Response to Nicole's question of Weitz

I believe the importance of importance of this outlook is captured in Weitz' phrase what gives it aesthetic importance "lies behind the formula". It is not that the denial dismisses the import of the conclusion, the definition, or the formula that explains the observed aesthetic theory that  is the consequence of analysis under unique conditions. But that in fact that such a denial is necessary to understand how the unique conditions in which each theorist formulates hypothesis from and the relationship between what is observed and what is theorized. 


I think we should take a  more liberal approach to understanding the concept of "human made" so that if we see the Mona Lisa or a firefly in a piece of driftwood, then it is art. because our perception has been fashioned in a way which predisposes us to see the lines, colors, combinations and relations of as these real objects.


I think we can conclude that each person can derive some abstract or altered image of any object in our world and thus because our perception incorporates such experiences with objects into vastly different mental conceptions we are in a sense rendering such objects "human made". 


I think Weitz points out clearly that the classification of something as art, just as classifying something as a novel, solely and fallaciously lies on the comparison of other works that are described as a novel or art. I think that to classify driftwood as art or not, should not rest on its comparison to other works of art, but on investigation of the parts of the individuals which have been assimilated in a way that alters are perception of the driftwood, into art or not, but I agree that to characterize something as art based on a definition is missing to point.


We are investigating the relationship between people's perception, worldly objects, and the alteration and evolution of our conceptions through the relation between perception, objects, and the continued experience of there consistent intersection.

Bell's Aesthetic Theory

Bell's attempt to launch a theory based on a relationship between two concepts which are defined in terms of each other and grounded in obscure language of peculiarity and mystery offers difficulty in applying it for the practical use of understand art. However, we can understand and modify Bell's theory to offer, if not a complete understanding of Aesthetic theory, but a different lens to view the role and function of art.

"The relations and Combinations of Line, Colors, etc.." is the basis for the Significant form with itself being grounded in mysterious and unknown forms. Although this vague statement can be widdled away into criticism we could alter our understanding of it.

 These mysterious and unknown forms can be thought of as the various life-long intersections of our environment, upbringing, and biology. They are in fact unknown because unless we live in a world like "The Truman Show" with Jim Carey, the data installed in us, assimilated by our similar but unique biology would be utterly incalculable to create a comprehensive model in which to understand the scientific implications of aesthetics with. Therefore, to a large extent, such forms are mysterious and unknown.

If we supplant this new understand of the Unknown and mysterious than we are in a better position to apply his Aesthetic Theory for genuine purposes.

Secondly though we must redefine "Peculiar" Feeling and I believe our new definition will render his theory practical in understanding Aesthetic Theory in general, not as a holistic comprehension of aesthetics, but a modified and useful perspective.

The peculiarity of the Aesthetic emotion says Bell is that it belongs to a state of "Aesthetic Exaltation" the peculiarity lies in the belief that the state and perception of significant form lies disposition-ally in a realm unto itself. The emotion is Peculiar because of its, if not to us innate, latent quality that, if we reach artistic sensibility, we will find from any real work of art.

The peculiarity that we can observe lies in the discombobulated fashion which are brains uses to assimilate our the entirety of of experience with the wholeness of the designated work of art.

like the unknown and mysterious forms, this peculiarity seems to be without the ability to quantify it. so it renders us unable to find a precising causal relationship between the object, our experience, and our emotion.
But when we take a modern approach to considering that there does exist such a connection we can understand how and why Bell came to these conclusions and his theory does not leave us without truth value.

Thus the peculiarity and mysterious form as simply earnest attempts to categorize and explain actual phenomena in terms grounded in obscurity, however, this obscurity is made clear when we revisit Bell's thought process with our enhanced understanding of the subject matter.

Question 2

Could we conclude that art has some degree of universal appeal in an innate or cross culturally significant way?

Bell posits in the last paragraph that "Great art remains stable and unobscure because the feelings that it awakens are independent of time and place..."

I feel that with regard to Bells exacting criteria for determining works to be art that he is making a theory based on a limited number of works of art. I do feel that there is critical reasoning behind his assertion however. His discussion of primitive features and there importance in achieving aesthetic experience from suggests that the primal forms of are relatively cross cultural at least in the sense that they can have appeal or evoke aesthetic experience to the majority of humans. After learning that his favorite art piece was the small humanoid statue I was more apt to consider Bell's argument for primacy.

I feel there are certainly universal aspects of artwork that are cross culturally significant, as Dewey argued for, it seems that such universal aspects are ingrained in our social and our physiological biology as a mechanism for survival. In short, examples like the universality of the dragon ( the combination of the serpent, birds of prey, and carnivorous mammal) and the appeal to shininess as a quality of water, or of cave paintings definitions relationships which support survival, they all prove that there does exist some sort of innate quality to aesthetic appeal.

I call into question westernized pieces that require more inculcation of the social scene to evoke as powerful an experience as a dragon would cross culturally, but I do think with some generous understanding that Bell's assertion does have truth value, although perhaps in a different context.

Question 1

Which worldly experiences transcend  from " the world of man's activity to a world of aesthetic exaltation"?

Bell seems at first to supersede the form versus content debate among representationalists and formalists. but as we discussed in class Bell's thought pattern does not completely exclude content. It suggests the relationship between the two is necessary in a more abstract way which is less respective of content and more of form. But then this I feel does in fact contradict the divorce between this world and one of "Aesthetic exaltation".

I feel that to understand this with a sincere desire to capture Bell's thought pattern we must presuppose a platonic "world of forms" view that the abstract features of content which don't denote the Hawthorne tree outside precisely but that connote their more indistinct form. With this view we can simultaneously hold that the abstract form of the tree is found in "man's" world and the other described realm, but use this understanding to support the conclusion that the organic, or real object of emotional arousal lies in the mysterious and unknown form, thus separating the spatial world from the cognitive. I feel that as observers we can conclude that there is a relationship between our perception and the environment where our perceptions have developed and I think Bell understands this by trying to removing content which denotes specific worldly structures. However, he assumes that what is left from the content, the form, is itself independent of the worldly structures which render such forms with meaningfulness that varies from person to person.

So in Bell's view I think we can separate worlds, but when we supplant his understanding of form and content with our observed insight that the form of our biology and occurance of worldly content mixed within us are themselves manifestations of the real world and are not independent of it, but dispositions embedded in us as the form of a function of our individual evolution.

Response to Nicole's question on Clive Bell

I believe that this quote and Supporting quote before this one that "Art transports us from the worlds of man's activity to a world of Aesthetic exaltation" are to divorce the Aesthetic aspects of what he defines as art with most our of worldly contents, into a state unto itself.


His partial explanation seems to only capture a piece of the bigger idea about art in context with each individual life. In class we discussed the content and form relation and I think we can redefine his notions of our world and the world of Aesthetic Emotion where appreciation of art begins in order to capture his pure understanding of Aesthetic theory. This divorce is necessary to Bell because he overlooked forcibly or willingly the causal relationship between art as part of the physical world and Aesthetic experience as part of the cognitive world. I feel that if we modify his association of the quintessential aspects of content with the natural form which invokes in humans a peculiar emotion, then we can understand his perspective on art in an way that seems more accurate or insightful.


He is wrong only if we are ungenerous is our understanding of his claim, he seems to be in wholehearted belief that his conception is accurate and the stable foundation on which we can create a fruitful explanation of Aesthetic theory with, and when we modify it,  I think, we do find a usual approach to understanding an old but reexamined perspective of art.

Response to Nicole's question on Dewey

Dewey has a strong point about the Far reaching, biological relationship art has with human individually and collectively. 


We can see in many instances how art is corrupted and used to distort our perceptions of what is favorable, good, or worthy of approbation. The most significant effect of the capital-corporacratic influence in art is the perversion of human perceptions in a collective way which operates as the hitherto greatest apparatus for promoting, maintaining, and spreading the ideas, impulses, behaviors, and societal structure of the ruling institutions. 


The systematic mass production, consumer market stabilization, cost-benefit structure of the corporation ensures that all art, all means of aesthetic influence that are under corporate control are used as means to condition our perceptions and behaviors. The uniformity which arises from this conditioning renders people with increasing amount in commonality and direct-ability because through art a reality is established so that conditions, states, feelings, thoughts, and physical icons and objects that do not belong in the reality are outcast or left our of reality. 


Art is key at maintaining the status quo in in numerous ways, "capitalism" that Nicole is referring to is the status quo. The most primal, most fundamental areas in which art maintains the status quo through social division is the engenderment of the human sexes with characteristics establishing in our shared reality what a female and male are. 


It embraces the past forms of engendering the sexes which divides and assign statuses of domination to men and to accommodate to increase the division and or to cope with a society of increasing complexity. As seen in western corporate ideal of a women being promulgated to billions of people. Women's have been made into complete sexual objects through modern corporate "art". The sexual objectification in  advertisement contribute to and manifest  the rape-abuse culture prevalent across the world including U.S. colleges, the self value and perception deficit imposed upon our women based on their appearance and utility to men which as the corporate model incites is the use of women to dominate over in any way, as their own kind of a miniature king.


what is more scary is that if they are successful in convincing whole groups of people to dominate over other wholes groups of people, to exploit and use and dominate over for the lust and lack luster repentance for personal hurts and shortcomings or the impulse social mediums embed in them, if they do convince people that they can be their own miniature "capitalist" then the people in control will surely have a much easier time directing how people behave.


The alternative I think requires a collective consciousness to focus and deliberate on a resolve but in one persons limited view, I believe the the alternative is a removal of mediums which seek to centralize and make into uniformity aesthetic works which have a deceptive purpose. If we could remove barriers of integration of ideas, experiences, and means to express and enjoy art from more perspectives then we could truly hone in our artistic potential as humans. If we promoted art as a creative, innately diverse, and truly human activity, than I do believe it would bring us together, not in uniformity, but in an understanding that would to to progression on many levels.

Response to Catherine O.

So, with time, did these images cease being propaganda and become art? Are they history? I am not sure whether art has to be created with intention or not, but if it doesn't, then it very well could be art. However, can something be propaganda and art at the same time?

 

I believe it is always important in arguments to establish a common deffinitions of the primary terms of the discussion so that we always discuss relevant subject matter. I belive we did this with art and propaganda.

 

Art was broadly defined as the poesis, or "making" anything that we make for aesthetic and other emotive and or informative reasons.  

 

and propaganda, as Catherine said, simply dececptive poesis that incites a reaction desirable to the propagators of the propganda.

 

I agree with her in that we probably should consider these propagandish pieces as art work and propaganda, however, I do believe she raises a most interesting point on the matter of the re-adoption of this propagandic art.

 

Does the propagandish affects change from pure propaganda to art, and or to history because the purchaser is using the art for a different purpose?

 

In some sense we can subjectively make the argument it is propganda, contrary it be argued that is it history and or art devoid of past propagandic qualities.

 

If a U.S. military-buff pro-american imperialism, anti-rights for various groups of people, or anything else that denotes a deformed charcter, if one of these people get a hold of the art and celebrate this, if their intent is to spread a feeling of negativity toward Germans ( in this case), to convince others such deception if useful during war times, or really anything besides keeping it to warn of the dangers of imperialism and misinformation, than which that kind of bad intent I would consider it still propagandish.

 

The flip slide of the intent motive would be a peaceful, open-minded well-meaning person adopted the propaganda as part of an educational lesson or exhibit to show the dangers and horrors of centralized power, imperialism, and lies. This person with good intent, I believe, just transform the Propagandic art into historical art in the context that the art would know work to open minds and learn valuable lessons rather than emotively steer us into a cognitive ditch as so many people are steered into.