Response to Blog: Beliefs

This is a response to Natasha's post on beliefs. She asks Where do our beliefs come from? Where did Plato’s beliefs about art stem from? Did he have a life changing experience with a bad piece of art one day and thus condemn it? What drives people to convince themselves that what they believe is true SHOULD be true for everyone?
I think that everyone believes something. Looking at religion, I believe in God and I know that some people don't believe . However, your not believing in something is holding a belief. A person who doesn't believe in God, holds the belief that there is no God, Confused? Good. I think that beliefs are apart of who we are. We cannot be absent of beliefs, we must believe in things in order to do or day to day tasks (i.e. some people believe it isn't OK to shower everyday so they don't. Some people believe that it is important to brush your teeth after every meal, so they do.) Beliefs shape our behaviors and who we are. Anyone absent of a belief is absent of life.
In regards to Plato, I feel his belief in art stemmed from his unwavering belief in logic. He is more about reason, and doesn't like the idea that art doesn't use reason. Art is based on "infecting" people and playing on their emotions. So from his strong belief in logic, he rejects art because it simply isn't reasonable or logical. I do not know enough about Plato's history, however I do believe his teacher (i think it was Socrates) held the same belief and therefore that belief got instilled in him. That is one thing I forgot to mention above. The environment you grow up in and what is instilled with you does affect what beliefs you hold up to a point. When you become absent from that particular environment, and start to shape your own belief from what you yourself have researched or experienced that could be said to be an additional influence to how you act about things and what values you hold.
One thing I do not do with my Christianity is force people. I would talk about God and Jesus to people and ask them if they believe and go from there. I think only close-minded people try to force things onto others because they haven't grasped the idea that EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. People find it hard to accept people as they are sometimes, and constantly believe that their view is "the right view." I don't agree with these people, but hey what are you going to do? OK so with that said, my question is, How would Tolstoy view an artist who does create work with true feeling, however he also has the idea in his head that he wants to entertain the audience as well as get a paycheck? Is wanting to make a living through art wrong in Tolstoy's eyes?

The Art of Communication

I must say that Tolstoy brings up interesting points when it comes to what he deems as art. He makes many points as to what art is and as to what art is not, one idea that he brings up is, "....think that art..is so highly dangerous in its capacity for infecting people against their will, that mankind would lose far less if all art were banished, than if every kind of art were tolerated." This is basically an argument against Plato who believes that all art should be banished because it stirs up emotion. I like his notion here because it is true. Many people underestimate the power of art and the "powers" that it has. Art has the power to make people smile, make people forget about things, and just escape the real world for a little while. Do you know how many nights I spent listening to music (which I consider art), or reading an inspirational poem because it makes me feel better and encourages me? Without this I feel like society wouldn't be able to function and just crumble. Art is also an escape into logic an reason. There are some kinds of art (especially poems) that gets the gears in my head turning and make think about things in prospective. I feel like art is a special way for people not only to show their talent, but to communicate their feelings. We can communicate our thoughts to words, so why are feelings so different. Yea I can say o boy I am sad today or O YEAH!! I AM SO HAPPY, but words only go so far. Living on the verbal level we aren't able to fully get across how we really feel, So in order to truly share our happiness with others, to truly share our experience with others, we should be able to have a medium ( a non-verbal medium) in which we can fully create how we feel and "infect" others with that feeling. IT is like playing telephone, but instead of talking we place our "words" and "feelings" into a project and then get it across to others. So as I said before I do believe what Tolstoy was getting at, when he said what he said is highly commendable. With that said, What do you think the formula for Tolstoy's view of art would be and why?

Answer to Fay Bartow's Blog

In this blog the question that was posed was, what makes art so appealing. This is an interesting question because many types of questions can arise from the premise of this one question. What does make art have the draw that it does on people? Why do people feel the need to create art? Why do we contribute a whole building to art and pay money just to walk around as critics saying what we dislike and like? There are many questions that can arise from this one simple one.
First I mainly believe that people create art because it is a means of expression. It is an outlet for them to let out whatever fears, troubles, anger, happiness etc that they cannot communicate to others. Some people just aren't talkative people, or just don't like sharing things with others, or they just don't know how to communicate well beyond a certain point. This is where art comes in for them. They put their feelings into what they paint, write, draw, compose etc. They portray what they are feeling through art!
I feel like people are drawn to art because it is interesting to see the different ways people express themselves. It is interesting to try and guess what the artist was feeling, what they were thinking, and what they were trying to communicate. I have paid money to get into a museum because I feel art opens a new window to a world not frequently visited. Art is a break from the norm and defies boundaries and goes against what people are use to which I think is OK to do. The bottom line, I think art is appealing because it opens doors and windows that aren't always open. It is the line between creativity and the real world. With this said my question is, Can art create a communication barrier between people? If art is the only way someone knows how to communicate can art be dubbed as a communication inhibitor?

Imitation of Imitation

OK so after reading chapter 1, I have come to the conclusion that Plato was a really interesting person that had a lot of interesting thoughts. He is the classic example of being close minded and too set in his ways. The way he dismisses art and just rejects it, without really giving it a chance can be viewed as ignorant. He speaks of art being an imitation of an imitation, and that there is no place in society for such things. Supposedly artists know nothing about the topic/object they are writing/painting about and are therefore imitators and deceivers. I understand that it is good to be logical and it is convenient to have things that you can touch and measure, however things cannot always be dubbed with reason. There needs to be a break from reason and an appeal to the emotions, just because it is the human thing to do. Plato explains that there are two parts to the soul, the logical part and the weak part which is the part that appeals to emotion and gets influenced by art. According to Plato the painter destroys the "rational." So God forbid I enjoy a work of art, and am moved by a piece of poetry, I could be looked at as ignorant, easily fooled and irrational according to Plato? I love looking at works of art and guessing what emotion was felt by the painter as he painted. I don't care that he didn't study the thing he painted or that he knows squat from where it came from. I love to see what goes on in another person's head and I don't care what Plato says, once a painter paints their version of a bed, a desk , or a chair; it automatically becomes their work of art; their original. I think Plato was the ignorant one just because he was closed minded to the arts. Is it wrong to want to escape reality for a while through art? Does everything have to rely on logic/reason?

Answer to Blog - William Trial

This is a response to William Trial's blog. He raises a similar question to mine and one that we are supposedly going to find out in this course, which is What makes art, art? Like I mentioned in class and in my previous blog I deep down with everything I have believe it is all about taste and knowledge of the subject. One thing I have to ask, and I pray that the professor won't fail me for (just kidding) is what is the point of philosophy? We try to study art in its artness, music in its musicness and religion in its diviness, but when it boils down to reality, we are never going to know everything bout a particular subject and I feel that is what philosophers are trying to do. I have a Power of Words class and in it I am reading this book called "How to develop your thinking ability?" I read a chapter the other day, called Only God Knows All (which I believe is true.) In the chapter it says, "The people who make the most adequate verbal maps are those who are thoroughly aware of the incompleteness of their knowledge." It is preposterous to try and find out everything about something and that is what I feel like this subject is trying to do. I am in no way bashing the subject, but to answer the question what is art and what makes art, art can be called impossible. TO evaluate the means of which people have tried to get to this answer would be a more acceptable notion. Like I said before, I do believe what someone deems as art should be looked at as so even if someone else disagrees. I do believe we will become more knowledgeable about theories, but to answer these questions (attempt to answer these questions) can be compared to running around in a circle; you are back where you started. SO with this said, how may we answer these questions (what is art, what makes art) if they are unanswerable?

Intro to the Nature of Art!

Reading the introduction to "The Nature of Art" I found the topic to be interesting and am entering this course with a positive outlook. The introduction of the book tackles the many views that will be discussed in the book pertaining to art. The questions being answered will be what is art? What makes art art? and How can we judge whether a piece of work can be labeled art. Looking at the introduction is interesting just to see the many views that are raised and the many good and interesting theories that are brought up. For one, the intentionality theory. A piece of work can be referred to as art as long the "artist" intended it to be art. This mean a work of art cannot happen by accident or through improvisation. The piece should be a planned intended piece of work. I do not know how I feel about this theory and as we discussed in class there are many holes in it. This theory is inclusive but then can't one say that art itself is exclusive..ahhh. The way I feel about art is that we must be well understood and knowledgeable about it in order to pass judgement; and since there is no way to fully understand something, I believe it all relies on taste then. You like what you like, I like what I like. You think that piece of crap is art and I don't it is as simple as that. However, we are human and as we know the nature of humans are far from simple. We must have an explanation for everything....we NEED an explanation for everything. We have to ask questions because we are never satisfied. There seems to be a need to pick at everything and try to break it down to every last nook and cranny, (Ever heard curiosity killed the cat?) In this case curiosity makes philosophers go crazy!! So in regards to art let me ask you this, Can we truly answer the question what is art?