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?