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?