Response to Brandon's "The Art of ____ing"

I believe that, when the phrase "The art of ____ing" is used, it refers to the proper process by which something should be done. Therefore, if someone were to masterfully complete a quest in a videogame, you would say "That was the art of video-gaming" because they have performed at an exceptional level. The art of eating is, however, something you can't truly perform at an exceptional level at, so perhaps the term is interdisciplinary and refers to the proper table manners, conversation, consumption and digestion of food, etc. Much like the art of eating, the art of video-gaming could be subdivided into time of completion, points earned, upgrades attained, secrets unlocked, etc. If there's any aesthetic influences in the saying, then surely they would relate to the fact that each "art of _____ing" is convoluted and interdisciplinary, with few closed concepts that could fit into the form that everyone would unanimously agree with. Aside from its similar confusion as aesthetic definitions are debated, I don't think the phrase has any relation to aesthetic judgement, but perhaps utility or proper performance.

Q - What is the "art of aesthetic judgement"?

What keeps a man alive?

In reviewing the lyrics from the second of three finales from the Threepenny Opera, it's very easy to see lots of moral/philosophical influences and topics within the message of the story. The school's recent production of the musical in early October gave me the interest and knowledge about the storyline and music to analyze the content, and above all else, this song seems to have more moralistic implications, rather then the psychological or sociological implications in the other songs in the show. The lyrics of the version we did are as follows:

"We listen to the sentimental preachers,
Who try to teach the world a better way.
But they forget that men are hungry creatures,
First give us breakfast, then we'll start the day.
They all imagine peace and plenty everywhere,
Contentment from the cradle to the grave.
It's a utopia, and one we'd love to share,
But you must feed us, then we'll all behave.

These moral absolutes, are hard to follow,
Just give us something tangible to swallow."

Spoken: "But what keeps a man alive?"

"What keeps a man alive, it's his compulsion, to steal and
cheat and kick his fellow man in the face.
We have to eat the shit, without revulsion, and
turn our backs, upon the human race.

You have to kill your neighbor to survive.
It's selfishness that keeps a man alive.

The preachers see a woman in the doorway,
'let's save this wretched creature from her shame.'
Okay, we'll change our lives, we'll do it your way,
First you must feed us, then we'll play the game.
We end up as a wife or a chambermaid,
And either way we're treated as a slave.
It's not surprising that we'd rather we were paid,
First you must feed us, then we'll all behave.

These moral absolutes, are hard to follow,

Just give us something tangible to swallow."

Spoken: "But what keeps a man alive?"

"What keeps a man alive, it's his compulsion, to steal and

cheat and kick his fellow man in the face.

We have to eat the shit, without revulsion, and

turn our backs, upon the human race.

You have to kill your neighbor to survive.

It's selfishness that keeps a man alive."

This song clearly defines the point that selfishness is what keeps a man alive, and the act of "killing your neighbor" is an act of selfishness so you will be "fed more." The underlying implications of the song lyrics suggest that much of it is metaphorical for economic and social situations as well. Men are greedy for money and power, and must "kill" off the competition. We have to "eat the shit" or start out at the bottom the the ladder and take people's problems with us openly, but at the same time know that, through selfishness, we must "turn our backs upon the human race" and think of only ourselves. Our compulsion to steal, cheat, and kick our fellow man is part of our selfishness and power-hungry dispositions. Keeping in mind that this song is written in a sense of describing 19th century london from a German perspective, there are certain sociocultural implications as well, but for the most part, this philosophy of what keeps a man alive is applicable to most any society in most any time.

Q - Do you agree that the world is plagued with selfishness and disregard for the "fellow man"?

A Moral Decision?

The government and the FDA have control over cigarette packages, and are mandating that all cigarette packages be covered at least 20% by pictures displaying corpses, cancerous lungs, tracheotomy holes, and infants in incubators. This is a federal move that, if passed, will be enacted in September of 2012. The images are being used as visual reminders of the dangers involved with smoking, as well as to display ways for people to quit (typically including a hotline number on the package for help with quitting). However, Federal judge Richard Leon says that this is unfair, and I agree with him.

Although the message needs to get across that smoking is dangerous, it doesn't need to be displayed in a way that will make cigarette boxes a horrifying sight. It's people's right to smoke, and even after knowing the statistics on how smoking causes cancer and death, few people make the choice to quit. This is their right, and it should not be plagued with pictures that make the squeamish gag and others downright disturbed. Although these images are a great tool to deter the youth of the nation from smoking, they are what I'd consider to be morally wrong. There are ways to get the message across without using such graphic, expensive means (the expenses from the law will, of course, be put up to cigarette manufacturers). One of these ways has been around for almost half a century, the surgeon general's warning, printed on all cigarette packages since 1965. Some people thought that this wasn't enough, and elected to put forth those grotesque pictures to fortify the cons of smoking.

Smoking is a big issue because, just as people 18+ have the right to smoke, people of any age who wish to be in a smoke free environment also have the right to not be bothered by clouds of nicotine. Many restrictions have been put on the smoking end, repressing the amount of smokers and the areas they can smoke in. Huge taxes have even been put on cigarettes, in some cases making them nearly twice as expensive as they would normally be without tax. And yet, further restrictions are being placed on smokers, aiming to slap their worst-scenario future on the box and completely limit the manufacturer's space to get their own message across. But where have the restrictions been placed on the other end, the end of non-smokers?

The moral implications thereof certainly don't match up. Perhaps because smoking is hazardous to your health is why it's being limited so much. Yet if it's a right, then why aren't their at least some laws protecting smokers from the opposition in the health field and the federal government?

My questiona to you are these:

1. Is it morally wrong for the FDA to mandate grotesque pictures to be put on cigarette packages?
2. Is it fair to smokers, non-smokers, and cigarette manufacturers to require so much of the cigarette package to be covered by anti-smoking propaganda?

A Philosophical View of the Water Shortage

We are currently experiencing a water shortage in North Adams, and the entire town is without water. This leads to no showers, drinking water, laundry, flushing toilets, clean dishes, etc. I'm trying to figure out, however, whether this is a blessing or a curse. Sure, we are down and out of many "necessities" of life, and the sanitation levels are quickly dropping campus wide. However, compared to a third-world country, say, in central Africa, this is no detrimental issue. They've been living for months, even years, with those shortages, as well as shortages in food, shelter, and protection from diseases. If we step back and look at the luxuries we have in life, we can realize that the things we've temporarily lost are technically privileges, not rights. Therefore, in order to properly assess the situation, we should consider how necessary that of which we have lost is compared to that of which the third-world-country inhabitants have never had.

Do you view this as a blessing or a curse?

Response to Jacob Wheeler

I have been considering how Walton's theories tie into Aesthetics for a while, and I finally concluded much of what you all concluded; Walton presumes that art is fictional, and aesthetic responses cannot contain true emotional content. I would certainly argue that Walton's theory depreciates the value of art (if true of course), attempting to drive a wedge in aesthetic theory. Much of aesthetics relates to the communicated emotions or aesthetic responses between the artist and the observer, using the art as the medium. However, in Walton's theory, since the art is only as real as the materials it is made of (and not it's representational of perceptual content), then the art is fictional, and little to nothing is communicated.


Accepting the principle that we must play "make-believe" during a movie is arguably not deliberate. Sure, plenty of people will subconsciously allow themselves to be absorbed by the material, somewhere down the line forgetting that the content is superficial, allowing them to have true emotional reactions. This is deliberate. But in the case we argued that a little child views a scary movie, they do not deliberately make the decision to "make-believe" (and therefore experience true emotional responses) because they themselves cannot distinguish that the movie's content is false from the beginning. Childhood naivete allows them to have true emotional responses without deliberately playing into Walton's game.


Do you think that Walton's theory holds true when adolescence is considered?

The Philosophy of Guns

In light of the recent news of the Student and Faculty Firearm referendum results and the recent events on the Virginia Tech Campus, I would like to elucidate my position on guns.

Guns, are corrupt because of this reason: They are used simultaneously for good and evil.

Why is this? Two reasons I can compile.

1: Guns are used by humans, and humans can be either evil or good with their intentions.

2: Human intentions can change very quickly, and the original intention of using the gun upon the medium of receiving it may not correlate with the intentions when used.

Should the campus police be armed, since we know their original intentions are good?

The philosophy of laziness

I often wonder to myself what the moral principles behind laziness are. Just a moment ago, I was sitting on a bench waiting for the elevator, and as I waited, the bench and I became one. I couldn't get up except with the extreme motivation to hurry up and be on time. I often wonder to myself if we all undergo moral struggles in our head relating to the lack of physical movement for the enjoyment of rest. I personally weigh the situations in my head, but never come to a true conclusion until I realize I have to scrap what I'm thinking and just get up. But I want to hear from you all; is there some philosophical explanation for the laziness we all experience?

Response to Jacob Wheeler

Carlson's theory of appreciation seems to be one that does, more relatively, relate to our appreciation of nature, not art, although it could be loosely translated and applied to art as well. In any situation, it's difficult to truly define the aesthetic appreciation of nature, because the aesthetic appreciation must be applied only to artistically intriguing things, and much of nature does not qualify as "Art." Much like Tolstoy, Carlson spends a great deal of his work denying other commonplace theories and then denying the extent to which even his theory is credible. However, I argue that his theory is distinct from the definition of art because it describes in careful detailed ways on how we must view the nature and how we must objectify in order to truly appreciate it's art-like qualities. The truth of this may not be determinable, but the organization is certainly intact.

What should an aesthetic theory truly define?

Appreciation of Music through theoretical analysis

*note: The video is inverted, also some parts in the end got glitchy and jump throughout. Try and focus on the musical meaning!

Membership to the Artworld

In Dickie's aesthetic theory, he blatently points out that those who consider themselves members of the Artworl may be such. This makes his theory radically inclusive and determines everything to be art. However, when human decision is in the equation, we must consider a few things about "membership" to the Artworld.

First thing's first, Dickie describes those who are "artists . . . producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others" (431). Primarily, this is a concern because if you consider yourself one of these things, you technically "must" be a part of the Artworld. Furthermore, many of these roles are open concepts, therefore it's difficult to even distinguish whether or not you satisfy any of the conditions of the roles. An interesting problem, however, is one who meets the conditions of one or more of these titles "must" be in the Artworld, but if they do not consider themselves a member, then they aren't. Is this paradoxical, or is there an overriding title that prevails?

Other interesting things to consider - what can you make of the judgements of one who is in the above situation? Do the artifacts in question become art or candidates thereof?

Q: Answer either of the above questions

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post on 10/30/11 at 7:35pm

1. What is to be made of these art conferring theories? Can anyone hold such a theory, and as such, can anyone confer the status of art to any object as long as they postulate a theory to encompass it? 

One of the problems I see with all of the aesthetic theories is quite simply that - there are many of them. They all have different answers that are proved through different mediums. Some theories even rely on the disapproval other theories (Tolstoy's reasoning for the development of his) in order to reach a conclusion. Most theories, in one way or another, involve conferring the status of "art" to an object - as we've just discussed, there are many ways to do this; Conceptual "closedness" or "openness" can be utilized, satisfying conditions, perceptual/sensational interpretation, based on an empirical evidence sort of method, can be used, and some other forms of attribution, such as leaving the job of defining the art to "the wise, experienced, venerated elders" of society with the "aesthetic senses." I don't think anyone can truly confer the status or determine what is art simply by creating a theory. There are many theories as to how the planets came to being, yet not every one of them is true. Since many aesthetic theories, like those of the planet's beginnings, contradict each other, then it is even possible that some of them, or parts of the theories, can't even possibly be true if others are. My resulting conclusion would have to be, nobody truly knows about the true aesthetic definition. We were left here to interpret and define ourselves. I believe aesthetic relevance is, like beauty, "in the eye of the beholder," or more importantly, subjective. Therefore, the attribution and application thereof would be subjective as well, and supposedly in that sense, you could confer the title of art to those objects of which you choose, but in the objective sense, your labels could be wrong.
2. Danto maintains that an artworld must exist for there to be art. Without aestheticians, there can be no art. But an artworld is an atmosphere of artistic theory and a knowledge of the history of art. There must exist artistic theory before there can be art? There must be a history of art before there is any art? Discuss this apparent tension. Is there a way to diffuse this apparent contradiction?

The contradiction in the above statement is similar to the common-day riddle, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"


In order for there to be proper art, and aesthetic theory must be in place so we have some sort of categorizing method to determine what is actually art. However, in order for there to be an aesthetic theory, there must be a history of art. Art cannot exist short of an aesthetic theory, however, an aesthetic theory can't typically exist without a historical basis of trial and error on determining the satisfying conditions of what is "art." I don't see any simple diffusion on this matter, but it'd be interesting to see what others say on the matter.


Q: What is one way to formulate and propose an aesthetic theory without a proper history of art?

Response to Brittany Noyes's Post at on 10/29/11 at 2:50pm

What is the art medium that people least identify with or enjoy?


Extreme Under-water Basket Weaving.


I'm just kidding, the form of art that people least identify with or enjoy would probably be some forms of dance or sculpting, both of which aren't usually considered when talking about art. I would say visual arts such as paintings and drawings are referenced the most, followed by music, sculptures, and dance. The less we familiarize with these latter forms of art, the less we can identify with them, and therefore (as I argue), the less aesthetic quality pertains to them.


Enjoyment is, of course, a form of pleasure, or alludes to the pleasure received. As we've now had drilled into our heads with the power-tool of redundancy, pleasure is subjective. This is not to say, however, that we can't make inferences based on historical accounts and social observations. However, I don't think I'm personally equipped with the knowledge or experience to deduce which form(s) of art provide the public with the least aesthetic pleasure.


I wonder: Is there any form of art where the feelings of which are objective; namely, everyone shares the same opinion based on observation, and receives the same aesthetic emotion thereof?

Interesting Proposal

Branching off of my previous post, I had a theory come to mind when I realized how difficult it is to define art or aesthetics because of the wide range of artistic categories. And then it hit me; has anyone ever tried to define the small, specific, closed concept forms of art, and then defined art as anything that fits into one or more of those categories?

Granted, this may not seem like a venerated definition for such a grand thing as art, but it certainly does get the mechanical nonsense of "what is art?" out of the way. And in light of my recent statement, true art is not the emotional or subjective perception of itself; it is the physical, sensible form of which the emotions or subjective feelings are evoked from. The non-mechanical aspects of art, I would argue, deal primarily with aesthetics, not the art itself.

My question to you is, is this an acceptable approach to defining art?

Concepts.

In our short reading this week, we discussed the principles of open concepts and closed concepts. Open concepts are those which have no limit to the amount of defining conditions for the object at hand, closed concepts are those which have a set, clear limit to the amount of necessary defining conditions. One thing I've noticed is the specific objects tend to have closed concepts whereas the broader objects tend to have open concepts. This is expected, of course, since specific objects, such as an apple, require less "umbrella" features than broader concepts, such as food. When giving the necessary conditions for an apple, you give it's specific defining features. However, when giving the definition for food, each condition must satisfy every object that could be considered food, but at the same time no object that isn't food can contain all of the defining principles. For instance, if you were to define a healthy, growing empire apple, you may list its defining conditions as red and tart. However, under food, these conditions can't appear, since spaghetti is yellow and not tart at all, but is still considered food. Satisfying these conditions is difficult, but rewarding when the definition can finally become closed.

A second point that I've noticed about concepts is that those objects with mathematical basis tend to be closed concepts. This is because mathematical proof is indubitably fortifying evidence, provided the analysis is correct. For instance, in class Johnson used the triangle as an example, since triangles have specific parameters under which they can be called triangles (interior angles add up to 180 degrees, 3 sides, all connect at vertices.)

My question is this: Would you argue that broader concept have less conditions or more conditions than specific concepts?

Significant Form (?)

Many of the authors we've studied so far have either hinted at or blatantly declared that the aesthetic theory depends strongly on something called "significant form" or "form." I recently brought up the question of "whether or not animals can understand aesthetic theory" in a post. This is of course, debatable, most specifically depending on the definition used for "form." Most aesthetic authors regard form or significant form as combinations of non-representational lines and colors that evoke our aesthetic emotions. Surely, an animal with proper vision can determine colors and distinguish lines in a probably non-representational way. Do you think animals can comprehend significant form, and therefore, aesthetic emotion? Would an animal be a proper, unbiased critic? Although they are experienced creatures, their experiences may not be tainted with false communications and complex outcomes as ours are.

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post on 10/20/11 at 2:07pm

I would say that Dewey, although incorporating lots of evolutionary approaches in his theories, would not accept art made by non-human creatures to be such. His theory does rely on the "conscious restoration," something in which most animals are thought unable to do. The art has to have "meaning" and I argue that the artist must "intend" to create art according to Dewey's theory. As of now, most animals do not exhibit the ability to intentionally and actively recount their experiences and portray them in art.

When Dewey tries to explain (a)esthetic standing, he uses the example of the Parthenon. Early in his work, he mentions that the Parthenon only has aesthetic standing according to the human experience. This does not appear to be a beguiling way to edge around other intelligent life forms, but seems to directly imply that aesthetic judgment can only truly be understood, in all complexity, by humans. And if one is to make art, than one should hope to portray aesthetic value/experience in said work, and for those intentions to come together, one must be a human.

My question would be this; In order to debunk my theory, do you think non-human creatures are able to comprehend aesthetic standing?

Categorization

As a class, we started off our material on Bell by approaching the subject of categorizing aesthetics under philosophy. When it came down to it, we determined that, at least by some degree, art and philosophy must have differences, and therefore to categorize aesthetics under the sole heading of axiology, or even philosophy, is not a just act. Likewise, as I draw from the material, to define aesthetics solely as a philosophical or artistic activity is incorrect as well.

From this we gather the simple yet complex idea that aesthetics must be defined with a combination of artistic and philosophical support. The questions this arose in my head began plaguing me. Is anything definable without philosophical input? And furthermore, can anything be defined only using philosophy, and be properly explained to satiate the audience?

Paradoxical Elitism

Many of us have found queer Bell's fortification for his theories. Many end up with simple, vague expressions with no sources, such as the key phrase for this discussion 'I know I'm right because my friends agree with me."Such phrases disprove the writer's validity and pervert the perception of the audience. This is because they are now biased to disbelieve or discredit the arguments, since proper evidence fails to be provided.

Although bell had an esteemed group of friends, and belonged to high-intellect societies, his inability to make his points fair and clear fogged up his entire theory. My question for you all is this; What would be strong evidence for Bell's theories, given he put aside his elitist position/

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post on 10/11/11 at 2:10pm

Clive Bell does, as we have discussed in class, completely ignore proper theoretical support. Elitism, in my opinion, is never truly a good thing to follow. Elitists are snobby, and condescend in most ways possible. When trying to prove things, such as in Bell's case, they often fog up their fortification by making vague remarks and faulty references. Based on Bell's essay, I would say that there's no way that his elitist writing can be refuted. Theories created by an elitist can be true and credible, but only if the writer can negate their elitist views for the duration of their essay.

I disagree with Bell's ideas on form as well. His view from the essay is very close-minded and exclusive, and closes off correct artistic interpretation. If we are not to judge something based on its content, then we are judging based on the content we receive from it, which follows most aesthetic theories, but closes out his originality, and in my opinion, correctness. I believe we can't judge something in ostensibly objective terms without using content.

Response to Jacob Wheeler's Post on 10/2/11 at 12:01pm

I would say that the situation you described above is about Tolstoy's argument that well-communicated art (perhaps interchangeable in his theory for "good art") is very infectious. Now, what happened in your scenario was discussed in class on Friday, and Johnson tried to make a mathematical expression explaining the situation, which in turn ended up turning infectiousness into a proportion of successful communications over the number of communications that were attempted, I.e. The number of times the work was viewed/heard.

With this spirit I would argue that the art would need more viewers and more judgments before it's status can be declared either way.

Transmitting the Emotions Necessary for Tolstoy's Theory

Another problem arose to me through Tolstoy's theory: two of the most important factors of defining art, he says, are its infectiousness and its content. If we reexamine Plato's theory, specifically in The Republic, we find that their is a "world of forms" and everything on earth - or everything physical, rather - is at least once removed from this world through imitation. How far removed then, I ask you, is the emotion being communicated to the audience through art?

For anything to exist, it has to exist in the world of forms. Otherwise the Gods would not know about it, but they know about everything, being omnipotent. Therefore, an emotion that we feel is an imitation of its true form in the world of forms. If we, being the artist in this scenario, were to transmit this feeling by portraying it in a work of art, the emotion within the piece would be an imitation of an imitation. Would this not make the emotion received by the audience members a 3rd-degree imitation, receiving a yet further-removed emotion?

Tolstoy argues in his What is Art? text that, in order for a work to have strong quality, it needs to be very infectious. This means that the artist has to feel the emotion strongly, the emotion has to be clear in the work, and that the recipient has to feel the emotion strongly. This seems to be a quizzical situation considering the above logic that I've provided through Platonic terms.

Help me figure this out - Does the emotion become weak, distorted, or false through all of this imitation, or does it remain strong and clear?

Obtaining the Emotions Necessary for Tolstoy's Theory

When we think of emotions, we think of the typical list - happiness, anger, sadness, fright - all of which are different states of your mood. However, Tolstoy doesn't delve into an important part of his theory - what are emotions, or how do we receive emotion?

A typical argument would explore how emotions come to us through experience. We learn emotions, but I would even argue that they are innate. Tolstoy would argue that emotions can't be based on the pleasure we receive from an activity or the lack thereof, because "If we sat that the aim of any activity is merely our pleasure . . . our definition will evidently be a false one." This is why he ventures further in his definition of art, arriving at the definition we know today, one that involves the communication of a specific emotion between an artist and an observer.

The problem I see in the grand scheme of things is that anything that you learn solely through experience has to have a starting place - whether your learn through the experiences of your models and then apply them to your own, or other circumstances. But in this way, you aren't learning emotions through experience, which causes me to question the origin of emotion. Therefore, I would argue that emotion is certainly (at least partly) innate. What do you all think - where do our emotions truly come from?

Will truth emerge?

In class, the question "how will a work's true aesthetic judgment be revealed?" was posed. To this, Johnson replied, "truth will emerge," echoing the words of Scottish philosopher David Hume. This references Hume's belief that, over time, true aesthetic value is achieved in a work of art through its endurance. This is a point upon which I find very interesting. In class, I refuted Hume's statement, questioning how popularity and time can support true aesthetic value if most people are biased critics. There is one possible outcome that I can gather; the population is actually biased to believe the true, "unbiased" perception. This brought up voting and, as Johnson pointed out, a vote for the right candidate for the wrong reason is the wrong way for a president to be elected. It is with this spirit that I question the previous conclusion on determining a piece's aesthetic values, and I offer my question to you, my classmates:

Will the truth emerge through unbiased mediums?

The situation of the population achieving a true, united perception above is, of course, biased. For truth to emerge, the common notion would have to be on an individual basis. Hume argues that we perceive through our sensory experiences, and our past experiences influence future instances. From this and other sentimental readings by Hume, I've concluded that taste (judgments and opinions) is subjective, and I believe that Hume, an empiricist, would concur. If taste is subjective, however, then a unified taste would have to be, at least on some level, objective. Is it possible to accumulate many individual opinions using an unbiased method, all the while making sure the opinions themselves unbiased?

Now let us consider popularity. To be popular, you must have many followers in a sense, or be well known among the population in consideration. In Hume's texts, he speaks of the unbiased individual whose judgments are the "standard of aesthetic taste and beauty." He says "few are qualified to give judgments on any work of art . . .." If few can correctly judge art, then how can an opinion of reputable art gain popularity through an unbiased medium?

These are simply my thoughts. Refer to any or all of my questions in your responses. Thank you all!

Response to Jacob Wheeler's Post on 9/25/11 at 12:12pm

The question of whether a human being can exist without a biased perception is interesting and has many different angles from which it can be "attacked." For one, we've learned that your perception of something is influenced by relative experience, as an empiricist would argue. This explains a lot of psychological phenomena - typically phobias and taste aversions - but also allows plenty of room for bias based on the previous experiences with the object or situation being perceived. Also, this brings about a confusing question; if you perceive based on experience, then how did you perceive something for the first time?

Now, if you take the question from a skeptical approach, you are arguing that sensory perception is fairly subjective and, although Hume argues it is "true for everyone," we don't actually perceive the object as it is, we just attribute different features to it as we perceive them. In this case, I would argue that there is room for a few unbiased critics if they completely subjugate themselves from their perceptions and concentrate on the axiological aspects of the work at hand.

In Hume's text, we learned that there are unbiased critics in the world, and although few, they can give a perfectly unprejudiced view. They have certain questionable attributes to hold, however. As Hume says:

"Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character; and the joint verdict of such, wherever they are to be found, is the true standard of taste and beauty."

Even if some of Hume's views are seen as controversial, he does depict an accurate description of an unbiased critic, so if one exists, they would portray these attributes, even though some are questionable in whether or not they form bias or can be achieved by a conscious human.

Response to DKJ's post on 9/14/11 at 9:19pm

I'm glad somebody's finally put that saying to shame, I'm quite the bird lover!

On the note of social intelligence in birds - GO BIRDS! Most humans haven't even figured out respect or the chain of command yet. Animal communication has always been fascinating to me - animals use lots of verbal commands, such as barking and whimpering - but many nonverbal commands as well, such as hand signals, staring, and other motions. For birds to be able to figure out their social structure on an intelligent level is absolutely astounding. However, the incredible thing is the Pinyon Jay's ability to recognize large groups of their "social class" at a time, and track their relationships for long periods of time. Now, your typical person may say "I can recognize a rich guy anytime, they wear suits and are well dressed". However, if we are truly to match the social adeptness of the Pinyon Jay, we must all look and dress as a typical person, and then make the distinctions from pure instinctual perspective.

Philosophy certainly ties in here. I would argue that it is the fault of the human that avian intelligence was looked down upon. Just because they are smaller beings does not signify lower intellectual functioning. It was through intellectual courage and humility that we could arrive at this new finding, and it is with intellectual honesty that we must embrace the new information to truly live a knowledgeable life filled with learning and comprehension.

Response to Carlys14's comment on Jacob Wheeler's post on 9/18/11 at 3:04pm

Nature untouched does indeed seem to have tranquil, supernatural properties. You posed your question speculating on the purity of nature. I would have to say no, nature is not pure, even when untouched. Pure, in the case of Plato's model (the thesis we are basing all of our conversations on this week) means "original" as I have discussed in my post before this one. No matter how exceptionally special or unique any natural scene seems to be, there is a model of it in the world of forms. As Mr. Johnson has told my class, nature is on the "craftspersons" level of imitation - it is simply the imitation of the form. Although it is not as far from perfection in Plato's model as art is, nature is still an imitation of its original form. Now, let us consider something Plato doesn't venture to often in his claims - change. Nature does change, through growth and weathering and other circumstances. Do the forms of these objects change as well? If so, what happens to the memories of the old objects, are they pure, or are there forms of all of these memories we hold in our heads in the world of forms as well? Another complication I love to bring up about Plato's model is that it is based on art, yet he himself and us students try to apply it to so many other things - namely, nature, memories, and so on.

What do you think happens when a tornado hits a rosebush? Does the form change, or does the rosebush become "pure" or "perfect" in a sense?

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post on 9/18/11 at 3:04pm

Plato's view of art, as we've discussed in class, is faulty at best, yet extremely intellectually intriguing. I personally don't agree with his views, being an artist myself and therefore very appreciative of unique, original works. Putting my discriminations aside, I would have to say that Plato's theory is a model of steps. As Jacob mentioned, poetry - one of the forms of art Plato mentions often in The Republic - is "thrice removed" from the realm of truth. The realm of truth, in this situation, is what we've learned to affectionately call the world of forms. Forms, in Plato's model, are the gods' creative ideas that become the blueprints of everything physical on the Earth. One main barrier between the world of forms and the Earth is that everything in the world of forms is true - perfect, eternal, and true. On Earth, however, everything is physically existing, therefore not eternal nor perfect. Truth also doesn't exist on Earth, in Plato's argument, however truth is used in place of the word "original". This is because Plato believes everything is modeled after the gods' forms, and therefore imitates its form. Art, however, is further removed from the world of forms because art - like poetry and visual art - imitates something that exists on Earth, which happens to imitate its own form. This is why Plato says art is the imitation of the imitation. In regards to what Jacob called "its [art's] potential dissemination in the utility thereof", I think Plato has an obscured vision of art. Although we've already concluded that Plato was very backstabbing to his own opinions between The Republic and The Symposium, I still think he was too carried away to place artists in a further place from truth than craftspersons, and I'm sure today's society would agree with me. Art is a staple for learning and enhancing creativity, and arguably holds more intellectual value than anything produced by a craftsperson.

Enough rambling from me, I'd like to hear from my peers; Which do you think is more intellectually stimulating and valuable; the works of a craftsperson or the works of an artist?

Response to Katie Russell's post at 4:01am on 9/16/11

You raised good points on the integration of axiological and ontological impacts on aesthetics. Aesthetics, in my opinion, are important because they distinguish the value of art. If you think the "starving artists" are poor now, just imagine if any picture you took or any paintbrush-to-canvas creation could be considered museum-worthy works of art. I, being a musician, would be traumatized if any chord progression or combination of notes could be put on an album. You see, aesthetics, although subjective, work through us to value art and keep it dignified. There is no sense in seeking "higher powers" to help us make these distinctions, as some early philosophers believed. No, instead we must use our own senses to separate the good from the bad to keep the art world a more appreciable, respectable place. Raccoon feces, the example we cited in class, is not considered by most, if any, to be truly artistic in nature. Therefore, its aesthetic value is low and negligible. However, if aesthetics weren't in place or held little importance, then the museums would be filled with raccoon feces and other ambiguous displays. Aesthetics, then, serves as a judgmental tool to define art, and a tool to declare the value of art. This, in my opinion, is the importance of aesthetics.

Perhaps a suitable question to pose after this is; are aesthetics truly subjective, as I believe, or are they objective, such as in the example of being determined by a higher power for the masses? Remember to support answers with proof as I have.

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post at 8:45pm on 9/11/11

Aesthetics, as I would argue, belongs specifically under the branch of axiology. All of the branches of philosophy, as we have learned, are very interdisciplinary and build upon the others. Therefore, assuming that aesthetics possibly lies under just a single branch of philosophy is preposterous. Putting the interdisciplinary connections aside, I would argue that aesthetics is primarily axiological. Axiological claims are what I like to call "claims of morality" or ethics. Ethical claims involve distinguishing right and wrong, or in this case "in" and "out", and to fortify any such claim, you need support; proof is the crux or any axiological claim or research paper alike. Proof, in itself, comes in many forms, most of which are epistemological or ontological. For instance, if you were to say "Murder is wrong" (axiological in nature because it is declaring the moral value of a situation), you would need to support that claim with proof, such as "murder causes other humans to die" (an epistemological or ontological claim depending on how you view the source of the statement and its application). Delving further, I believe that aesthetics is a subjective area of philosophy, regardless of late philosophers’' views. Beauty and its appreciation are subjective things because they are perceived personally on an individual basis. If you've ever taken a trip to Mass MoCA, you'd most likely find art many others consider beautiful that you could scoff at. However, considering beauty and appreciation, an individual must assess each piece of art to determine its value to them. Judgment is an axiological action because it separates and values some things from others. Although aesthetic claims must be backed up using proof from other philosophical areas, aesthetics is, in its bare form, a game of judgment to me. This is why I declare that aesthetics is a branch off of axiology.

I pose a particularly difficult question that has come up in class since it is strongly related to the above argument; what is your personal limit to beauty? Where does the line between an admirable, aesthetic work and a homely canvas covered in paint fall?  Is this a clean-cut line, or are there debatable works that fall into the middle ground? (for these answers, try to keep the art reference to visual works)

Welcome

This is my blog, a place of intellectual depth. Here we can ponder great philosophical texts and engage in clever, inquisitive discussions on the subjects of morality, aesthetics, and opinion. Welcome all, and please feel free to leave your thoughts here!