Why do we care so much about aesthetics? I guess this is a kind of closing blog, which will probably be filled with mainly questions. We all have all sat in class day after day with some kind of objective, so I guess I’m asking what that has been for each of us. I understand that the answer will most likely differ, however I ask out of curiosity. Is it aesthetics that kept us there? Was it the challenges that some of the arguments raised to notions that we already had? This course was an upper level elective and so we all choose to be there, so why?

The things that can effectively be argued as being art, seem to serve no actual practical use in an average individual’s day to day life. By average I simply mean the random person that one could bump in to on the street. However, the truth is that we are all constantly bombarded be constant expressions of art, and thus it becomes very difficult to not care about that which is so prevalent in our lives. No matter how indefinable we may find the topic to be at times. It is in part because of this, at times indefinable quality that we take so much pleasure in it being a topic of discussion.

Does the lack of a universal definition of art allow for art to be subjective? In other words, can something be art to me, but not to someone else?

First I'm not sure that when people say that they do not consider something art, that they in fact mean what they say. I think some of cases what people mean when they say that something is not art is that it is not good art according to their taste. Also, I think that what tends to happen sometimes is that people say they do not like things simply because they do not fully understand them.I personally do not a agree that simply because we cannot come to a universal definition on something that this thing then comes subjective. It just means that the definitions which we have are no fully adequate, and that they still need to be refined. There are common conceptions of things which are not art, and although this may not be a helpful argument as to what is art, it could be a starting point. I do admit that art does contain qualities which are subjective such as beauty, however, the presence on such qualities is not what defines art as being art. I think that part of the difficulty with defining art is that, art is in part a mode of expression and thus in constantly developing or growing as are those individuals who create it.

If it's true that art expression is ever changing then can we ever come up with a concrete definition of it?

Is participation in the arts from an early age beneficial to the development of a child?

Of course it is. I mean its a creative outlet. One that unfortunately not enough children get to exposure to. I understand that sometimes its hard to believe everything that one reads about, studies done on this or that, since it always seems that for every study on one that proves it to be useful there is another study done somewhere else that proves otherwise. However, there are countless studies done on children who have early exposure to art and they always seem to have a positive outcome. The are correlations between critical thinking and art. Its been shown that children who pick up instruments at an early age tend to do better in subjects like math, or do well in school generally. Art helps children look a things from a different perspective than they get from other subjects. In truth art is found in so many of they're subjects at an early age not only to keep them entertain and thus interested but also to stimulate various parts of they're brain. Walk into any kindergarten class room and notice that some of the books they read and beautifully illustrated, in order for there to be connection made between language and the visual.
Pregnant women get told to play classical music to their children in womb, so its starts from the earliest of development stages. Like I stated previously its trusting various studies is always difficult (especially since I am not single out any in particular, but rather speaking more generally) but it seems that most studies do point to there being a reason for books or shows like "Little Einsteins" to use art works and classical music in their production.

What do adults gain from art? (I'll leave it general)

Do you think most people's decisions are based in their morality?

First, it seems that everyone must base moral decisions, on morality. However, I do not think that every decision one makes is a moral decision. Sometimes there are practical decisions. For instance should I wear flip flops when its snowing outside? I also think that sometimes the lines of these kinds of decision can become crossed, such as in the case of people choosing to become vegan or vegetarian. For most, this falls into the realm of the moral.Since, for some the killing of animals (moral) should not be less of a concern than our survival (practical). In the case of art it becomes a complicated matter since, there are various layers. Can the individual separate something's artistic merits from morality? and even if one can, should they? or to go back to the originally question and frame it, through a certain light of art: does someone's decision to produce something which may be thought to be immoral to a certain extent reflect their own individual morals? and truly how much does the answer to the previous question matter or should matter to the general public when viewing that individuals artwork?

In classifying things as art, the thought is to differentiate that which is and is not. However, I wonder how much of this classification is driven by fear. It sounds almost absurd to think that some of the distinctions one makes in choosing what is to be taken as art, an emotion would be taken into consideration. Although, since we are not only rational beings but also emotional ones, it stands to reason that at times judgments may be clouded by person's or a society's emotions. I bring this up in regards to our latest chapter. In the first article by Kieran, he briefly touches on the notion that society may be reluctant to view pornography as art because of the connection it would have with morality. So my question is this: does the classification of something being art in turn validate that which is being depicted? We've all seen paintings of wars, and in light of this example, the previous question does not seem to fit. However, in the case of pornography in relation to the previous question as well as to the notion of fear;society may fear that it is somehow saying that what is being done is valid, since it is art.

Take for instance the Marque de Sade's 120 days of Sodomy, there are some rather disturbing acts that take place in book. If this is considered erotica or pornography and also art, does it means that the what happens in the book is also art? Could fear in this instance, of what that could possibly mean for our moral values, be a factor in its consideration of art?



Text from the translation of the book found on
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/120Days/

This is part of day fifteen.



"Do you want to shit?" he asks.

"No, Monsieur."

"Well, I do, I’ve something copious to get rid of, if you’re interested in the pertinent facts; so prepare yourself to satisfy this particular need of mine . . . take off your skirts."

They are removed.

"Lie down upon that sofa. Raise your thighs."

Lucile settles herself, the old notary arranges and poses her so that her wide--flung legs display her cunt to the fullest advantage, in which open and prominent position it may be readily employed as a chamber pot. So to use it was his heavenly intention; in order that the container respond more perfectly to what is to be demanded of it, he begins by widening it as much as possible, devoting both hands and all his strength to the task. He takes his place, pushes, a turd lands in the sanctuary Cupid himself would not have disdained having for a temple. He turns around, eyes his work, and with his fingers presses and thrusts the filthy excrement into the vagina and largely out of sight; he establishes himself astride Lucile once again, and ejects a second, then a third stool, and each is succeeded by the same ceremony of burial. Finally, having deposited his last turd, he inserts and tamps it down with such brutal zeal that the little one utters a cry, and by means of this disagreeable operation perhaps loses the precious flower

Are the categories or classifications of "works of art" as they currently exist, sufficient or insufficient? Do they invite or discourage art


I think that the mere existence of a class such as ours shows that there is something in the classifications of what are works of art that maybe is not insufficient, but lacks some refinement. In order to identify "works of art" one must define art. Although, there are definitions out there as to what art might be, since they are not universal definitions, they thus place various works into "works of art".
I very much doubt that the purpose of these definitions, is to in any way discourage art, they are rather attempting to understand art's nature. The more one understands something the better one is able to appreciate aspects of it that are worth appreciating. Understandably,although the theory of what something's ideal purpose and its actual effect might sometimes differ, its seems that in the case of art this does not apply. Since there is not a universal definition, if one creates something which one wants others to considered art, one must simply present reasoning as to why it is art and chances are that more than a few others will also take it to be art.The discouragement of art, does not come from the classification of what it is but from whether or not, what it is has any value. For instance schools with small budgets deciding that the best things to take money way from are the art's program, therefore showing that in the eyes of their school system the value of arts is not comparable to something else.

One hears that there is a rise in appreciation of the arts, but is this really true? In our country will it ever be the case that more schools rally harder to keep their art programs or will they always be the first to go?

With game systems like Wii which force the gamer to actively participate (let's say, bowling for example), when this much physical effort is needed to play a game, what is it that prevents the gamer from going out and actually participating in real-life situations (i.e. actually going bowling)?

Although,one does exert more physical effort when one plays games such as Bowling on Wii, the truth is that the effort is not equivalent to the effort that would be put forth is the activity were being done in actual life. The respond being that its seems that what these types of games have that stop people from experiencing life outdoors is the same types of factors that stop gamers of regular video games.As to what that is I am not quite sure other than it seems to stem from being able to live out some kind of fantasy that they would other wise not be able to obtain. It may seem that in the case of more "realistic" games such as bowling, this fantasy could be obtained however, the games are still video games and so certain qualities such as high scores are more easily obtained in the games then in real life, since the Wii stick is not as heavy as a regular bowling ball. There might also be a kind of comfort that is gained from being able to perform in a more private setting.

How do we aesthetically appreciate computer graphics in regards to games?

Trading card games, such as Magic: the Gathering, often commission artists to create original artwork for their cards. Would these pieces, commissioned specifically to appear on a trading card, be considered works of art? Would the cards on which the artwork appears be considered works of art, themselves? Or the trading card game taken as a whole?




This is a very interesting question, since it leads to something more general being asked about the creations of artist. The general question being : if an artist is asked to create something as an artist, then is that which the artist creates always art?
As to the the answer of the more general question and to this particular example, it seems that if the artist were to create the piece with the intention of it being view as art, then it seems that these pieces could be considered art. Although, it may be that the only part of the card that could be considered art would be the actual image itself, not that the whole card or the game, since the primary intentions of the cards or the game would be to be played and not to be held in recognition for aesthetic appreciation.
The artist is commissioned, since he or she is an artist, in the hopes that they will create art. If the artist then takes on the task with the fullest of intentions to be the creation of art, and since one is still working in a medium which is established as art, then it seems that image could be called art.

If an artist is asked to create something as an artist, then is that which the artist creates always art?

Do the gains from exposure to virtual traumatic fiction outweigh the losses from that exposure?

The perspective on fiction as a phenomenon developed evolutionary to provide training for real life situations is very interesting, while being allowed a larger margin of error, then one would be allowed in a real-life situation. Indeed, having more time at your disposal to think about solutions to extreme situations and not being pressured as stringently by fear or even panic, can prove to be a useful exercise. However, it is important to make a distinction between the quality and the quantity of such experience, in order to help us evaluate the gains and losses.

In connection with this view is Aristotle's theory of why people go to tragedies, and although tragedies and horror and not the same, tragedy still seems to be the foundation of horror. Aristotle thought that one was constantly being weighed down by certain feelings that may not be that helpful in one’s daily life. Tragedy cleanses two of these particular feelings, pity and fear. The understanding one gets is that, by being cleansed that one then becomes a more courageous being. For this to be the case it should be that after one sees the play, is exposed to it, then the material portrayed in the tragedy should no longer provoke sentiments of fear or pity when faced with reality. It’s as though the tragedy has desensitized the individual in a way. This desensitization is helpful.
Both theories point to horror or tragedy being a kind of necessity as an explanation as to why one would enjoy the genres.

What do we make of Aristotle's theory?