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?