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?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Aristotle's View of Tragedy
First off, I am not convinced that tragedy is the foundation for horror. It is convenient to draw that conclusion, for very often tragic events befall characters in horror, but I think there are plenty of distinguishable characteristics. This point is not incredibly relevant to my take on Aristotle's theory however.
It seems unlikely to me that Aristotle's theory would work as an explanation for why people enjoy horror and tragedy. Even if we were to accept that this effect, this desensitizing, takes place by watching tragedy and horror, which I am not convinced of, I would find it surprising if people had this intent when they went to see horror and tragedy. No matter the benefit after the fact, the actual experience of horror and tragedy would not be changed significantly; it would still be unpleasant.
Question: Could desensitization also have a negative effect? Could we bear witness to so much horror and tragedy that it no longer strikes us as odd, as strange, as anything worth stopping?
It seems unlikely to me that Aristotle's theory would work as an explanation for why people enjoy horror and tragedy. Even if we were to accept that this effect, this desensitizing, takes place by watching tragedy and horror, which I am not convinced of, I would find it surprising if people had this intent when they went to see horror and tragedy. No matter the benefit after the fact, the actual experience of horror and tragedy would not be changed significantly; it would still be unpleasant.
Question: Could desensitization also have a negative effect? Could we bear witness to so much horror and tragedy that it no longer strikes us as odd, as strange, as anything worth stopping?
Response to Edward
Edward Asked: "To end with a (completely unrelated) question: Might video games be considered potential works of art?"
Well, the answer to the actual question being asked, I think, is rather simple. Yes, video games might be considered potential works of art. They have been considered as such; I have considered them as such. Are they legitimate art forms? This question gets to be a little tougher to answer, but I think it remains a resounding yes.
The underlying question here, I think, is much more interesting than that. Where do we distinguish an act as a completely separate art form? Video Games for example: The actual graphics have to be crafted, the music has to be either created or applied, the story has to be written. Is the story writing its own art form? It is significantly different than crafting the graphics, or writing music. Are video games an art form or are they just an assimilation of distinguishable smaller art forms? To underline my point here, Theater consists of three major parts also. Acting, writing the script, and creating the set. Is theater an art form?
So, here is my question: Where is the line? At what point do we distinguish an art form from another, and at which point do we combine two different crafts and call it an art?
Well, the answer to the actual question being asked, I think, is rather simple. Yes, video games might be considered potential works of art. They have been considered as such; I have considered them as such. Are they legitimate art forms? This question gets to be a little tougher to answer, but I think it remains a resounding yes.
The underlying question here, I think, is much more interesting than that. Where do we distinguish an act as a completely separate art form? Video Games for example: The actual graphics have to be crafted, the music has to be either created or applied, the story has to be written. Is the story writing its own art form? It is significantly different than crafting the graphics, or writing music. Are video games an art form or are they just an assimilation of distinguishable smaller art forms? To underline my point here, Theater consists of three major parts also. Acting, writing the script, and creating the set. Is theater an art form?
So, here is my question: Where is the line? At what point do we distinguish an art form from another, and at which point do we combine two different crafts and call it an art?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Response to Betsy
Betsy:
1. "Does your body suffer from exposure to traumatic fiction?"
2. "Does your body suffer from exposure to traumatic non-fiction"
I will preface this by saying that I do not know the science that would be involved here. Rather I do not know very well the science involved here.
I think that the same answer would be applicable to both questions here and that is: I think that you body CAN suffer from such exposure yes, though perhaps the probability is increased for traumatic non-fiction.
Symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder often affect and PTSD has been known to present even when the subject was himself or herself not even harmed. Witnessing a traumatic event has been known to cause PTSD and therefore bodily damage. Our ability to empathize with fiction, if strong enough, I think, could elicit such a response. This empathy, of course, is stronger and more likely with non-fiction.
Question: Since we can suffer by exposure to certain fictions and non-fiction, can we equally benefit from others?
1. "Does your body suffer from exposure to traumatic fiction?"
2. "Does your body suffer from exposure to traumatic non-fiction"
I will preface this by saying that I do not know the science that would be involved here. Rather I do not know very well the science involved here.
I think that the same answer would be applicable to both questions here and that is: I think that you body CAN suffer from such exposure yes, though perhaps the probability is increased for traumatic non-fiction.
Symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder often affect and PTSD has been known to present even when the subject was himself or herself not even harmed. Witnessing a traumatic event has been known to cause PTSD and therefore bodily damage. Our ability to empathize with fiction, if strong enough, I think, could elicit such a response. This empathy, of course, is stronger and more likely with non-fiction.
Question: Since we can suffer by exposure to certain fictions and non-fiction, can we equally benefit from others?
Constructivist Art
I had the pleasure of attending Professor Johnson's and Professor Silliman's reading from their new book the other day in the Smith House. It was highly entertaining and thought provoking: enjoyable on all accounts. The discussion following was one primarily of the philosophy of Constructivism, one in which knowledge is constructed by humans as opposed to being discovered by them. (My summation surely does not do it justice)
This left me thinking about, amongst many other things, where a constructivist would stand in the realm of aesthetics, a realm highly predominated by subjective thought already. I suppose as this blog goes, the question is the extent of the entry. It would seem to me that constructivism is an epistemology and therefore would not offer an opinion on art one way or the other.
What do you think? Would this theory of epistemology affect a view of aesthetics, of art?
This left me thinking about, amongst many other things, where a constructivist would stand in the realm of aesthetics, a realm highly predominated by subjective thought already. I suppose as this blog goes, the question is the extent of the entry. It would seem to me that constructivism is an epistemology and therefore would not offer an opinion on art one way or the other.
What do you think? Would this theory of epistemology affect a view of aesthetics, of art?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Unmotivating Fear
Walton Writes: "Fear emasculated by subtracting its distinctive motivational force is not fear at all."
This was in rebuttal to the example of fearing a dog even if there is rational reason to believe the dog to be harmless. The person who is afraid of the dog will be motivated to avoid the dog and therefore the situation is different than Charles being afraid of a slime on the movie screen. Charles is not motivated to action, therefore, it cannot be true fear he experiences.
Once again, we are presented with a narrow definition that does nothing but prove correct the one offering the definition.
Temporary paralysis is as common a reaction to fear as it is to flee. Two situations: 1) A man is confronted by a mugger with a knife; he turns and flees. 2) A man in confronted by a mugger with a knife, he is frozen and allows himself to be robbed.
It is presumptuous to claim that the man in situation 1 was afraid but the man in situation 2 was not. Fear does not necessarily move us to action. This is not meant to complete invalidate Walton, just this particular point.
Question: Walton deal almost exclusively with fear. What of admiration? What of pity? What of shame? Remorse? Do all feelings get categorized with fear?
This was in rebuttal to the example of fearing a dog even if there is rational reason to believe the dog to be harmless. The person who is afraid of the dog will be motivated to avoid the dog and therefore the situation is different than Charles being afraid of a slime on the movie screen. Charles is not motivated to action, therefore, it cannot be true fear he experiences.
Once again, we are presented with a narrow definition that does nothing but prove correct the one offering the definition.
Temporary paralysis is as common a reaction to fear as it is to flee. Two situations: 1) A man is confronted by a mugger with a knife; he turns and flees. 2) A man in confronted by a mugger with a knife, he is frozen and allows himself to be robbed.
It is presumptuous to claim that the man in situation 1 was afraid but the man in situation 2 was not. Fear does not necessarily move us to action. This is not meant to complete invalidate Walton, just this particular point.
Question: Walton deal almost exclusively with fear. What of admiration? What of pity? What of shame? Remorse? Do all feelings get categorized with fear?
Response to Tania
Before I respond to your question, which I do intend to respond to, I would like to address a point you made in the body of your blog post.
"I think that we have all taken issue with Scruton mainly because there is some internal sense in all of us that photography is art, and given his argument it, which really has no holes in it, photography is not art."
You do a good job illustrating why Edward's objection was invalid, and I do admit that most of my objections when I first read Scruton were wholly due to this presupposition of photography. However, I do believe that there are holes in Scruton's argument, wholes that can be traced back to a single problem. His definition of ideal photography is too narrow. He defines this in a manner that will suit the rest of his following argument. It is the equivalent of crafting your own maze and then solving it.
Your question: Is there any way in which that presentation can somehow turn into a representation? (Since this is what is needed to call something an art form, because representation shows artistic intention)
No, I do not think there is. A presentation is a representation or it is not, there is not way to turn one into the other. I could be unclear as to what you meant by presentation, but it would seem to me that all representations are presentations, though not all presentations are representations.
Question: In relation to Part 7, must we perceive a danger to ourselves in order to truly experience fear?
"I think that we have all taken issue with Scruton mainly because there is some internal sense in all of us that photography is art, and given his argument it, which really has no holes in it, photography is not art."
You do a good job illustrating why Edward's objection was invalid, and I do admit that most of my objections when I first read Scruton were wholly due to this presupposition of photography. However, I do believe that there are holes in Scruton's argument, wholes that can be traced back to a single problem. His definition of ideal photography is too narrow. He defines this in a manner that will suit the rest of his following argument. It is the equivalent of crafting your own maze and then solving it.
Your question: Is there any way in which that presentation can somehow turn into a representation? (Since this is what is needed to call something an art form, because representation shows artistic intention)
No, I do not think there is. A presentation is a representation or it is not, there is not way to turn one into the other. I could be unclear as to what you meant by presentation, but it would seem to me that all representations are presentations, though not all presentations are representations.
Question: In relation to Part 7, must we perceive a danger to ourselves in order to truly experience fear?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Response to Tania
Tania asked: "My inquiry has to do with how one would or could consider something like photography collages, and whether his objection would still stand? In the collage pictured the subject is definitely not shown as a mere moment and yet it is still a photography to a certain extent, isn't it?"
I think that Scruton would claim that the photographs taken only show a mere moment, and the true art occurs when the artist gathers the photographs and arranges them in a particular way to show a passing of time. Each photograph only captures a moment, and so Scruton's objection to photography is not defeated by a collage.
Question: What about 'representation' means that it must be something other than a mere moment?
I think that Scruton would claim that the photographs taken only show a mere moment, and the true art occurs when the artist gathers the photographs and arranges them in a particular way to show a passing of time. Each photograph only captures a moment, and so Scruton's objection to photography is not defeated by a collage.
Question: What about 'representation' means that it must be something other than a mere moment?
Aesthetics
There being a dearth of student blogging this week, I will respond to Professor Johnson's blog post as to his thoughts on the aesthetic appreciation of nature. He posted, in summary, this:
Aesthetic means "involving the arts." Nature is not art. Therefore we cannot aesthetically appreciate nature. (This is just a summary, his actual argument is posted here.)
The only problem, I think, with this argument is the first premise upon which lies the entirety of the following conclusions. The definition of aesthetic, I think, is too narrow.
My thoughts on aesthetic appreciation of nature:
1. Aesthetics means "That which appertains to perception."
2. An aesthetic response is one's emotional response to the object of their perception.
3. Aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
4. We can perceive nature.
5. Therefore, we can aesthetically appreciate nature.
1. Aesthetics means "That which appertains to perception"
According to the online etymology dictionary, Aesthetic is derived, in 1798, from the German ästhetisch, or from the French esthétique, both from the Greek aisthetikos, meaning "sensitive," which was orignally derived from aisthanesthai meaning "to perceive, or to feel." Nowehere in the development I did not want to merely say 'that which pertains to perception' for that is far too inclusive, but by using appertains, it limits the definition to what ever is a part of perception, or that which is perceived.
2. An aesthetic response is one's emotional response to the object of their perception.
A twitching muscle, in response to a perceived object would not be an aesthetic response, so an aesthetic response must be emotional. You cannot have an emotional response to an object that you did not perceive, so it must be one's ... to the object of their perception.
3. Aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
Appreciation is an emotional response, so aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
4. We can perceive nature.
While an object of nature is not an art object, it is an object.
5. Therefore, we can aesthetically appreciate nature.
If we can perceive nature, than nature appertains to perception, and is therefore aesthetic. We can appreciate aesthetics.
Question: Telfer attributed food as a minor art, and Scruton thinks that photography is a lesser art form. Are there levels of art? Are some forms inherently better than others or is all art, or rather, all artforms equal?
Aesthetic means "involving the arts." Nature is not art. Therefore we cannot aesthetically appreciate nature. (This is just a summary, his actual argument is posted here.)
The only problem, I think, with this argument is the first premise upon which lies the entirety of the following conclusions. The definition of aesthetic, I think, is too narrow.
My thoughts on aesthetic appreciation of nature:
1. Aesthetics means "That which appertains to perception."
2. An aesthetic response is one's emotional response to the object of their perception.
3. Aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
4. We can perceive nature.
5. Therefore, we can aesthetically appreciate nature.
1. Aesthetics means "That which appertains to perception"
According to the online etymology dictionary, Aesthetic is derived, in 1798, from the German ästhetisch, or from the French esthétique, both from the Greek aisthetikos, meaning "sensitive," which was orignally derived from aisthanesthai meaning "to perceive, or to feel." Nowehere in the development I did not want to merely say 'that which pertains to perception' for that is far too inclusive, but by using appertains, it limits the definition to what ever is a part of perception, or that which is perceived.
2. An aesthetic response is one's emotional response to the object of their perception.
A twitching muscle, in response to a perceived object would not be an aesthetic response, so an aesthetic response must be emotional. You cannot have an emotional response to an object that you did not perceive, so it must be one's ... to the object of their perception.
3. Aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
Appreciation is an emotional response, so aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
4. We can perceive nature.
While an object of nature is not an art object, it is an object.
5. Therefore, we can aesthetically appreciate nature.
If we can perceive nature, than nature appertains to perception, and is therefore aesthetic. We can appreciate aesthetics.
Question: Telfer attributed food as a minor art, and Scruton thinks that photography is a lesser art form. Are there levels of art? Are some forms inherently better than others or is all art, or rather, all artforms equal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)