Animals and Art

Here is a question I found peculiar, "Can animals produce works of art?"
Of course not, I thought to myself, and I assumed that the majority of the class would agree with me on that topic. I was completely wrong. The class was torn on the topic of whether or not animals can produce art. The question in itself is ridiculous to me. How can a creature without a soul produce something which moves us in the same that a great work of art moves us?
Art needs to be created by something which has a soul. According to Dewey's beliefs art is what works. A bird builds a nest as its home because the nest will protect the bird. The nest "works". A bird uses its instincts to create something practical and livable. It does not intend for its nest to be viewed as art, even if the nest does have a certain beauty about it.
I do agree that animals can produce something aesthetically pleasing, but that does not mean it is art. If art was always what "worked" and was based off of our instincts we would not have art. We would always spend time thinking of practicality, we would build structures for our survival. Humans would be soul-less creatures. We may evolve from animals, but we are now worlds apart.

If humans were without a soul, would art exist? Do you agree or disagree with me?

Disagreement with Clive Bell

I am almost offended that Bell has neglected to mention music and focuses purely on visual art. I believe that music has an even greater chance of producing aesthetic emotion within its listener. Music also has what Bell calls significant form, however instead of lines and colors music has patterns, dynamics, rhythms, harmonies… in order to create the aesthetic experience. This being said, I cannot agree with Bell’s interpretation. Art is far too diverse to have any similarities. I believe that yes, aesthetic emotion does exist in every work of art which is art, but every aesthetic emotion is different. By this time in our lives most of us have been exposed to the feeling of aesthetic on several occasions. These experiences happened both within the art world and outside of the art world. From personal experience and experiences described to me by others I have found that aesthetic emotion exist in different forms. Each work of art creates a new and incredible experience for the audience. After all, if the same emotion was derived from every piece, wouldn’t there only be one singular work of art known to humanity?

Response to Samantha

Could this include a return to the purity of the life of the solitary id? With just the id (as in childhood), there are no repercussions, no guilt, no inhibitions, no obligations; just ignorant bliss. Would art ( such as the literature described by Freud) then be a tool and a mean of obtaining this state of mind, purity, and ultimately happiness? Am I reading too far into this? What do YOU think? 
Samantha's last question left me completely torn. During her last blog she mentions how the id is the most pure part of our being, and while I agree with her, I completely disagree. The id is the instinct which we initially act upon, it is what we are born with and what helps us to survive. Every living, breathing creature has an id. It is a state of no guilt or inhibitions, however I strongly believe it is not a state of purity. I would say our purest state lies within our super-ego, which is our conscience and steers us in the right direction by telling us right from wrong. Our id can easily lead us down the wrong path, and away from what is right. If we all acted on instinct this world would be far worse from what it already is. 
I do agree that art is a tool in which leads us to a state of purity, but ultimate happiness? Art could also lead us to a state of temporary depression if we see an artwork depicting death or destruction. 
I do not think you are reading too far into this, there is no such thing as "reading too far." There is always more to uncover within a piece of literature. There is always more knowledge behind what you already know. 


Does the super ego truly help the artist to create? 

An Iceberg

This week in class we discussed an iceberg and how it relates to the human mind. When we see an iceberg floating in the water we can only see 10% of the iceberg. The other 90% of the iceberg is hidden underwater. However, we can see a small portion of the iceberg although it is underwater. About 15% of what the water is hiding is viewable if we look up close.
How does this relate to our minds? The part of the iceberg which is completely visible is called our conscious according to Freud. The part which is underwater, but still visible upon closer examination is our pre-conscious. The part which we cannot at all see is our unconscious. Our conscious is what is known to us and our unconscious mind is what is unknown to us. The pre-conscious is what can be accessed, but it is still difficult to access.
Artists are special in that they are able to access the unconscious unlike a normal person who can only access the unconscious through dreams. Why can only an artists do that? Can anyone who studies art do access the unconscious or do they have to be born with the ability to do so?

If the artist does a "good" job and his artwork conveys a very strong emotion and message, however, the audience is unresponsive and doesn't feel this emotion, is the artwork considered a failure? This question was recently asked by Brycen on his blog. 
I feel that Tolstoy lacks many details in his works which attempt to explain art. According to Tolstoy if an artist cannot successfully convey his or her emotion to the audience then the artist's creation is not art. As mentioned in my previous blog entry, I strongly disagree with Tolstoy's ideas. In history there have been several artists ahead of their times, who's work received little praise at the time and the audience seemed unresponsive to the emotion(s) the artist tried to convey. This is most likely the cause of art which does gain a response from an audience. The artist did his or her job well, however the audience most likely does not understand the art produced because the artist was brilliant enough to grasp at concepts ahead of his or her time. Someday, the art will produce a response. 

Is Tolstoy wrong for saying something isn't art just because the viewer doesn't feel the intended emotion? 
This question was recently raised by Sean in his last blog entry. I strongly believe that Tolstoy is wrong by saying something isn't art just because a viewer does not feel the emotion the artist originally intended. Work has always been mis-interpreted by the masses, but that certainly does not mean the work isn't art at all. This means that the audience has failed to recognize the meaning behind the art, not necessarily that the artist has failed to portray the correct emotion or message behind the piece. The intention for the piece will always be there, whether or not the audience can understand is a different question completely. If a piece isn't understood by an audience or individual it doesn't mean that the creativity and passion were not put into a work of art. 
For centuries literature and works of art were misinterpreted by viewers and readers alike. Many artist intended certain themes, however readers or viewers found other themes as well. For instance, Earnest Hemingway intended his novel "The Old Man and the Sea" to be just a story and nothing more. He did not intend any sort of themes which readers have since found within its pages. 


What is art which doesn't have any intended emotion? 

Imitation or Interpretation?

One question raised by Chelsea was "Is art truly imitation or is it truly the artist's interpretation?"
According to Plato art is truly an imitation, however I strongly disagree with this. I believe that art is all based off of artist's interpretation. Saying that art is imitation is almost like saying that art is false and deceitful. True, some art may be meant to deceive, but for the most part art is a mirror of truth. Or the interpretation may fall somewhere in between, it all depends on what the original interpretation which the artists creates. An artist's interpretation will give the art more meaning then what Plato describes as an 'imitation of an imitation' or a false interpretation of nature. The interpretation can show viewers what art truly is to the artists.

What is art without imagination?

In Response to Kim's Question

If something is reproduced or even created by a machine would it be considered art?
In Kim's latest blog she raises this question. True, the art which is most prized in our society is the original art work. It is that way for a reason. When we look at a reproduced painting we aren't as impressed as we would be when looking at the original piece of art work in a museum. However, it is still art. Someone put in the thought and hard work or reproducing a piece so that we could admire and appreciate the art from our homes. Many will not have the opportunity to ever see the art up close. Even art created by a machine is still art, someone intended the art to be reproduced by the machine for the enjoyment of the public. If it wasn't for reproduced art many of us would never have the opportunity to see and appreciate art.
We also must consider the softwares we have for graphic design. A machine creates the art, but is it art? Yes, someone put in the intention and creativity. We also have technology in music allowing the world to hear symphonies they might not be able to hear otherwise. Though reproduced, it was still given the proper intention and creativity to be art.

Is technology a threat to art?