In response to Natalie...

In her blog, Natalie mentions, "Art IS for everyone, but only those who are willing to open their minds and learn."  

 This made me wonder about what Dickie meant when he said that "every person who sees himself as a memer of the artworld is thereby a member."  Perhaps we have been taking what he meant just a bit too literally.  Maybe it is not just the people who walk into a museum and look at art that are suddenly part of the art world; they are just viewers, the art "IS" for them, but they are not necessarily considering themselves as sudden critics of the artworld.  Instead, just as artists have to have an intention when creating a work (as many philosophers think), maybe so to do viewers have to have the intention of "open[ing] their minds [to] learn" when they enter a museum--viewers must want to learn something, or at least be introduced to something new, when viewing works of art.


I like how Natalie mentions that, "Perhaps Dickie opens up these possibilities as a way of sharing art with the world...The art is not meant to please others, but a majority of the time art is created with the intention of having an audience. The audience is the entire world. Anyone who is willing to look or listen."


Art cannot be appreciated or understood if there is no one "willing to look or listen."  Surely, the artist can simply create anything with no intention, but even when they have simply thrown colors on an easel, there can be some sort of (subtle or abstract as it may be) meaning behind those colors and the way they bleed down the paper. And then if it winds up in an exhibit, the intention and meaning can evolve out of that simply splattering of paint.

A JACKSON POLLOCK PAINTING IS, ESSENTIALLY, JUST PAINT SPLATTERINGS; BUT THIS ARTIST HAS BECOME FAMOUS FOR HIS SPLATTERINGS AND THEIR MEANINGS

 
Natalie continues, "Art may be for the entire human population to view or listen to, but that does not mean that everyone who views a certain art work is a part of the art world. When we think about it the entire world is not educated in how to understand art."  I agree that it's true that not everyone should be considered a part of the artworld; I disagree, however, that one must be educated in order to understand art.  Anyone can get an emotion or thought from viewing a work of art, and, I believe this is an understanding of the work; it is only when one CRITIQUES art that they should be educated in order to be able to realize the meanings behind the way the colors, textures, etc. come together to portray a certain (perhaps intended) meaning.

Do you agree with my reasoning behind these separations of simple viewers who appreciate and understand as opposed to the educated critics?

One more comment on Dickie

To Dickie, “A work of art in the classifactory sense is (1) an artifact (2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld).”  Looking to the dictionary definition this would mean that art can be “any object made by human beings” that is put up for election to hold the prominence of being called ‘a work of art’ by those of the artworld; and those of the artworld make up all “the core personnel” as well as “every person who sees himself as a member of the artworld”--which would mean that anyone wishing to be a member could be by simply saying it, regardless of whether or not they have even seen any art. Dickie’s attempt at defining art as well as who is entitled to become a member of the artworld seems to me, and in the end even a bit to himself, to be “viciously circular.” Still, though, he puts up a hard-fought (in my opinion losing) battle to defend his claim stating that he has taken up all of this space writing about the artworld and that this influx of information to the reader should be enough to accept his ideas as theory. Sorry, Dickie, but this, to me is not an instance where one can try to define art then, in the end, say that "focus[ing] narrowly on the definition” is not enough.

In response to Kim...

In her blog Kim states, “Art cannot be determined by theory if theory is determined by art because the argument becomes circular. An interesting problem with many of these art theories is that they are based on the art of their time. People seem to try to fit the art that evolves into their time under a new theory of art which becomes outdated during the next evolution in art. “

I think this is one of the main problems each philosopher comes across when delving into the creation of a new theory for art.  Both concepts and art evolve with the passing of time, people grow in their abilities to understand and appreciate art, and new technologies allow for new possibilities in the creative processes of the Artworld. How, then, are we to sum up the entire Artworld in a single theory? 

Kim continues, “It would be intriguing to see someone anticipate directions in which art might go within their theory rather than limiting it to what is already known. This would be very difficult to do but might result in a theory that better stands the test of time.”  This is where I disagree.  With so many different versions/forms of ‘art’, I don’t think it is even possible to come up with a single theory in order to understand and explain the Artworld.  Clearly, as we’ve seen through inventions and the like, people can certainly “anticipate” where the Artworld may be in the next few decades; but, to know anything about a theory of the future that could “stand the test of time”? Seems like a daunting and near impossible task to me.

Art as self reflection

Danto points out a recognition of Hamlet regarding reflecting surfaces--"they show us what we could not otherwise perceive--our own face and form--and so art, insofar as it is mirrorlike, reveals to us ourselves, even by socratic criteria, of some cognitive utility after all."

Personally, I think this is the best explanation that any philosopher has given thus far in our reading. Maybe, this is THE definition of art. Look to any piece of art work (or what is considered art work) and when asking the artist what it is, they'll always have some explanation along the lines of either 1.it's a reflection/comment on society, 2.it's a look inward, or 3. it just is--the artist had no specific intentions but created whatever came to them. Focusing on this explanation of art, all works "reveal to us ourselves," whether consciously or subconsciously, they reveal some inner part of us (whether it be knowledge, feelings, etc.) to a wider audience, or even simply to ourselves.  It is oftentimes the case that people embark on creating a work in order to just get out that emotion/thought or to delve deeper into it in order to figure out exactly what it means--and typically, the work that results reveals some sort of answer.

Hamlet's reflection and Danto's quote bring to mind an image of a journey--the idea that it is the journey not the destination that holds the significance. While creating art, one travels down a path of figuring out a self revelation, some thought or emotion which, without this mirror of art, they wouldn't know how to articulate. Art provides creators with a voice to "show us what we could not otherwise perceive."

Do you agree? Is art about the journey more than the final destination?

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?