The origin of dreams

Freud mentions “that at night wishes of which we are ashamed also become active in us, wishes which we have to hide from ourselves, which were consequently repressed and pushed back into the unconscious.” 

But what about those dreams having no relation to the happenings in our real lives? Does everything in our dreams stand for something we desire? 

Take for instance a nightmare. Clearly, there would be nothing in such a dream that we desire. It may evoke some fear we have, but it certainly is not one of those "wishes of which we are ashamed."

Freud seems to see daydreams as exaggerations of real experience; yet I know I've never actually seen any monsters in real life that occur in dreams. Are dreams not exaggerations, but, perhaps, some form of impressionist art forms? A monster may not be real; but what appears as a monster in someone's nightmare may just be a contorted version of some real person or thing that we fear in reality. 

Looking to art, a dream could be compared to something like Edward Munich's The Scream. It's highly unlikely that there is actually someone who looks like the character in Munich's painting; yet it is a form similar to a human whose characteristics have been distorted to portray something which embodies panic and fear. Or perhaps the forms in our dreams are ourselves, our “split[ting] up [of our] ego by self-observation into many component-egos”--nightmarish forms are just our fears or worries manifested into more comprehensible dream forms. Or maybe, Freud is completely wrong and dreams are nothing more than dreams--what we dream of has no significance to our actual lives.

In response to Christine Pavao...

Christine mentions in her most recent posting, "sometimes, 'improving' a mood by not allowing a 'bad mood' to exist doesn't work.  Sometimes you just need to feel whatever it is you're feeling...People are able to feel a terrible, beautiful, wide range of emotion, so why should we try to pretend otherwise?"

Well, Christine, I'm wholly in agreement with you on this one. When I'm sad, I don't want to listen to a song or watch a movie with a bunch of happy people making jokes; I want to hear an angry song or see a sappy movie with situations I can relate to my own situation, and then cry or scream or do whatever I must in order to experience what I'm feeling, get over it, and move on. Likewise, I tend to stay away from sad art forms when I'm happy; because, it is true, art has the power to completely shift our emotions and take us from a state of utter ecstasy to outright unrest.

As Wartenberg mentions when explaining Sigmund Freud's philosophy, "Feeling a deep need to express unconscious thoughts and emotions, artists create works that...are really the fulfillment of concealed wishes." Freud points out that as humans in such a conservative society, we are always taught and pushed to hold in our thoughts and emotions, repressing those which would, in typical society, be considered humiliating or embarrassing. With art, however, with "the essential ars poetica," we are able to find a place of comfort where we can freely reveal our "innermost secrets," where we can express ourselves (or at least see others express the emotions/thoughts we ourselves are feeling/thinking) "without reproach or shame."

So, my question to all of you, is it better to repress our emotions for the sake of societal standards, or should we express ourselves freely through the medium of art?

Advertising: Communication of information or devious manipulation?

Advertisements these days sell a whole lot more than products . When it comes to this multibillion a year industry, companies are selling values, images, concepts of success and worth, love and sexuality, popularity, social standards. Today's ads sell lifestyles. On billboards and buildings, flyers, television and radio commercials, and magazines whose content is at least half ads. And oftentimes, the content that doesn't come in ad form (tv and radios shows, magazine articles, etc.) in these types of media is edited, censored, and manipulated in order to please the advertisers who pay these media outlets to push their products. On average , teens are exposed to over 3,000 ads...in a single day. And certainly when it comes to advertising ethics and morals are often so subliminally portrayed that people are hugely unaware of the communication, or better stated, manipulation, that is taking place. Is this art form a good/successful means of communication between creator and audience? Certainly, it is successful in Tolstoy's opinion as it communicates the emotion the creator sought to share with the audience. So under this definition, all advertising would be considered art. But is it still successful if this communication is manipulative?

When it comes to one of the most clever ad campaigns of all time, Nike has it down. With such a simple slogan as "Just Do It," and through the implementation of athletic idols, these advertisers communicate a message that says if you wear our products, you'll be just as successful as all of these professionals. And surely enough, last fall the company begin to experience an increase in quarterly dividends. So, undoubtedly, this manipulative art form communicates a message between creator and consumer; whether this is a good or bad thing is up to each individual I suppose.

When it comes to ads like the new Dove campaign, however, is the communication and attitude manipulation of this art form necessarily a bad thing? Typically in the past, ads for these type of products have been critiqued for portraying unhealthy body images which people unrealistically try to achieve. With the Dove ad campaign, though, a new standard has been set--showing realistic healthy women who are proud of their figures and unashamed to share them with society. In my opinion this is a good form of product manipulation, a healthy communication between creator and consumer. Does it make consumers want to support Dove over a competitor who's ad shows a tall thin model getting all of the men? For a more sophisticated, intelligent, and aware consumer, probably. For the majority of consumers, however, not necessarily.

Advertisements, as an art form, certainly appeal to the emotions. Advertisers for all sorts of products attempt to get consumers to purchase their product because it is better than the competitor's--maybe it makes you appear more attractive to the opposite sex, or makes you more successful, or will make your life easier/better in some way. The creator of the ad may have not felt happy/excited/attractive when they made the ad, but certainly they have communicated that emotion to the consumer (if they are successful in their execution).

So is all advertising bad in its manipulation? Are their any campaigns whose consumer control is actually a valuable employment of artistic communication?

Eating as an art?

Tolstoy's outlook on what makes a successful work of art is that it communicates to the audience the same emotions which the artist held when creating the work. Surely this can clearly be seen in obvious works of art like painting, sculpture, dance, theatre, etc.--I'm not saying it necessarily is true, but it hard to debate that the majority of viewers of art come away from these pieces with some kind of sentiment, regardless of whether they hated or loved the work. But what about when it comes to something like eating? Is eating an art? What is communicated with eating? As Tolstoy states, "Just as people who think that the aim and purpose of food is pleasure cannot perceive the true meaning of eating, so people who think that the aim of art is pleasure cannot know its meaning and purpose...people understand that the meaning of eating is the nourishment of the body only when they cease to consider pleasure the aim of this activity." To Tolstoy, the art of eating lies not in the pleasure one gets from a delicious meal, but the nourishment one's body is fulfilled by. 

 

On one hand, it is somewhat of a marvel, an art, to think of how the body transforms the food that enters our mouths into nourishment. On the other hand, though, this seems to be a bit of a stretch in my opinion to see art in this light. Inevitably nourishment is key to our subsistence, but what makes eating an art form to me is the aesthetics which lie behind its presentation, character, and flavor. Sure, one could eat just any dish of meat for protein--and in Tolstoy's opinion, this would be art; but what if one had the choice to have the best dish of sauteed chicken in a mouthwatering Madeira wine sauce tossed with Penne Pasta and parmesan? To me, the second sounds a bit more enticing--makes me want to see, smell, and taste it in all of the plate's sensory satisfaction--and I think it is this pleasure we get from a given artwork that fully makes us appreciate it and results in a successful work of art. 

With such TV shows as Travel channel's Bizarre Foods and Man v. Food or Iron Chef and Ace of Cakes on Food Network (an entire network dedicated to what thousands of viewers see as an art form), undoubtedly, society is seeing eating as more and more of an art form nowadays. 

 

Looking to Edward Behr's magazine The Art of Eating (http://www.artofeating.com/about.htm), a couple of standards which make eating more than just simple bodily nourishment are 1) tradition--"We look for the logic of geography, methods, and culture that make good food good — that give character and the finest flavor...We seek the most accomplished artisans to understand their methods. Their best products, rare as many are, still set the standards of excellence" 2) a sense of place--"The best food and wine have a sense of place that comes from soil, climate, tradition, and all the local influences that as a group exist nowhere else."

 

I think these two principles could even be applied to just about any form of art (of course varied a bit in their definitions) and what makes it good. Beauty is not necessary for someone to like art, but meaning.  With tradition, it is true that we look to the most accomplished artisans to understand their methods; if an artist isn't trying to learn and perfect an accomplished artist's skills, he is likely attempting to rebel against those methods--yet with both cases he has sought education from an accomplished predecessor. When it comes to a sense of place, i think the key phrase is to produce something "that as a group exist[s] nowhere else"--most works of art attempt to be creative and innovative (unless they follow the principle of tradition, of course) and artists look to draw in audiences based off of this shared sense of place, self, society. 

 

So, either way, yes, eating can surely be seen as an intricate art form. Does it, however, always have to communicate a shared message, a shared emotion, between artisan and indulger in order for it to be considered true and successful art?

In response to Kim Pincus...

In Kim’s post she mentions how, according to Tolstoy, a work must “effectively infect” its intended audience in order to be considered art.  This word choice is right on point for defending the argument Kim raises. Surely enough, any work of art can in some way infect any given viewer, critic, etc, but in Tolstoy’s opinion, it is only when the artist infects the audience with the emotion he himself felt that the work is legitimately art.  It is seemingly unfair for Tolstoy to expect every painting, sculpture, dance, etc. (in order to be considered a work of art) to evoke the emotion the artist intended to convey.  Yet we would undoubtedly consider a painting a work of art, correct? Surely, someone may exclaim, “That’s not art!” simply because they don’t like it, but a painting wouldn’t be categorized under a grouping other than art. If we take away taste as a deciding factor, then we are left with a simple set of rules which defines what makes art--and to Tolstoy that is effective emotional infection, not individual taste. 

Looking to  a different version of Kim's example of a war work:  certainly no one who has not gone to war can ever fully feel the emotions of anger, sadness, shock, etc. that someone who has gone to war would feel when looking at the same painting. Having similar life experiences is what makes us part of the same framework, yet, it each individual’s experiences vary in numerous ways, giving every one of us different perspectives, especially when it comes to viewing art.  A person who went to university to study art will have an entirely different view of a painting than the casual museum goer; a dancer will have a different level of emotion, or even different emotions, than someone who is just attending the ballet for the first time; a musician will critique a performance much differently than the person just listening to a song on the radio. Being at various stages of life, having gone through different experiences at different times and in different ways with varying outcomes, embracing different passions than the next person—all of these things make us who we are and, thus, how we see art. 

To the example of a song, a single song may raise different emotions to the same person when they are in varying states--lyrics to an individual when they have entered an exciting new relationship, for example, may come across having an entirely different meaning down the road when that same individual goes through a breakup and sees everything in a very different light.  

I think if Tolstoy were to point out, as Kim states, that "people are of often guided by their emotions," and then say how this, in turn, affects taste during varying life stages, experiences, etc., then Tolstoy would be on the way to a more fulfilling meaning of What is art?

In response to Davion Hart...

I wholeheartedly agree that in order to give the art world respect, it is essential to differentiate, not specifically between what is good or bad, but what is and isn’t art.  Looking back to my first post, I definitely do NOT consider a urinal a piece of art by any means, signed by an artist or not. Picasso and Warhol’s paintings, though, took talent and study in order to come to their final formulation. “Skill of the artist” in my opinion is definitely one of the best, if not the best, ways to decipher an artwork’s quality. Looking to Cage’s 4’33, I agree that if Cage hadn’t been predetermined as an expert in his field that no one would have given such a ‘contemporary’ work a second look; certainly if I tried to entire the music world with a purely silent piece, people would dismiss my work and likely call me crazy! 

I disagree, however, with the statement that “art in its basic form is something that the artist intended to use as a mode to move you in some way.” I think that oftentimes, an artist doesn’t set out to create a great work; many a time, stunning pieces are a result of improvisation or a sudden inspiration.  And art shouldn’t have to move any audience. Isn’t it true that many artists create their work just to get out or explore their own emotions and that the piece wasn’t even originally intended to be shared with anyone? 

And with Davion’s last point, I agree that more often than not majority rule is the ultimate deciding factor of what makes a work ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Certainly, a museum isn’t going to keep a work displayed or a theatre continue showing a performance that no one appreciates; and yes, this undoubtedly, but unavoidably, limits the world of art. 

Knowledge and Imagination

When it comes to materialistic things, Plato states that users are the only ones who can tell the makers whether what they make is 'good' or 'bad'; the makers simply follow the users’ instructions to make a 'good' thing. When it comes to this, though, what if maker and user are one in the same? Can it not hold that (to use the example from The Republic) many flute makers are also the users of these flutes?  How would Plato explain an instance such as this? Following this belief of Plato, craftsmen and artists (as makers) can never know if what they imitate is good or bad as they have no real knowledge or proper opinion about what they are making.  
To go along with this and to address a topic we temporarily discussed in class, what does it mean to have a real 'knowledge' of something? Socrates states that “some people...say that if a good poet produces fine poetry, he must have knowledge of the things he writes about, or else he wouldn’t be able to produce it at all.” I find a huge flaw with this point; even if all things are simply imitations of the real Forms, one doesn't have to know about it in order to create it. How would someone draw a tree if they'd never seen a tree or been told what a tree is supposed to look like according to the predetermined characteristics of what makes a 'tree' in our realm of existence what it is? A tree in my mind may look different than a tree in another person's mind. On that same note, how would someone create something that is based off of something in their imagination but that has never been materialized in our realm? To use the example I raised in class, where did the idea of fairies come from? I'm sure creators of legend and folklore never actually had any direct knowledge or experience with fairies. I actually liked the way Alex put it in class--that what we create in our imagination is actually a misunderstanding of the Forms. Is it true that our imagination just tricking us?
In The Republic, Plato somewhat contradicts himself with these ideas. With one point he says that users of things are the only ones who can ever know them; on the other end, though, he states that makers (artists) must know the thing they are creating in order to produce it.
I don't know, Plato, but it seems to me that you didn't fully think this one through...