I do not agree with what Hume says about beauty. My personal favorite work of art out of an entire museum is not necessarily the most beautiful work of art. Giving each piece the same thought and wiping out any prejudice against something on the piece which otherwise may appear as “unattractive” is the only true way to distinguish art works of quality, is something else Hume claims. I strongly agree that the only way to find the “best” work of art is to wipe out any prior prejudice against certain qualities of the piece as Hume says. I do not believe that only certain people have the ability to do this. Everyone, with the proper education and will power, is able to distinguish quality from amateur. 

Any thoughts? Can anyone convince me otherwise? 

Good Versus Bad

My question to everyone is, is it possible for pieces to be better than others?

My opinion: With the proper skill and training all artists are on the same level. Obviously a five year old's stick figure drawing will not match up to a painting by an artist who has been studying art for fifty years of his or her life. However, if two five year old children with the same artistic abilities both drew pictures, then one would not be any better than the other. Perhaps one child drew a piece which had flowers and the other child drew a cat. If the observer preferred cats then the observers taste would automatically favor the drawing of the cat, and it would appear as the "better" piece. It is all a matter of opinion and taste. Skill level is a completely different level all together. Skill can only exist with practice and dedication.

What are your thoughts?

Indefinable

Finally...

Finally I can agree, perhaps not completely, with a theory on what art is. Morris Weitz claims that 'the nature of art as a practice makes definition impossible'. 

Why? Art is constantly evolving as a practice and until art is completely evolved we will not know how to define art. Can a practice fully evolve? 

No, a practice can never completely evolve. As long as humanity is around to create and invent new, innovative art forms, art will never reach a point where nothing else exist beyond that point. Perhaps genres are more difficult to create than new mediums, but that will never stop art from evolving. As long as humanity exists, so will art. 

Is art a philosophy or is philosophy an art? 

Nature's Art

Can nature's art be seen as the most beautiful art in the world? This question was brought up by Josh in his last blog.


Yes, nature's art is the most beautiful "art" in the world, but I do not think it can be considered art. Waking up to see a sunrise over the mountains like I do everyday is certainly something which inspires an aesthetic emotion. Nature's art is not intended art though, and therefore, it isn't true visual art. 
Nature can, however, be captured by an artist. Then and only then is it considered art. Whether it is a photographer or a musician capturing nature's art, it will always be art as long as it is intended. 
For me, and many people nature is the most beautiful thing to stare at. It memorizes us with its shapes, lines, and colors. Though we must remember that art is not always beautiful.


Can art be as beautiful as nature?  

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?