me. In my economics class we did a project in which we ate as many Dunkin Donuts Munchkins that we could. The purpose of the project was to point out that the first donut gave us the most satisfaction, and as we ate more and more, the satisfaction decreased. One gets the most satisfaction or pleasure from the first time experiencing something. The same goes with art. The first time you experience something you gain the most pleasure from it. Also, the same theory can apply to the decreasing satisfaction one can get from experiencing art that was a copy of an original. The original would give more pleasure and the copy would give less.

Therefore, a question i pose is could one gain more satisfaction from a non original or copy of a work of art?

Romanticism

This past week in class we discussed the idea that there is really nothing super special about art. This idea was presented with the idea that art objects are really just like every other object in the universe. The only reason people are so in aw after them is because has become so romanticized over the years. Making a work of art seem like something that is so extremely rare. When in actuality, art is really just special in only one way. What makes art special is that it is generally one of a kind. But how does that make it seem so rare, as it does to other people? Well one can see this situation from this standpoint. Aren't peoples thoughts one of a kind as well? But nobody is in aw over the simple everyday thoughts of individual people. Therefore people need to stop romanticizing art. Another reason people may romanticize art is that a deeper meaning is within it. With art, the meaning or the message doesn't just pop out at the viewer. One must look deeper and deeper within themselves and the work of art to understand what it is trying to convey. However, as goes with most everything in life. Nothing really pops out at people very easily. One must explore to understand what the meaning of things are.

Therefore, a question I pose is, if art has such a deep meaning, how can some people look at a painting and know exactly what it is trying to convey?

Language

Today in class we discussed the idea that language is a very strong tool. The idea was mentioned with regard to the saying, "oh its just a _____" meaning something is not very special or important. Well it was mentioned that one should never say something like that because it is a very limiting way of speaking. It limits oneself to other possible description of something. Here is a conversation as an example...

Man 1: Cut down your tree, I'm sick of racking up the leaves that fall into my yard.
Man 2: But it's a glorious oak tree that's lived for thousands of years.
Man 1: It's just a tree.

Another example of this can be with a mother

                                           Possibly a wife
                Also a daughter<
Mother <
                Possibly a sister
Language is a very powerful tool and to say something is "only" something, it is very limiting to what it could also possibly be.

Therefore, the question I pose is, by not limiting oneself in the way they speak, could something that is clearly not something else be that something else, as long as you don't label it as "only" something?

Dickie

In the reading for this week, we read about George Dickie's theories on what makes art, art. Unlike other readings thus far, Dickie believes that art is considered art when a work of art that is being viewed is being viewed in the manner in which it is to be considered art. What this means is if something is labeled as a piece of art, intended to be labeled as a piece of art, displayed as a piece of art, intended to be displayed as a piece of art and lastly signed as a piece of art, then it is art. Instead of stating what makes art, Dickie abandons the concept that art is art when it meets certain requirements. Instead, he states what can make art, art.
An example: If a member of the art community sets up a poster in a museum that was not made by her. She labels the art as art and displays the art as art. Finally she signs it declaring that it is art to the whole world. Is the poster art?

It most definitely is art because it has the purpose of being art.

Now a question I pose is if someone declares that something is art and displays it as art, but someone does not see it as art, how is it determined if it is art?

Knowing art?

Today in class we discussed the idea of sometimes knowing allot about art can be a good thing and sometimes it can be a bad thing. First off, when you know less about  art, you are more able to appreciate it. When you know less about the subject that you are examining you are

- less apt to critique it.

-appreciate if from the standpoint that you do not know as much about it.

-recognize the fact that it must have taken allot of effort to do this because it seems very difficult to you.

then again...

When someone knows more about art, they are more able to appreciate it because 

-the are more familiar with the subject area.

- and you know how difficult or easy something was to make so you can respect the artistic process.

Now a question i pose is, if you know allot about art, is it possible that you can never appreciate somebody's work of art because you expect greatness or perfect every time. 

Words?

Today in class we discussed the idea that art without words is not really art at all. I know what you are thinking, most art does not have words written on it or even have the ability to talk. So what am I talking about? What I mean is that art without a description or a purpose for being made serves not purpose at all. The art is not telling anyone anything nor is it really serving a purpose. Art needs a description or else it does not really constitute being art. In order for art to move someone or be aesthetically pleasing, it must have a description that can allow the viewer to feel emotion. Basically it is the same as a book. A book without a good story or narration, is not really a good book; or even a book, at all. This serves the same purpose as a blank canvas without the description card stating what the canvas is supposed to represent. In a modern art gallery, often times one can find a blank canvas hanging on the wall. Without the description card hanging under it saying what the artists vision was, nobody really knows what is going on or what the art work is.
Therefore, art without words or a description, is not really art.

Now a question i pose is can art with a description still be no better than art with a description?

Subject and Predicate?

This week in class we discussed the idea of the subject and the predicate when it comes to the "is" of artistic identification. Is, is a form of the verb "to be" which is used in everyday spoken language quite frequently. An example of a simple predicate is saying something is something. For example, a mother holds up a glass of milk and says to the baby, this is milk. Another form of a subject predicate is with the indirect predicate. The phone rings. A man on the other line of the phone says Kim? Kim says this is she. The is is the predicate to Kim which is the subject. Another form of subject and predicate is in the form of existential predicate. The saying, I think therefore I am, is an example of this. The to be is in the form of he exists due to he thinks. The final form of subject and predicate is the artistic predication. This form uses perceptual indistincutal counterparts to explain the differences between two very similar things. For example, A is something and B is a work of art. A is the variable to understand part of the whole that which B is art.

Now a question I pose is, if B is a work of art and A is something, where does C come into play?

When is art, art?

This past weeks Q&A discusses the idea of when is art, art. This is a change for we students in this class, for we are more familiar with the traditional question of what is art. However, the reading for this we attempts to discuss when art is actually art. Stating that a painting is art when it is intended to be art. Also a blanket is art when it is intended to be art. Given the proper judgement of an individual, saying something is art when used in a proper way is what makes it art. Therefore, if one were to subtract all forms of said representation, would one still have art? For something to be considered art, its current function must be that of which someone classifies as art. If it is not refered to as art, then it is not actually art. Then, if the representation of what makes the object art is subtracted out, all that is left is the object attempting to be classified as art.

Therefore, a question i pose is if something is art when it is doing something, then haven't we defined art right there?

Symptoms of art?

This past week in class we discussed the symptoms of what makes something art. The list of symptoms are as follows...

-Syntactic density- finest differences constitute, differences in symbolization.
-Symantec density- functioning differently, but the meaning if them functions differently is different.
-Relative repleteness- allot of differences at once.

These are the symptoms of what makes art. However, presenence of absence of these does not prove anything. These are just symptoms. They do not prove what art is.

Therefore the question i pose is how do you recognize anything without symptoms? It is either art or not?

Function

This week in class we discussed the idea of the function of art. Something is art when it functions as art is in essence what is being discussed. Instead of attempting to classify something as art, a more efficient way is to state when something is art. With this theory in mind, one can argue that almost anything can be art, if someone says it is given a certain function. For example, a blanket under normal circumstances would not be classified as art, however, if someone were to say that it is art if it were to be held up in the air, then it is art. Things do things because of what they are. Function and use entirely define something. When something functions as art, then it is in actuality art. However, one is not able to turn something into art, someone can only use something as art at a given time. Therefore, something is art when someone sees it as art.

Therefore a question I pose is if someone says something is art and then someone else says that it is not, who be correct?

Great work of art?

Last week we discussed in class the idea of what it takes to be a great work of art. A formula was presented by our professor explaining just that.

AE <=> SF

This formula means that aesthetic emotion is equal to significant form. They may be equal to each other, however, it never mentions what they are. Therefore, this formula tells you that you cannot tell what aesthetic emotion is but it is what you feel when in the presence of significant form. Also it cannot tell you what significant form is but it is what causes one to feel aesthetic emotion.

Therefore, a question i pose is, if something does not have significant form, do you not feel aesthetic emotion from it, or is that in some way possible?

Popular

Last week we discussed in class the idea that what is most attracted by the people or society, is generally what is most popular. Also,what is seen as the most popular is also seen as the best.  Take music for example, Pop music or Popular music is seen as the best because the majority of the population enjoys and likes it, however some people may find some independent band to be the best even though the rest of the population does not. Therefore, something (in this case art) is popular because of the demand of it and because of the demand of it, it is popular. So who is right? What actually is the most popular? Well, everyones taste is right, unless everyones taste is wrong. Confusing? It is! The only actually judgement that can be made is that the right answer, or what is popular, is in the eye of the educated beholder, or the most knowledgeable person about the subject matter (in this case art).

Therefore, a question I pose is if someone is actually wrong and they are the educated beholder, then who is right?

Distractors

Last week in class we discussed the idea that there are many different distractors when it comes to art. Also due to these distractors, certain groups of peoples opinions cannot really be trusted or considered valid. First and for most, it has been said that young men in  love cannot be trusted any better than a drunk about art. The meaning behind this is that because young men, when they first feel loves bite are so aw-struck, they judgement is clouded when it comes to making proper decisions. This applies to the drunk as well because when under the influence of any kind of substance; whether it be drugs or alcohol, judgement and focus are hindered. Focus leads to excellence. The belief by teenagers that," I play guitar better when I am drunk," is a common misconception. You may feel more free to make judgments such as this, however, you really are only imagining that you are better at guitar under the influence. Distractors such as these, and others such as age, are all innocent distractors, however, they do impair judgement. Therefore, universal agreement can only stem from people being undistracted.

Therefore, the question that I pose is can distractors ever really help when it comes to making judgments about art?

Art=Science?

Today in class the idea was presented that maybe we have no working definition of art because art is an ever changing thing. More and more different types of art are being discovered all the time and make a possible definition of art hard to pin point. One can argue that art is almost like the universe. So vast and big, there is still allot to be discovered. Stating this, however, makes one think, what is the universe? Much like art, the term the universe is something encompassing a large array of things and making an actual definition is very hard to do. A difference between the two; however, is when new things are discovered in the universe they get added to what is refereed to as the universe. New art forms also get entered into the category art but how is it possible if there is no definition of art? How does art attract people and observers when they don't really know what it is they are looking at and observing.

Therefore a question arises, the fact that art is so mysterious without a definition; is that what makes it appealing to people?

Art

Today in class we further discussed the ideas of Weitz. Weitz's stance on there being no definition of art arouses many feelings in observers of art. For me, I feel that art is better off not being defined. The fact that there is no workable definition of art in Weitz view makes art more appealing and more mysterious. However, a question arises in my mind as to if something is created and is there; i.e. art, then how can it not have a definition? Everything in existence has to have a definition. If it cannot be defined, then it is not real. An example that was stated in class was gaming. Gaming is capable of being defined on all levels. Even the most basic of activities such as doodling on a piece of paper in class. It may not be seen as gaming, but in actuality it is. Doodling may seem extremely trivial to some, however isn't that what gaming is, trivial?

Therefore, if art is undefinable, then what are we even talking about? If there is no actual definition, then why bother discussing or observing at at all?

Define Art

This week in the reading we discussed the ideas of Morris Weitz and his theory of the non definable art. Weitz argues that art is so open and large that is no actual way to define it. Despite this; however, in his attempt to justify the fact that art is incapable of bing defined, he almost gives it a working definition. First off, art is something that appeals to an aesthetic. We have discussed before that art can only be considered art if it is capable of appealing to the aesthetic values of the viewer or the producer. Art, however, is something that is pertaining to a physical thing. The representation that is being made is a replication of a physical thing. From the point of appealing to aesthetics, art can then be broken down into genre and then medium. The genre represents different types of art for example music and the medium represents a sub category within the genre; i.e. drums or other instruments.
From here is where the "definition" gets kind of fuzzy. It may seem obvious now that there is a somewhat functional definition of art here, however this almost limits what can be referred to as art. Almost anything can be art however, not everything can be functioned past that down to genre or medium. For example, styling hair. Styling your own hair is not considered art but having someone style your hair is. Without the work of it being done and accomplished by someone, it is really just an aesthetic.
Therefore, a question rises. If anything can be considered art but only some things can be functioned down  further, does that mean only true art is able to be a genre or medium of art?

Response

In response to Andreas post;A question I will leave you with, though, is if art is supposed to be the adult's way of expressing their "inner child", does this mean that children cannot create art? i do believe so actually. I would not argue that all art is an expression of an adults inner child. Sometimes, artists can convey deep desires that were created during their childhood through their representations of art, however that is not always the case. Sometimes artists create a work of art for the sole purpose of arousing an emotion they wish to arouse in observers and audiences. In response to the actually question I believe that children can create art but it is in the mind of the observer if what they are viewing is actually art.  

Instinct

Today in class we discussed the idea of instinct vs. thought. As many may be aware animals and humans alike, act out of instinct on many of their day to day activities. Acting out of instinct, in the case of animals, is in a way expressing the need and desire to survive. As mentioned in class, a bird makes a nest to protect its young and serve a safe shelter for it to lay its eggs. This is the bird acting out of instinct; doing what it deems appropriate to protect its eggs. Some may consider that nest that the bird has created to be a work of art considering the amount of energy it took on behave of the bird to create this nest. However, one can also argue that the fact that the bird was acting out of instinct or habit to create the nest makes it not a work of art. Art can be described as an expression of emotion and feeling from an artist through some work to inspire those emotions and feelings in an observer. The bird is doing nothing that the definition states so can it be considered art? I would argue yes because just because the bird is not trying to arouse emotions in other people or animals, does not mean that it is not capable of doing so.

Therefore a question arises, some considered non-aesthetically pleasing art to be bad art. Can animals express similar views?

Representation

Today in class we discussed the idea presented by Bell concerning arts ability to represent something. As mentioned in previous blogs and elsewhere, Bell is a fan of the art style known as Cubism. Cubism is known for its stretching of reality with its unrealistic interpretations of artistry. Now a point was made in class that Bell feels that an accurate representation of art is no better than just taking a photograph of something and calling it art. This caused me to consider photography in a different sense. Is photography really art? The ability to capture an image from real life with a piece of technology and label it art; is that really art? I feel that is not the case. I see photography as more of a skill. Now people reading I am sure will not like or agree with what I am saying, however I feel there is actual evidence to support this. Photographers find something in real life that they like and using a piece of technology take that image. They sometimes then edit the picture to make it seem more "art-like" with shadow and contrast. I feel that this is really just a skill because editing photos may be a difficult task, but you are not creating this piece of "art," nature did.

Therefore a question arises, if photography is to be considered art, then is real life also art? Is nature and everything around us also art?

Beauty

Wednesday in class we discussed the many differences in beauty and what kinds of different emotions they all exude. We all know that somethings people consider to be beautiful and others people do not, however did you ever think that they could both be beautiful, just possibly in their own way. Now I am not talking about when your mother or a family member says that, "you are beautiful in your own way" or something of that nature. I mean that one may be beautiful with regard to aesthetic value and the other may be beautiful with regard to actual beauty. An example that was used in class was consider a butterfly as i floats through the air on a warm summer day. As its wings flutter so effortlessly across the horizon it is the true essence of spring. Some would consider it to be a beautiful site to be seen. Now consider a painting of landscape of the Great Plains of North America. They depict the sun setting; appearing to be swallowed by the land. Some would consider that to be a beautiful painting. Now what is the difference? The painting expresses aesthetic beauty in the sense that it is created to give off the emotion and feelings that people feel when they see something beautiful. The butterfly represents natural beauty.

Now a question has risen, is it possible to feel aesthetic emotions from something other than art?

Peculiar?

Wednesday in class we discussed the very common idea that is presented in class almost every time, that art conveys emotions. It has been mentioned numerous numbers of times that art has the ability to arouse emotions of aesthetic value within the viewer or observer. It has been argued that if art does not do this, than one may even consider the work not to be art at all. However, we discussed in class an idea that is presented in works by Clive Bell; the idea that art presents a peculiar emotion. Bell is a fan of the artist style and interpretation known as Cubism, where basically all sense of realism is removed and the art becomes more of an visual interpretation of art instead of a realistic interpretation. This support for Cubism sheds light on the idea he believes that art exhibits a peculiar emotion. Bell states that the emotion is peculiar because it is hard for the observer to really understand the emotion they are observing and feeling. This is true of Cubism because commonly people are not really sure always exactly what the artist was trying to represent with their work.

Now a question arises, does Bell hold art that has a peculiar emotion attached to it in higher regard than art that is much easier to understand?

Day Dreaming

Today in class we discussed the idea of day dreaming presented by Freud. According to Freud day dreaming allows one to tap into their subconscious and create art work from their inner most thoughts usually from that of their deepest wishes of their childhood. According to Freud, day dreaming happens over a period of time within a time line consisting of only a few seconds of a given moment of time in ones life. The timeline takes place over the past, present, and the future. First, something in the present triggers one to go into the day dreaming state. From their something is aroused from the past in a sense of deja vu. This even that has been aroused is usually something that was desired during that time period (a wish). From there the day dream affects the person because they strive to achieve what they wanted or wished for back in their childhood. That wish then serves as the source of inspiration for artwork.

Now from this information a question arises. If day dreaming inspires art, what does actually dreaming do?

ICE BERG!

Today in class we discussed another idea presented by the great Freud. This topic of discussion was around the idea of the unconscious and the conscious. Freud presented information focusing on these two different things that went against the common belief of the time. Up until Freud, people and philosophers alike thought that the mind was an easily accessed entity. Freud established the idea that mind is not what we thought as unlimited and open to easy interpretation. He saw the mind as a closed chamber in which allot of what is in it cannot be interpreted easily and is not open for easy access. He saw the mind as more of an ice berg. 90% of the ice berg is under the surface of the water, not seen by anyone. However, it is mentioned that when a boat is floating on the water near the ice berg, the person can see part of the ice berg under the water. This is represented by Freud as the pre-conscious. The part of the mind that can be pulled somewhat easier out of the unconscious.

Therefore with all this information presented, a question arises. If 90% of the ice berg in under the water can one argue that about 90% or just a large part of the unconscious mind is completely unknown?

Freud

Today in class we discussed the many levels of psychoanalysis presented by Freud. To begin, we discussed the concept of the ID, Ego, and Super Ego. ID is the most natural instincts that a person possesses. They are maintained in a person at birth. Ego is the concept of childhood understanding of the life around us. This in a sense is a deeper thought process that that of ID. Last but not least is the idea of Super Ego, which portrays the conscious. The Super Ego is where your critical judgement is and it also keeps the ID and Ego in check. In return the ID keeps the Super Ego in check. Our professor presented a good way of looking at how the ID, Ego, and Super Ego are visualized. In the classic cartoons in which there is an angle representing good on one shoulder and the devil representing bad on another shoulder, in essence that is what psychoanalysis is. The person having the inner personal struggle is the Ego with the ID representing the angel and the Super Ego representing the devil.

With all of this information presented, a question arises. The Super Ego checks over the ID and the Ego; therefore is the Super Ego superior to the rest?

Respond?

Today in class we discussed the teachings of the philosopher Tolstoy who examined the idea that in order for a work of art to be considered successful it must convey some emotion to the viewer or the people observing the work of art. Tolstoy conveys the message that art exists to move the viewer. Emotion is central to the art. Art's main purpose is to communicate said emotion; some even consider it to be the language of feeling. The feeling or emotion that is being conveyed by the art is a direct link, in theory, to the artist. The viewer; if the artwork is "good" should be able to tell the viewer exactly what the artist is trying to convey. Now, considering this information, a question arises. If the artist does a "good" job and his artwork conveys a very strong emotion and message, however, the audience is unresponsive and doesn't feel this emotion, is the artwork considered a failure?

Horrified!

Today in class we discussed the idea behind being horrified or scared from a film. What was discussed sparked a question in my mind. What was said was that when a person watches a horror film or a scary movie, they aren't actually horrified when the killer jumps out from behind the curtains or when the man with the chain saw cuts through the chest of the teenage girl. Our professor mentioned that if we were truly horrified, we would run and hide for cover not just sit there and watch was happening on the screen with the occasional jump or twitch from sudden fear. The reason for this is that human beings and other large brained mammals process the ability to basically multi-task emotions. We are able to sustain to emotions at exactly the same time. So when your body is telling you that you are afraid of what is happening on the screen, in actuality, your mind is able to calm you down and maintain the notion that what you are watching isn't happening in real life, and you are able to enjoy the movie. Another point that was made is that small children are not able to manifest this emotional sensation because of their lack of advanced brain development. They aren't able to maintain the reality that what is happening in the movie or the scene isn't reality. Therefore, they are actually horrified.

Now with this in mind a question arises. If, as our professor stated, you were really horrified you would run for cover, how does one justify being scared stiff? Being so horrified that you are unable to run and take cover?

Theatre

Today in class we discussed an idea put forth by Plato and the great philosophers of the ancient world. The idea being that the artist portrayal of the human form in theatre is greater than philosophy. Considering this may be a difficult feat, considering the fact that philosophy is at the root and foundation of all thought and ideas. However, approaching this idea from the actors and thus the audiences perspective may shed more light on the subject. Theatre, as an art form is possibly one of the most difficult and fascinating. This may be an incredibly biased statement, however there is much truth within it. Actors do more than just get in front of an audience and recite memorized dialouge and lyrics. They portray a character and every emotion and idea that runs through the mind of that character. They in a way take on the form of another through there acting style and representation. Considering this point from this perspective illuminates the deeper thought behind the grandeur sense of worth compared to that of philosophy. Acting and doing any form of a theatrical performance takes a philosophical look at both the actor and the character played by the actor.
Therefore a question arises, with respect to Plato's idea of art as an imitation of an imitation, is theatre an imitation of an imitation of an imitation?

The World

Today in class we discussed the idea that everything in our world or life is a representation of a deeper more philosophical meaning. When giving this more consideration and thought, very interesting idea arises. If considering the fact that art is an imitation of an imitation and thinking that everything has a deeper more philosophical representation, this ideal can apply to nature as well. One may argue that nature is a constant entity. Being so, there is no possible explanation for it being an imitation of an imitation. Consider that even though nature and the world around us is not an imitation of some other form of nature of the world, but merely a representation of a simpler existence, then it can be considered an imitation of an imitation. Nature is a deeper and more complex representation of the forms, the most basic and simplistic idea of ideas and thought. Therefore, nature is art in itself, considering it is an imitation of the imitation of the forms which spawn from the most basic ideas and thoughts.

Therefore, with this in mind, the question can arise, if nature is a deeper representation of the forms, is nature art?

Imitation

Today in class we discussed the main concept behind the Q & A for this week. As mentioned by Plato in the reading, art is just an imitation of an imitation. I couldn't agree more with this statement but for those who don't necessarily understand this rather direct statement, here is a break down. First and foremost, anything and everything that is thought of or created originates in one way or another with a single concept. Plato notes this as being basically created by the Gods. The nature of the object that is being thought of originates with the Gods. Next, the idea is put into motion and thus created. This is the job of the craftspersons. They make a literal representation of what was thought of and imagined by the Gods. In a sense they are imitating what the Gods had intended; the nature of that object. Finally, the artist now comes into play. They think of what was created in the first place the idea and nature of the object and then the literal representation of it made by the craftspersons. They then make an imitation of that object in some form of artwork. Thus they made a piece of art that is an imitation of an imitation.
Now a question may arise, as did in class today; what about objects that were the first of their kind to be created, for example the wheel? How do they follow the same logic as through the Platonic Metaphysics of the imitation of an imitation?

Intention

Today in class we discussed different peoples views of what art is. During this discussion the idea was brought forth that what someone considers to be art really just matters on what the artists intention for the piece of work to be was. Therefore the concept that if someone considers something to be art, than in return that something is art. This raises a very interesting question. If someone says something is art, than virtually anything can be art. For example, an artist collects a small collection of oddly pointed branches from a nearby forest. He drops them in a heap on the floor; takes a step back and says, "This is art," then by this rational, it is art.
Skeptics can argue against that stating that just because someone says that what they have constructed or accomplished is art, then it doesn't necessarily mean that that is art. Certain criteria is to be met in order to actually be considered art. One can argue that art is something that is or at least ought to be aesthetic in some way shape or form. To be aesthetically  pleasing the piece of work must be moving to the viewer in some way shape or form. If what the artist has created appeals to the senses and is influential enough to move someone than it can be argued as being art.

Therefore, a question arises for those that may read this. Will a clear cut line ever be drawn on what is art and what is not; without regard to aesthetics, or will works of art just become more and more ridiculous and simplistic as time goes on?

Philosophy?

Today in class we discussed what a common definition of what philosophy is. When this question was brought forth by Professor Johnson, I began to think; I don't really know what Philosophy actually is. To me, it seemed as one of those ideas of words that it is just assumed that everyone knows, however very rarely do people actually explore what they actually mean. Therefore, I felt that today I should focus my blogging on what Philosophy actually is.
Philosophy is sometimes referred to as the study of general and fundamental problems. Some of these problems consist of knowledge, existence, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy in Greek is translated as meaning a "love of wisdom." With this in mind, one can further explore and find 3 major sub-categories with in the Philosophy realm.
First, is the metaphysic side to philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence of being. Those who examine metaphysics take focus on things that take on a physical being or are in a state of being. Next, is Epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and understanding. The first two subcategories are closely related because considering the fact that knowledge of something claims recognition of things that be. In order to have an understanding of something, it must be or exist in the first place. Lastly, is axiology. Axiology is closely related to ethics and the nature of what is good.
With all of this in mind, I raise a question asking who makes judgments on what is good and bad? Where did this preconceived notion arrive from?

Art?

This week in class we discussed that some people have very different meanings of what art is. Even though every day new and different forms of art are created, the line between what actually is art and what is not seems to be growing very thin. Therefore I feel it important to discuss some common definitions of what art ids defined as to some people. Dictionary.com defines art as the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. People's opinion of art is usually regarding that of the aesthetic value of what is being regarded as art. When referring to the aesthetic value of something, usually people are referring to the appearance or the beauty of the object that appears appealing to the senses. The general appearance of the artwork is usually what makes people assume their judgement's on what is appealing about it and what all together they like about it.
Art is also thought of as a deliberate way of arranging items and objects in away that is generally anticipating affecting emotions and feelings. The hope of the artist usually is to arouse extreme feelings of either happy or sad. The artist wants the viewer to be moved by what they have created. Therefore, one can acknowledge art as something that is intended to stimulate great emotion. 
Now, with all of this in mind, I ask, what do you think the definition of art is?