I'm total in agreement with the idea that we can't come up with an all-inclusive definition of art. Every time I've sat down and tried to think of a solid answer, I keep finding exceptions to the rule! But, some of the things I've been mentally juggling are audience and intention, and how much they factor into how we attempt to define art.
At first, I thought of all the kids' drawings on refrigerators across the world - are they art? Even if no one but their parents sees it? I am inclined to say yes - as was stated in the post below, I think the act of creation (as they said, in an artful manner) can be called art, even if the artfulness is only appreciated by the person making it. Where I get stuck is, wondering if how much the audience matters -the self making the art is still an audience, after all. Does someone need to call it art for it to be art?
In the above scenario, it's art because the maker is reveling in artfulness and artistry, but does that mean that artistic intention is what makes it art? I don't have the answers, but I do know that this video complicates things a lot:
I'm astounded by how intentional the elephant's brush strokes seem. I also wonder if this elephant would have taken up painting if not for the human audience and encouragement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree that the elephant painting phenomenon is amazing. I find something seedy about the whole training process, but I still think that if people think it's art, then it's art. To qualify it I provide a link to snopes, which did not debunk the idea.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp
Your post reminded me about a sci-fi (kinda) novel called "Never Let Me Go", by Kazuo Ishiguro. In that book a class of human clones (called "donors") is created for the purpose of providing organs to the sick and injured, and in an effort to humanize these donors in the eyes of the public, certain caring people teach the clones art (especially painting)so that they can express themselves.
It's a God-damned trained elephant! Come on people--if someone thinks this is art one of two things is happening. Either they're (1) doing a very sophisticated Thoreauvian/Duchampian found art thing, in which the aesthetic comes from within and in which case the aesthetic experience has little to do with the elephant at all, or (more likely) (2) they're aesthetically dead; they really doesn't care about art at all and experience it only as the occasional mildly interesting or distracting phenomenon. Have pity on such creatures, for their lives are not lives, but only the metal, mechanical semblance of life.
ReplyDelete(Yeah, I've spent my weekend reading Thoreau.)
Immanuel Kant in his essay “Critique of Judgment” discusses a variety of topics such as beauty, art, taste, and aesthetics. He also lays out the basis for understanding the principles of aesthetics. To begin with, he thinks that there is more than one aesthetic judgment. He is of the opinion that the agreeable, the beautiful, and the sublime are all aesthetic judgments. The good is also considered as such, however, to a lesser extent than the others. According to him, the good is “the moral good,” which is perceived as being the ethical while the agreeable is strictly a sensory judgment, such as having a sense of warmth or cold. The beautiful and the sublime, however, are the subjective and universal judgments, which must be made with everyone’s approval. According to Kant, the “beautiful is what, without a concept, is liked universally,” while pure aesthetic judgment is the “judgment of taste.”
ReplyDeleteAmong the most interesting and provocative passages in Kant’s “Critique of Judgment” is the section titled “On Beauty As The Symbol Of Morality”. It conveys the opinion that the mere experience of the beautiful creates liking (pleasure), which he claims includes the agreement of everyone else. In other words, it points out that a beautiful object is connected with a pleasurable feeling, and that it gratifies universally. Kant is right in saying that the beautiful is the symbol of the good because it brings pleasure to mind and soul. In addition to making the analogy between the beautiful and the morally good, Kant also notes that the aesthetically beautiful pleases directly, or immediately, however, morality pleases in its concept.
In response Dr. Higgins's comment: judging by some conversation I've had with people over the weekend, I think that most of the positive reaction to the "Elephant" art derives primarily from vague emotions which don't have anything to do with art. Just a thought, but I suspect that many of these people want elephants to survive (this is good), and they believe that if they can prove that elephants provide something intangible (like artistic expression), then killing those elephants would be a goose-and-golden egg kind of fallacy. These are the same people who talk about how intuitive their pets are. It's insipid. But the trainers amaze me-- what they do must require a lot of tenacity and skill.
ReplyDelete