Response To Edward's Response

Edward, I wish to address a few points you made before I move on to answer the actual question you posed.

I asked my question in an effort to distinguish between the metaphysical units of the performance and what is being performed, which would lead me to the claim that a performing art could not actually be immoral, but I believe I was blinded by the end goal and took the wrong route.

This was done following the premise that only actions can be immoral or moral and the assumption that the opposite was also true. But it is not. Although only actions can be moral or immoral, not all actions can be moral or immoral. So I would posit that though they are actions, performing arts can not be immoral themselves though their intentions and effects could be immoral. Yes this is an overly semantic distinction and not one with many practical purposes, but there it is.

Now, you asked: Does the intention behind a work to act as a stimulant for a particular response, i.e. emotional or physical, preclude the possibility that it has aesthetic and artistic merit?

In short, no. The intention of the artist does not retroactively affect the visual aspect of the art so it will naturally have no affect on the aesthetic nature of the work, but does it preclude the artistic merit? I would say that as long as the intention to act as a stimulant for a particular response is not the sole intention behind the work, as long as the "artist" does also intend it to be artistic, than no, I do not think it precludes artistic merit.

Question: Given the subjective nature of taste, is there any merit in discussing the criteria that we use to evaluate how much we appreciate a specific work of art?

Moral or Immoral Art

This is in response to the argument Professor Johnson jotted down during Mr. Yake's discussion on the possibilities of immoral art. The argument was:

1. Only actions, in contrast to mere objects, can be moral/immoral. (Jacob)
2. Art objects, in contrast to mere (perhaps aesthetically pleasing) objects, are always at least artifactual.
3. The artifactuality of art objects makes them, at least in part, performances. (Dutton)
4. Performances are actions.
5.Therefore, art objects can be moral/immoral.

I will naturally not take issue with premise 1, for it was my point...rather, I will not take issue with any point here except #3. It is sound logic to claim that, given the artifactuality, all art is, in some way, inexorably tied to a performance, for action must have been taken for that art to exist. However, despite Dutton, while the action was required for that art to exist, the action is not a part of the art.
To go fishing, you must gather rods, tackle, bait and travel to some source of water, but you are not fishing until you actually cast your line into the water. That may have been a bad example as fishing is also an action, so take, for instance, a book. The pages must have been cut from somewhere. The pages must have been printed upon. The pages must have been bound into an outer layer. All these actions are necessary, but the book itself in autonomous. It is self sustainable as an object and object only. The preceding actions are not part of the book.

In this way, art cannot be immoral, for only actions can be immoral.

Question: Given this argument above, is there a way to distinguish a performing art from the performance? Can a dance exist independent of being danced?

Edward: To end with a question: Is there any link between music and morality, as Scruton suggested in "The Decline of Musical Culture?"

I will begin by noting that I think you have a knack for asking questions that are extremely hard, bordering on impossible, to answer. Is there a link between music and morality? Sure there is. Morality exists and music exists, so if nothing else, there is a link of correlation.

Is this correlation a causation? This is a tougher question. While I am in no position to deny that music could be the cause of morality for certain people, to make a claim of causation between music and morality seems to be rather presumptuous. I do not think that there is enough evidence to support such a claim. Scruton seemed rather sensational and artistic himself in his claims of classical music, so perhaps he did not mean this literally, but if he did, I would merely question how he arrived at such a conclusion, a question that his article, I think, fails to address.

Question: Intent is commonly a requirement for an object to be art, so my only objection to non-human art is that they do not produce art intentionally. While non-humans are capable of producing aesthetic objects, can they have an artistic intent?

Barry: "Do we, in fact, detract from the aesthetic experience of art when talk about it, examine it, justify it and attribute it?"

Well, to begin, I think your question is extremely difficult bordering on impossible to know, for we can never go back in time and evaluate our experience before we talked, examined, justified it. Regardless, I think the question appropriate and prudent.

Mark Twain once said: “We have not the reverent feeling for the rainbow that a savage has, because we know how it is made. We have lost as much as we gained by prying into that matter." It is an interesting sentiment. I think it happens to be true. I find that I am less awed by the magician whose tricks I fully understand. This is a point that I bring to every literature teacher I have ever had, and this is the very point that is haphazardly dismissed by every literature teacher I have ever had.

So yes, Barry, I do think that our analysis of art detracts from our aesthetic experience, but I am not sure if this means we ought to not analyze it anyway. Perhaps we do a disservice to the artist if we do not.

Question: To what purpose, if any, does the quintessential art critic serve?

Fetishism of Artistic Labor

Edward Manak: "SHOULD the artist of a work affect our aesthetic judgment of a piece? Why or why not?"

Well, there are subtleties here that I think your question is amiss at addressing.

No, the artist of a work should not affect our aesthetic judgment of a piece, but let us not forget that I think there is a significant and important distinction here between aesthetics and art. It is all too common that we experience an aesthetic response to say a sunset or a birds nest. . .etc. . . and yet these things are not necessarily art. Our aesthetic response should not be affected. I'll go further. Our aesthetic response IS not affected by the artist.

Now, should the artist affect how we view the object as an object of art? Yes and No. Yes, I think that the fact that the object was created by an artist and was not a haphazard coincidence, is important and should affect how we view the work of art. It is natural for this to occur. Intellectually speaking, how we view a work of art is always going to change dependent upon our information. In this regard Dutton was right. To view art as art and not merely as an aesthetic object, the fact that it was created by an artist is important. The specific artist in question, however, should not affect how we value the work. The effectiveness, the overall quality of the piece should not, as it was in VanMeegeren's case, be influenced by the plaque beneath the painting.

Dutton made more sense as time wore on in the last class, and I think the most important aspect to take from that was the difference between aesthetics and art.

Question: Should we view an aesthetic object as an art piece? Or, perhaps, does taking into account all the necessary information of an artwork detract from our aesthetic response?

Censorship

"Should any art be censored?"

Well, Manak, I think that this issue will rest upon what you mean by censored. Should any particular piece of art be removed from display at all times, all across the board? Or should art be censored to some audiences and not others?

I think it would be fair to say that no piece of art should be universally censored, available to no person at no time. Now, I am not saying that we ought to restrict viewers by race, gender, or even age. I am not a psychologist, though I have heard the arguments, I do not know whether or not there is a physical or psychiatric ill to children viewing things like violence or porn. I am saying however, that even just viewing such material could be considered immoral to people and we need respect that. Perhaps just a notice of material content beforehand so the viewer can make their own decision.

Would this be considered censorship? I do not know, but I am not ready to denounce censorship absolutely.

Question: What role, if any do you think beauty has in our judgment of art? Not whether or not something is art, as I have asked prior, but whether or not art is good. Is it a necessary component or does it not play a role at all?

Ethics and Art

What role does ethics have in art? Should it?

The question of Forgery has brought up many questions concerning the ethics of such an act, and I think that we often have trouble separating the ethics from the aesthetics.

I think that our ethical consideration overshadows and undermines our aesthetic response to a painting. The Disciples of Emmaus is a wonderful painting, and I do not think that the painter, being of questionable morality, should detract from that. The aesthetic qualities of a painting should be judged for what they are; they should not be influenced by the person who painted it.

My question is how do you think ethics influence other mediums of art. What about pornography?

The Essence of Art

Edward Manak asked; "What distinguishes art from everything else in existence? What makes art, art?"

Well, I would hate to merely reiterate the characteristics that I have developed for art, so I will answer the question in a different way. That is, I think your question rests upon a faulty premise or assumption. Does something distinguish art from everything else in existence?

I surely do think that there is a difference between art and everything else, but often times it is not distinguishable. Distinguishable, I believe, denotes a perceptible difference, and in that case means that often enough, a work of art will not distinguish itself from anything else. This is especially prudent in the world of modern art, whether it's Duchamp's "Fountain" or some other aesthetic misplacement.

If you did mean to ask what characteristics separate, objectively, art from everything else, than I suppose that the only one I can think of is intention. The ball placed upon the table was either done with artistic intent or absentmindedness. The only difference between the ball that is art and the ball that is not art is the intent.

Does the label of art affect your aesthetic response? Or is your aesthetic response the same whether or not you consider it art?