Constructing Reality

Greeting, first of all, to all my new classmates.

I have not decided whether or not I will be blogging for credit, though I will certainly be blogging nonetheless. I used this blog for Aesthetics, the seminar I attended last semester. Therefore, all previous posts are concerned with that class and all succeeding posts will concern Constructing Reality.

The previous posts still exist if you are interested in reading them; I only figured that some clarification would be helpful.

Thank you,

Jacob Wheeler

Edward, Weitz, and Wartenberg

Well I think many of the problems faced in this discussion are due to what I would consider a misplaced emphasis on sight. Wartenberg mentioned, and I think you have taken the therm aesthetic to mean visual, and therein lies a problem. Aesthetic, I think, applies to more than that which is seen, but that which is perceived.

Edward: "1) Is "Tree Logic" art? Why?"

Yes it is. You mention that it lacks any aesthetic merit, and I would agree with you, but it is obviously aesthetic as you can perceive the trees, yes, even see them. Let us make sure that we are not conflating a lack of aesthetic merit with a lack of aesthetics on a whole. If the trees lack aesthetic merit, then perhaps they are bad art, but they are art nonetheless.
Given this, I do not think it gives more credence to Weitz's claim that we cannot define art. I think it is definable, and that definition is objective.

Edward: "2) Might it be possible to coin a definition of art that has the necessary and sufficient conditions to allow such diverse pieces as, say, "The Mona Lisa," Beethoven's symphonies, and "Tree Logic" to all fall in to the category of art?"

Yes, I think it is absolutely possible. I also believe that the only necessary, and yes sufficient, conditions for something to be art is that it must have been created by the artist (sorry Duchamp), and it must have been created with an artistic intent. The Mona Lisa, Beethoven's symphonies, and Tree Logic, all seem to satisfy these conditions (Yes, I know that there is no way to know for sure, but it is a reasonable assumption).


Question: Is signing an object, say a urinal, enough of a creation to label something as art?

Absurd Discussion

During class today, while we were speaking of transcultural art and whether it exists, I was struck with an idea that stayed with me. Why is this not an absurd conversation? How are we to determine if another culture's art is the same concept of our own when we do not have a concrete idea of what our own actually is? How can this conversation continue without first defining art, at least the western concept thereof. To determine if A is the same as B, should you not first know what A is?

Me: "Hey, Gerald, do you have the same car as I do?"
Gerald: "I don't know, what kind of car do you drive?"
Me: "I don't know."

It seems rather ridiculous, no?

I understand that art is difficult to define. That for most people, it has not been done satisfactorily enough. But for the sake of this debate, this discourse, is it not necessary?

My question then: Are we being premature? Are we having a conversation before we should? Should we define our terms before we continue?

Wartenberg Talks of Art

I had the pleasure of attending the free talk that Wartenberg joined us for on Wednesday evening. We, the group, spoke of many topics, but one upon which we lingered for a time was the role of beauty in art, a conversation that continued over dinner after we had left campus. Beauty has had a long and significant history in the realm of aesthetics, from Kant to Danto, though beauty has been a topic long before Kant and will long after Danto.

I think that beauty has been over emphasized, both in a definitive and qualitative manner. I have heard it used to determine whether or not an artifact is art: "That's not art, that's ugly." I have also heard beauty used as a criteria for qulaity within art: "This work sucks, it's not beautiful." Both these scenarios do a great disservice to viewer and artist.

What do you think? Where is beauty's proper role in contemplation of the aesthetic?

Response to Edward's Question

Edward: "What factor do you think differentiates 'pornography' and 'erotica?'"

I do not think that there is a significant aesthetic difference between pornography and erotica, though I do believe that there is an important distinction artistically. The difference is not typically perceptually distinguishable (Perhaps Danto could help us then) rather it is one of intent. I think that both pornography and erotica can be meant to arouse, and both of them can have artistic intent as well. The difference I think lies in the importance of these too aspects. Pornography is meant to arouse, and then there is potential for artistic merit. Erotica is the opposite.

Erotica: Artistic intent then arousal
Pornography: Arousal then artistic intent

Yes, this idea is dependent upon Kant being wrong, in that artistic evaluation does not have to be from a disinterested point of view.

Question: On a somewhat unrelated note (though Tania touched upon this) what merit, if any, is there in attaining a definition of art?

Response to Tania and Edward

Tania: "One hears that there is a rise in appreciation of the arts, but is this really true? In our country will it ever be the case that more schools rally harder to keep their art programs or will they always be the first to go?"

Edward: "Is participation in the arts from an early age beneficial to the development of a child

I will answer, or attempt to answer, both of these questions as they are closely related.

Tania, I fear that for the next few years at least, perhaps a decade or more, the latter will be far more likely. For the current generation of teachers and superintendents, the cold war is not yet a distant enough memory. "It was mathematics and science the won the cold war." It is a view that further emphasizes the shortsighted belief that art does not have a practical application. I think, happily ensconced in our Cold War victory, we are not tempted to forge a new path and accept that the arts have their purpose.

Edward, before I begin allow me to clarify that I have had only the most general training in psychology so anything I say will be based heavily upon speculation. That having been said, I do think that there is a benefit to the development of a child to partake in the arts as a child. I do not mean that they must necessarily partake in the generation of art; experiencing art will do just as well.
There has been a definite fall in the funding for arts, in the dissemination of art, especially for our youth. The number of children that are taking ADD or ADHD drugs has tripled (www.ed.gov) from 1990 - 1995 and the number continues to rise. We have pathologized childish behavior when, it seems to me, there are normal explanations. Art, I think, allows for expression, an activity more important for children as they have less developed ways to deal with emotion and turmoil.

Question: Do you think there are positive uses and applications for art, and if so, what will it take for those in authority to also realize this?

Evils of Thanksgiving

Well, I remember that we were told to blog on the evils of Thanksgiving, and so I will. For some reason as I began jotting down notes for this entry, I wrote the first few in a stanza and then just decided to write it as a poem. I jotted this down in a matter of minutes so please excuse such trivial things as meter, rhythm, rhyme, so on...

We have been instructed
And so I shall obey
To speak of the evils
On this Thanksgiving Day

We did partake of flesh,
Lurid tradition's sake:
Consume another life,
Doth a murderer make

But how shall this relate
To a class such as ours?
'Twas Telfer was it not
That lent her mental powers?

She talked of food at length
She spoke of transience
"Food is surely minor,
With no significance"

How can this claim be made?
Much less upon this date.
I stand here opposed,
With death upon my plate.




Question (Absolutely Unrelated): Would an aesthetic difference between erotica and pornography change a moral view of the subject? Would it be more likely that viewing one would be considered more moral than the other? Or should a class on aesthetics not even broach this subject?