Another response to Sean...

In Sean's most recent blog, he asks "Do you agree with Goodman that something could be art at one time and not another?"

Like Sean, "I agree...that something can be a work of art at one time and not at another"; when it comes to Sean's example (as well as one we raised in class) of Duchamp's Fountain, however, I still don't see the urinal as a work of art, even if it is placed in a museum by a so-called 'artist.' By simply painting some initials on an actual (I presume used) urinal and placing it in a museum, people saw this as an innovative and daring work of art; but to me, it just seems to degrade artwork that people put actual thought and effort into, from artists who have innate talent or have studied and practice art for years. I think even Duchamp uked the creation as this 'work of art' as a test to society--whether they simply accept something as art if its placed in a gallery or museum (which, to Goodman, it would be this that makes the urinal art), or if they actually take the time to question 'what' makes something art.

 

WHICH OF THIS IS REALLY ART?  OR ARE THEY ALL ART? IF SO, ARE THEY ALL OF EQUAL QUALITY/SIGNIFICANCE IN THE ART WORLD?

Yes, it is true that oftentimes when it comes to paintings, sculpture, etc. having it put in a museum or gallery makes it into received as art; but just because a painting never makes it out of the artists workshop or because a dance never makes it onto the stage and out of the studio, it doesn't mean its not art...or does it?
 

A return to Dewey's dinnerware

Looking back to Dewey's concept that craftsmen aren't appreciated as artists until much later when their objects are placed in museums as works of artistic and historical significance seems to hold a huge relation to Goodman's argument that it is not the question of what is art that matters but "'When is an object a work of art?'"

As Goodman states, "just as an object may be a symbol...at certain times and under certain circumstances and not at others, so an object may be a work of art at some times and not at others."  Looking back to the example of Dewey's objects --"bowls, rugs, garments, weapons"--that were only fully accepted as art years after the craftsmen made them, so too can so called 'art' objects be considered in just the same manner.  At one point in time or in some instances, these bowls, rugs, garments, art, etc. were used in a practical manner, in every day use; at other times, however, (whether it be under different circumstances or at a different point in time) these objects were seen as works of art.

The example I most enjoy to best understand Goodman's idea is that of dinnerware.  Many people have that 'special dinnerware,' the beautifully ornate dishes that are displayed on shelves and in cabinets, only to be taken down for special events like holidays or a visit from an important guest.  With the dinnerware, the question of 'what' is art ceases to be of any pertinence--clearly the elaborate designs of the special tableware were meant to be accepted as art, it is not just any old plastic or Styrofoam plate; instead, the question of 'when' this dish/bowl/etc. is accepted as art gains in importance.

Likely all would agree that the fancy tableware is art while on display on the shelf or in the cabinet, but does it decline in artistic stance when it gains in practical (yet still just as artistically beautiful for, the piece itself doesn't change) importance while presenting food upon the table?

Exemplication vs. Representation...is there a difference?

Inspired by Monday's in class conversation, I was curious to see the literal definitions of the two words we discussed. According to Merriam-Webster, exemplify typically means 1: to show or illustrate by example <exemplifying those virtues> 2 : to make an attested copy or transcript of (a document) under seal 3 a : to be an instance of or serve as an example : embody <she exemplifies the qualities of a good leader> b : to be typical of <a dish that exemplifies French cuisine>.  Represent, on the other hand has a vast array of definitions (represent [verb] definition) most of which compare a representation to a sign, symbol, depiction, example, or something/things having a specified character or quality. Furthermore, representation can be broken down into the subcategory of "collective representation": a symbol that articulates and embodies the collective beliefs, sentiments, and values of a social group. 

It seems to me that Nelson Goodman's argument here is hugely a play on the English language.  He delves into the very specific, various, often opposing meanings that any given word, words of "string of words" can have. The fact that there is no single set dialect for all of humanity, that every culture across the globe, or, even narrower, individuals sitting side by side, have various slang terms and hold different mental meanings of the same word(s), makes proving Goodman's point to be valid a daunting, if not impossible task. 


Do you think that Goodman's argument is a valid play with the English language or that his fight between What and When, between Representation and Exemplification is a losing battle?

In response to Sean...

In his most recent blog, Sean asks, “Since everyone grows up with different influences do you think it is possible for different groups of people without distraction to all have the same opinion?”

Similar to the question I raised in my last blog, I was also engaged by this topic of discussion. Say one person had a near perfect childhood growing up and another had a very different complicated childhood and perhaps was forced to grow up sooner than the first person. In some instances, these two people may have the same opinion on a single work of art and that work can be the one unitary thing between these two people of varying backgrounds; in other cases, however, because of their very different life experiences, their opinions on the same work of art could be vastly different. 

Take, for instance, The Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh. People who had a sinister or disturbing upbringing may see the piece as dark, focusing only on the deep blues and high dark mountain top; someone who had a happier upbringing, however, may see the wavy patterns, the mix of blues, and the yellow star beams as optimistic and romantic. 

Surely, there are many more instances of this type of conundrum in art. Can you think of any others? Or, for that matter, any way to come up with a concrete answer; can people of varying backgrounds and experiences ever have the exact same opinion of a work of art?