In that case...

Last week, I responded to Griffin's question as to whether humans can be art in my post "Humans as Art".  Apparently, I misunderstood his question, prompting him to clarify in his post "A counter to Denise's response to my question", in which he asked: "What I want to know is can the human body be the art inherently without it representing some other form of art?"

Firstly, I would like to change the term human body to human experience, meaning the experience of being a living human in an intellectual, emotional, and corporeal world.  To isolate just the human body, one would have to take the life out of it and it becomes just another object.

Now, one could argue that every moment of human existence is a piece of performance art. However, that seems very inclusive. And then, it's just another play, the story of a person's life.

Perhaps, we're examining this the wrong way. Maybe, all art forms are replication of the human experience. Maybe the human experience is the only true art form and the rest are just echoes, vain attempts to replicate and/or communicate that experience.  Although, under this line of thought, perhaps the term should be changed to simply being alive, as humans may not be the only beings capable of creating art.

Is art just an attempt to capture the experience of being alive?

Art and Politics

"An artist is above all a human being, profoundly human to the core. If an artist can't feel everything that humanity feels, if the artist isn't capable of loving until he forgets himself and sacrifices himself if necessary, if he won't put down his magic brush and head the fight against the great oppressor, then he isn't a great artist." -Diego Rivera

On her blog, Sarah asked: "Is it just me, or does this quote contain a hint of Communist propaganda?"

The question references the last part of Rivera's quote, the section about fighting the "great oppressor".  As Sarah mentioned, Rivera was a Communist supporter.  In he most likely intended it, this was a call for a Communist Mexico and a profoundly political statement.  Under those restrictions, I must disagree with Rivera's definition of an artist.  Art can be political, but it doesn't have to be.

Yet, if one removes Rivera's initial intentions, it is possible to redefine his statement.  If art has a message, and I believe that all art does, then it is supporting a certain point of view.  If an artist is unwilling to express that point of view, regardless of it's popularity, is he or she really an artist?

Humans as Art

On his blog, Griffin asked: "Can a human be an art object?"

Scanning through the blogs of my fellow classmates, I found that this question had been asked and answered by others. Their answers included tattoos and sculptures of the human form. But, in these pieces, is the human being a work of art? Is the sculpted man any more human than the person in the painting? Is it the image of the tattoo or the bearer that is art?  While I cannot deny that the above examples are art, I'm not sure that they qualify as human being as an art object.

So, when is a human being an art object? Once a year, somewhere in California, a performance art show is held. In the show, performers reenact famous pieces of visual art onstage, in front of an audience. During a period of darkness, the scene is set and the performers take their places. When the lights come on, the performers hold perfectly still, often in challenging positions, until the lights go off again several minutes later. The humans are the medium of the art. So, yes, human beings can be art.

Is there anything that can't be art, under any circumstances?

Hidden Meaning

On her blog, Kimberlee asked: "Do you ever think that people over think things way to much and assume a piece of art work to be much more intentional than it actually is?"

There are certainly times when we find more in a piece than the artist intended. I'll continue the literature example, as I find it the easiest medium for discussion, but the same applies to all art. Like Kimberlee, I experienced the same moment of disbelief in one of my high school literature classes in which I could not believe that the author had actually put so much thought into the symbolism. Sometimes in real life things just happen. Yet, this seems to be against the laws of literature, where everything has to have a meaning. But, does it? The storm might not represent the characters inner turmoil; it could just be a warm front hitting a cold front, just like they say on the weather channel.

And yet, sometimes there really is that depth of meaning. Sometimes, symbolism occurs without the artist's realizing it until later, and then going back and shaping it. For example, I am a writer. In a piece I was working on recently, I compared the sensations one of the characters experienced while trapped in a crowd as drowning. Later on, without thinking about it, I used drowning imagery again with the same character. Only when I looked back on my work and realized what I had done, did I decide that the character couldn't swim and, thus, anything connected with drowning or water, literally or through comparative imagery, represents extreme danger to her. At this point, I'll probably go back and add more allusions to water, but it wasn't something I planned to have from the very beginning.

What merits does the use of symbolism add to a piece of art? Does it make the art more artistic?

Make-up Art

On her blog, Katie asked: "Can make-up artists really be artists?"

I think that depends on what is meant by make-up artist. Some make-up artist, commonly called beauticians, deal with everyday make-up. They are the women sitting at the make-up counters in the mall who help you pick out the right make-up and show you how to use it. Some of them will even give you a make-over. Personally, I don't think that this is really art; it seems to be more of a skill.

But, there are other types of make-up artists. I think that the make-up artists that work on shows and movies are artists. They can spend hours working on one characters look, especially if it requires complicated make-up, such as the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera. For example, I recently performed in Cats at my high school. Cats requires a lot of make-up, as all of the characters are cats.

The make-up artist for our production designed different make-up for every cat. Applying the make-up was almost like painting and required several applications to achieve the different  layers. The make-up for the show required intention, thought, and planning. In my opinion, it was art.

Are hair stylists artists?

The Experience of Thought

On his blog, Griffin asked: "Suppose that at some point we invent a device that allows us to peer into anothers mind and see in our own head what they are thinking. Now, suppose we use that device on a painter who has an amazing idea for a masterpiece. Would that mental image of the masterpiece be considered art even though it is not brought into sensory form yet?"

Not according to Dewey. Dewey argued for art as experience. He believed that the act of creating the art was as integral to the art as the piece itself. An idea is a wonderful thing, but it has no experience behind, no fulfillment. As the piece has not yet been created, has anything been invested in it yet? Dewey say no.

Still, I'm not sure Dewey's right. An idea in itself can be a creation. After all, the patent office will issue patents for ideas, even if no prototype has, or even can be made. Most ideas represent time spent in thought, developing the idea. Thinking can be an experience as well.

If ideas can be art, then can descriptions of ideas, such as a prose paragraph describing a painting, real or imagined, be art?

Definition by Example

On her blog, Katie asked: "Is this the way we should define or pin down art as well, use examples, compare new art to old art?"

Using examples to define art seems to be an easy solution. Rather than struggling to find just the right words, all we have to do is make comparisons to already established art. Actually, we've already consider this approach in class. Morris Weitz suggested the same thing. Rather than give a solid definition, Weitz found art by identifying similarities between a candidate and existing pieces of art. Now, if memory serves, we had some problems with Weitz's theory. It's a bit too inclusive. For example, Andy Warhol's Brillo Box is art. Now, since an actual Brillo box is visually similar, it should be art as well, but it isn't. Therefore, only some aspects of a work of art make it art and only pieces that share these particular aspects are also art. So, I think that we could use examples to define art, but we must be specific about which quality of the piece we want to exemplify.

If you had to create a definition of art from examples, which works, and qualities of those works, would you choose?

Personal Imitation

On his blog, Griffin asked: "Can an artist imitate their own work?"

All art is based on the artist's experience. Sometimes it comes from the life of the artist and sometimes it finds it's roots in other pieces of art that the artist has encountered over his or her life. Artists also build off of their own work. If you look at an artist's work from across his or her career, it is usually possible to see a gradual growth or change of style from the first piece to the last. By reviewing their work, artists can see what works and what doesn't work. In their next work, they can change or not change the style accordingly. Is this change a type of imitation? I don't think it is. Rather, it's the development of the artist's skill and personal style.

 If a piece of art is consciously inspired by the work of a different artist, should the original artist be credited? 

The Benefits of Instruction

On her blog, Hanna asked: "Is it better to have a teacher, or let your skills develop organically?"

 I think that a healthy combination of instruction and natural growth is important for a developing artist. An artist, of any type, needs to explore and grow on their own to develop his or her own voice and personal taste, but this does not negate the benefits of instruction. Teachers introduce artists to other aspects of their art that they may never have discovered on their own. These new discoveries may one day be incorporated into an artist's style. Teachers also show artists the weak points in their work, which they may not notice on their own, and offer suggestions for improvement. Conversely, they may also show artists where they are truly talented. Enrollment in a formal class forces artists to devote time to their art, which they might otherwise neglect.

In the same post, Hanna expressed her talent and interest for drawing. Personally, I am a writer. I'm aware of several other artists in our class. What do you consider to be your art?

Generalization and Example

On his blog, Duncan asked: "Can art be described without any of the three though? (the three being generalization, example, and anecdote.)"

Let us assume, that art can be described without example or anecdote. Would it be possible to explain art without generalizing.  I don't believe that it's possible. Art refers to a broad range of things. Within visual art alone, there exists paintings, sculptures, etc. Then, one must consider music and literature. How can you specifically describe art without neglecting one of these categories? On the other hand, one can take generalization too far. To say that art is anything that is aesthetically stimulating would include several things that are widely considered non-art, such as nature.

Now, on to example and anecdote, which I think are the same thing as an anecdote is just a personal example. I think that, eventually, one must always return to example when trying to explain art.  For instance, let's return to the supposition that art is aesthetically stimulating. We have just defined an abstract concept with an abstract concept. Our answer is probably followed by the logical question "What does it mean to be aesthetically stimulated?" We have three options. We can try to define "aesthetically stimulated", which seems to be a difficult if not impossible task. We could state that we are aesthetically stimulated when we view art, making our definition circular. Or, we could cite an example of when the questioner probably felt aesthetically stimulated. Personally, I do not think that the first option is possible. Therefore, we must eventually reach example to have a solid conclusion.

How would you describe art to an intelligent life form that has no understanding of the concept?

Explaining the Abstract

 Have you ever tried to explain an abstract concept, such as justice to a small child.  It's no easy feat.  One cannot describe it by color, sound, texture, scent, or any other sensory clues by which humans gather information.  The concept has to be intuitively felt.  In my experience, I've found that, rather than give a child a definition, most people would give a child one or more examples of the concept in action.  Thus, a child can only know what justice is after he or she has seen justice.  I believe this theory applies to art as well.  It seems to me that, if a person had never experienced art before, he or she would not understand an explanation of art until they were shown an example, no matter how eloquent the teacher.

If art is an abstract concept, how can we describe it without examples and anecdotes?

The Function of Cake

On her blog, Sarah asked: Does cake have a place in sculptural studio art?

This reminds me of a debate we had in class a few weeks ago.  We were discussing the artistic merit of culinary arts.  The official opinion was that it was either not art or that it was a lower form of art because the primary purpose of the culinary arts is to create food for people to eat.  Basically, at the time, our judgment was based on the function of food, or in this case, cake.  Now, enter Goodman.  Goodman asks us to consider when non-art functions as art.  Perhaps, that is the basis for viewing a cake as a work of art.  Just being a cake does not qualify something as art.  Once an artistic cake is cut up and served, it is not art.  However, when an artistic cake, such as those seen on the television series Ace of Cakes, is on display before it is served, it is functioning as a work of art, which, according to Goodman, makes it art in that moment.

If an established work of art is destroyed, for instance shredding the Mona Lisa, is it still art, just as it is still art if it is used as a blanket?

Art and Quantum Physics

Several weeks ago in class, we discussed whether any two people could experience a work of art in exactly the same way.  After considering all the variables that go into the development of a human being, we determined that this was impossible, as even something as simple as viewing an object from a slightly different angle can change our perception of it.  In my opinion, this disputes Hume's theory that we have a common basis for personal taste and, while all tastes are valid, only one taste is right.  Recently, I watched a documentary entitled "What the Bleep Do We Know?"  The film, which was rooted in quantum physics, discussed an interesting principle.  According to the film, or at least my understanding of it, everything is everywhere all the time.  So, not only am I experiencing my life right now, I am, theoretically, experiencing the lives of every single person on this planet.  This new level of shared experience could be just the evidence Hume needs to back his theory of shared personal taste.

So, if I'm sharing the varied personal tastes of everyone on Earth, does this make all of the tastes right, thereby eliminating the need to define what is correct?

Chain Reaction

On her blog, Amanda asked: "Wherein lies the art? Is it in the final product, the poem that you write about the painting? Or is it in the initial painting that started the series? Are all the creative works art? And are the emotions evoked from the works that inspired more creativity considered aesthetic emotion, or are the pieces inspired by just the urge to create, and the experience of creation?" (If you're confused about the questions, check out her post here: http://aohappy.blogspot.com/2010/10/just-some-thoughts.html)

In my opinion, every link in the chain is art.  Every piece of art has some sort of inspiration.  It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to create something from nothing.  Artists draw from their experiences, including their encounters with other art, and from speculation on those experiences.  Although it can be difficult for even the artist to identify it, the initial inspiration is there.  The source of that inspiration should not devalue the art.

As for Amanda's second question, I believe that it is the human emotions that the piece invokes that inspires the next creative endeavor.  If the painting merely fostered an urge to create, then the next work would not truly be inspired by the painting.  The painting would serve only as a catalyst, speeding up the creative process.  Yet, if it inspires an emotional reaction, this feeling would spill over into the next piece, creating a common link between the two.  The link may not be the same from the first painting to the final poem, but one could still follow the chain.

Does understanding the inspiration behind a piece of art enable our personal interpretations, or confine us to the interpretation of the artist?  What do we miss if we know the artist's thoughts before we form our own opinions?

Art and Morality

On his blog Griffin asked: "Can art truly be 'evil'? even to a nonreligious person? And is there a difference between 'sinful' art and 'evil' art?"

Personally, I do not believe that art itself can be evil. Despite phrases such as "literature lives" and "live theater", art is an inanimate object. It's not capable of doing anything by its own will.  The same idea applies to sinful; art itself cannot commit a sin. Yet, I believe it's possible for an artist or viewer to commit a sin or to foster sinful tendencies by creating or viewing art, though the frequency of such an event depends on your definitions of both sin and art.

Yet, sin is a term mainly used in religious settings, so what effect does it have on the nonreligious.  While we don't general use the term sin, every part of the world, regardless of religion or lack there of, has a moral code.  The breaking of that code, whatever it may be, would be the equivalent of a sin.

Of course, this entire line of thought might be a moot point depending on your response to the following question: If art influences us to break our moral code, should it still be considered art?

Critic-al Thinking

On his blog, Duncan asked: "Why do people need to be told what to think about art in the first place, why do we need critics in our newspapers and online?"

Quite simply, I believe the answer to this question lies in our choice of lifestyle. First, Americans tend towards laziness. The less effort we have to exert, the happier we think we are. Therefore, if we can get someone else to tell us how to think, we don't have to bother thinking ourselves, which is a very scary thought. Second, despite our laziness, America is a very fast paced place. From a very young age our days are jammed full. We simply don't have or, facing our laziness again, don't want to make the time. More importantly, we don't want to waste our time on "bad" art. Thus, the critics help us direct our valuable time towards "good" art.

What do we lose by avoiding the experience of "bad" art?

Is Good Art Subjective?

Many people think that the qualities of good art are subjective, which would explain why two different individuals can see the same creative piece as a disaster and a masterpiece. While I do believe that subjectivity does play a part in determining good art, I believe there is also an objective factor. For example, let's look at chocolate cake. Personally, I don't like chocolate cake. Yet, the fact that a cake is chocolate does not, in my opinion, make it a bad cake. Rather, when I eat the obligatory slice at a party, I judge the cake compared to pre-existing standards for texture  and flavor, compared to other chocolate cake. I think we do the same thing with art. Even if we do not like a piece of art, we can still recognize it as good art based on objective qualities which the piece shares with other good art. The question is, what are those qualities upon which we form our standard of art?

A Rubric for Art

On her blog, Katie asked: Television is absolutely an art form from every standpoint but again it begs the question, can you ever define it as good or bad?

The terms good and bad imply that there is a standard upon which something can be judge. On an essay, for example, a teacher may give you a rubric to explain what he or she expects in regards to subject, length, grammar, etc. If your paper meets or exceeds the expectations listed on the rubric, it is considered good. If it does not, the paper is bad. So, in order to define television as good or bad art, we must first set expectations for what is good art. Until we find that definition of good art, we cannot tell bad from good. The definition must include qualitative standards for comparison. Before any decisions can be made, we need a "rubric" for art.


If you were making a rubric for art, of any type, what qualities would you include?

Context of Color

On her blog, Val asked: " My friend is color-blind, he sees colors, but not the proper ones. He sees blue and red as the same, so what emotions would he draw, since we generally associate blue as calming and red as passionate and energetic?"

Despite the emotional associations adults have with colors, young children seem to lack this line of thought. Many young children will use colors that adults find displeasing as the main color in a crayon drawing, because they do not yet have an emotional association with that color and view it without a bias. They need to be taught by their society what different colors symbolize. This is not done directly; no one sits a child down and explains that blue is sad or that red is angry.  Children learn these associations over time by observing how colors are used in the world around them.  At an early age, they may see everyone in black at a funeral and associate black with death. Playing outside on a bright day, a child might see the sun and associate its yellow color with their happiness. Children with color blindness would make the same associations, just with their distorted view of color.

A person with color blindness continues to use context clues when viewing colors, just as they did when they were children. Looking  at the ocean, he or she knows that water is blue, not red, and feels the peacefulness we associate with blue. While looking at a painting, there is more room for error, but the same theory applies.  If the lines of a painting are sharp and aggressive, it is more likely to illicit the feelings we associate with red, because those feelings logically connect with the form of the painting, whether or not the painting is red or blue.

When we view visual art are our emotions influenced more by the lines or subject of the painting or by the colors used? Or, if you prefer music, are they influenced more by the pitch or the rhythm?

The Future of Tactile Art

In his blog, Alex asked: Do you think that tactile art will find popularity in the future?  Why or why not

Personally, I think the concept of tactile art is fascinating. It is the logical extension of art into another sense. Yet, I do not believe that tactile art can gain popularity in the modern world, at least in America. As a nation, we are becoming complete germ phobics. If you don't believe it, walk around a public environment. Chances are that you'll see hand sanitizer dispensers mounted on the walls and signs educating you on the right way to wash your hands or cover a cough or sneeze. We've become obsessed with stopping the spread of germs. Our compulsion makes sense. SARS followed by Avian Influenza followed by Pig Flu have made most of us fearful of getting sick. Yet, it dooms tactile art.  Everyone who experiences a tactile art piece will have to, by definition, touch the piece. Billions of germs will be present on the piece within an hour. Would you want to touch it immediately after the person who just sneezed all over his or her hands?

Art engages our senses. Music engages hearing. Visual art engages vision. Tactile art engages touch. Culinary art engages taste. Is there a future for art that engages our sense of smell?

Think About It

On her blog, Sarah asked: How does Minimalism continue to thrive without a point, or with a point that's been made many times already?

I do believe that minimalist art does have a point, though it is difficult to see it. When interpreting minimalist art, I think we often make the mistake of assuming that the brevity of a piece is the point.  I think minimalism is a mode of communication, rather than a point.  The audience has to deeply consider minimalist art before any inkling of a meaning can be reached.  In some forms of art, especially visual art, it is very to look at a piece and say simply "That's a bowl of fruit".  Seeing the superficial meaning, we neglect to take the effort to find a deeper meaning.  We're lazy.  Minimalism discards the superficial image, forcing us to think.

How do our societal behaviors (e.g. laziness) influence our art?

Rethinking Modern Art

While perusing the postings this morning, looking for a question to answer, I stumbled upon Alex's post about the decline of art in our society. He suggests, as schools slash arts funding and more time is spent in the virtual realm, that the value of art is decreasing. In a sense, this is true.  The things that we traditionally view as art are losing appeal.  Classic novels are deemed pointless and are discarded for the ease of television.  Art museums are condemned as boring.  Classical music is forgotten for something with a better beat.  The art of our ancestors is thrown to the wayside by the younger generation.  Yet, does this imply that the value of art itself has diminished.  I don't believe so.  Just as jazz followed classical in the realm of music, I think the form of our art is morphing into the age of technology.  Personally, I find the amount of art in a well-crafted video game staggering.  The efforts of writers, visual artists, and musicians combine to form something that is creative and often conveys emotions or meaning.  Movies are, in a way, the new novel.  They can also use metaphor and imagery to convey a deeper meaning and that's before one even considers the soundtrack or score.  These are just a few examples of what I consider modern art.

So, with new art forms always emerging to replace the old, will the traditional art forms lose their place in society?

A World Without Emotion

Sarah asked:  If we were as calculating, rational, and unfeeling as Plato wishes us to be, what would civilization look like? What would life be in this world?

As I read the question, I couldn't help by smile.  Ever since I was young, I have been a huge Star Trek fan and this question turned my thoughts once again towards that sci-fi realm, because it seems that the creators of various Star Trek series were also intrigued by this idea and considered the answer in the philosophies and behaviors of non-human characters.

The first alien species to be seen on Star Trek was the Vulcans.  In many ways, Vulcans are similar to humans.  They resemble humans physically and have many of the same material needs.  However, their philosophy is very different from our own.  Vulcans live by the rule of logic.  They believe that emotions should be strictly controlled and many purge their emotions completely.  Is embracing rationality detrimental to themselves and others?  The answer is a resounding no.  Rejecting emotions allowed the Vulcans to rise above the violent and horrific warfare that had consumed their planet for centuries to become one of the most technologically advanced species in the known universe.  They also became reknowned ambassadors and peacemakers among the emotional beings of the galaxy.  Although they cannot always understand the emotional behavior of their non-Vulcan counterparts, they do not generally act in ways that would be considered immoral due to a lack of emotion.

Conversely, there is also the Borg.  The Borg are a group of cyborgs controlled by a hive mind.  They travel the universe assimilating other species into their collective consciousness.  Due to the nature of the hive mind, they do not experience emotion.  Their unfeeling nature is devastating to everyone they encounter as, having no compassion, they cannot understand why any being would not want to be assimilated.

The Borg and the Vulcans are two very different takes on pure rationality.  The alternatives seem to depend on who develops the ethic system for the society.

In her post, Sarah makes a valid point: emotions are an integral part of being human.  As feeling beings, can we realistically imagine a society based purely on rationality?

Communicating Emotion

Tolstoy argues that humans have two forms of communication: language and art.  Language is used to communicate thoughts.  Art is used to communicate emotions.  It is possible, to some extent, to communicate emotions with language; I can say "I am sad".  It seems that, though this statement technical communicates my emotions, it translates the concept of the emotion rather than the emotion itself.  Art, rather than explaining emotion, evokes a similar emotion in the viewer, causing a shared experience instead of an understanding of a concept.  As humans have only two forms of communication, art is the best outlet for sharing our emotions.

Still, let us suppose that humans had other ways of communicating.  Consider the various science fiction and fantasy movies and books in popular culture.  Many of them give characters supernatural abilities, such as empathy, the emotional counterpart to telepathy. An empath can read emotions, just like a telepath can read minds.  A relevant example of different methods of communication is seen in the movie Avatar.  In the film, the aliens communicate with many of the plants and animals by "plugging" directly into them.  This joins there minds so that they are, in a sense, one being.  This link allows the pair to share both thoughts and emotions.  The emotional communication here is more efficient than communication through art, because the emotion is directly communicated; there is no doubt that the emotion expressed is the emotion understood.  This ability seems to erase the need for art, because the aliens have a better way to communicate emotion.

In a society where beings can communicate emotions directly, such as one where all of the members are empathic, would art exist?

Art and Reputation

Kyle asked: does this mean that some pieces that are considered great works of art, really aren't and only have added value because of the creator?  Does this take away from the true skill behind some art?

I don't think that there is a single answer to this question as every piece of art should be judged on its own merit.  Still, the question is intriguing.  Often, humans get caught up in the superficial word of celebrities.  One trip to ebay can reveal our mania with fame.  Why else would someone pay an astronomical sum of money for a jar of air that happened to be in the same vicinity as a movie star?  Many times humans find value in something because it brings us one step closer to our idols.  So, if someone bought a Monet simply because they were fascinated with the man and just wanted to own something by him, then you would be absolutely correct. Personally, I'm reminded of a similar scenario in recent literature.  I'm an enthusiastic Harry Potter fan, so I was very excited to read the seventh book.  Imagine my disappointment when I discovered that a good chunk of the book consisted of camping that did nothing to advance the plot!  Of course, I can't read minds and I have never communicated with the book's editors, but it seems to me that Rowling's book was taken as is because she has achieved such fame as a writer and her book would sell well, regardless of quality.

As for your second question, I do not believe that an artist's fame can detract from or add to the true value of their art, only the perceived value, assuming that art is not judge by a monetary criteria.  Still, what qualities or scenarios can reduce art's true value, if there even are any?

Animals and Art

Fal asked: are humans the only beings able to make artwork and show the intentionality behind it?  I think that this depends on how you expect to be shown.  Regardless of the questionable intelligence of animals, the majority of animals and humans do not share a common language.  Therefore, they cannot just walk up to a human and explain, in speech, the intentionality behind a painting.  Still, is that enough to prove that there is no intentionality?  Suppose that a tourist views a painting by a French painter.  Let's assume that the tourist and the painter do not share a common language and that no translator is available.  Is the painting not art because the painter cannot explain his intentions through the language barrier?

On a different note, what if an animal is able to explain its painting.  Several apes can communicate with their trainers through sign language.  I do not know if any of them have ever engage in an artistic endeavor, but, if they did and they explained the painting through sign language, would it satisfy the proof of intentionality?

Beyond Intentionality

In her blog, Valerie asked: if intentionality is only one factor that makes up what art is, what else is there that makes something art?


That, in a sense, is the question that this class, Art and Philosophy, is based upon. In my line of thought, the audience has a great deal of influence over what makes up art. The masses decide what is generally called art and what isn't. They must find some substance in the piece. Yet, everyone's criteria for that substance is different. Some believe art must be beautiful and judge art versus non-art based on beauty. Others think that art must provoke thought or emotion. This concept implies that the viewer must be able to relate with a piece in order for it to be art. Still others believe that a creation is art if it has monetary value, indicating that they do not really know what art is; they only know what other people tell them is art. In the end, I think all of these things play some part in our personal determination of what is art and must be weighed with the artist's own intentions in order to begin to answer the question.


Our view on what is art is often influenced by public opinion. If only one person thinks a piece is a work of art, is it really art?

The Senses and Art

According to our in-class discussions, art must have some level of intentionality and it must conform to the basic essentials of art. Yet, we, the audience, often alter the art with our own perceptions. We experience art through our senses. We see color; we hear sound. Yet, if our senses change in some way, our perception of art changes as a result. A canvas painted in a motley assortment of colors may be intended to be lively, but it might be lifeless to someone who is colorblind. Similarly, some individuals with synesthesia can perceive visual images in music. The combination of color and music must change the impact in some way, simply because the senses are gaining more information from which to formulate a meaning.

The topic of synesthesia presents a question of its own: if an individual with synesthesia composes a series of tones with the goal of creating a visual image, how should it be classified? Is it music, a visual art, or something else?