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?
Monday, September 27, 2010
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?
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?
Monday, September 20, 2010
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?
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?
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?
Monday, September 13, 2010
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)