A response to Tania's question: In regards to art, how does one classify nature, clearly nature is functional, and as far as intention one may need to first consider a divine force in order to follow the question out a bit further, but if one were than where would it fit?
Some non-human sentient beings intentionally create architectural structures, others intentionally create (or recreate) music (performed solo, in duets, or in a chorus), some perform elaborate dances, some purposefully seek out specific objects that they then intentionally arrange in a unique pattern (“found art”), some adapt human-made instruments to create visual or musical arrangements. Given these facts, we should consider these types of non-human creations from an artistic point of view.
I believe beings with certain capacities far superior to human beings exist, however, I do not think that would necessarily make them divine beings. I do believe these meta-human beings intentionally create and express themselves in what human beings would consider artistic modes.
My Questions: Why do you think most human beings are so reluctant to consider the intentional artistic expression of mammals and birds as art?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Self-consciousness and Others
I believe the understanding in class is that, thus far, we have been discussing art philosophy from the anthropocentric perspective (a perspective I find incomplete in certain ways). After reading "Personhood and the Paradoxes and Challenges of Cultural Progress" I found myself wondering why many philosophical discourses continue to omit the potentially valuable inclusion of sentient non-human others. I assume there is a logical explanation for this purposeful omission, but I believe this omission interferes with our personal exploration and understanding of our world, with attending negative consequences for society.
Yake's discussion of Hegel's insight "we are what we can become as we see ourselves reflected in the eyes of those who look on us," was prefaced with the statement that "the flow and growth of personhood via self-consciousness is primarily the consequent of human interaction..." In today's disjointed society, with its incohesive families, estranged by divorce, physical, generational, and moral distances, more human beings find solace, companionship, and community in the company of non-human beings.
I am aware of how much I have grown (and seek to continue this self- and other-consciousness) from seeing myself reflected in the eyes of other (not human) beings. I believe that self- and other-consciousness would lead to moral considerations of others, creating a system of compassionate ethics that would encompass all sentient life forms.
My Question:
Can a self- and other-consciousness ethic be implemented in art?
Yake's discussion of Hegel's insight "we are what we can become as we see ourselves reflected in the eyes of those who look on us," was prefaced with the statement that "the flow and growth of personhood via self-consciousness is primarily the consequent of human interaction..." In today's disjointed society, with its incohesive families, estranged by divorce, physical, generational, and moral distances, more human beings find solace, companionship, and community in the company of non-human beings.
I am aware of how much I have grown (and seek to continue this self- and other-consciousness) from seeing myself reflected in the eyes of other (not human) beings. I believe that self- and other-consciousness would lead to moral considerations of others, creating a system of compassionate ethics that would encompass all sentient life forms.
My Question:
Can a self- and other-consciousness ethic be implemented in art?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Response to Jaime's Question: Does art exist without humans?
I believe that some members of nonhuman species engage in artistic expression on a par with human artistry; and that some, at times, experience ecstatic states, or metaphysical awareness from their own creation, or the appreciation of an other's artistic works. I believe that some birds, elephants, cetaceans, primates, monkeys, and canines produce art (some aural, some visual, some architectural).
I enjoyed your examples of feline art - they are extremely visually orientated beings, however, your point is well taken in that we are unable to determine (human limitation) what their intentions are for producing this art.
My Question:
Do you think art is necessarily metaphysical, meta-hedonistic, and should produce distinguishable evolution through insight, epiphany, increased understanding or awareness of self, others, or one's world to be considered as art?
I enjoyed your examples of feline art - they are extremely visually orientated beings, however, your point is well taken in that we are unable to determine (human limitation) what their intentions are for producing this art.
My Question:
Do you think art is necessarily metaphysical, meta-hedonistic, and should produce distinguishable evolution through insight, epiphany, increased understanding or awareness of self, others, or one's world to be considered as art?
Scruton's Claim of the Superiority of Instrumental Music
Scruton's claim is based on his belief that music has been designed as an inherently moral and religious tool for the evolution of humankind as individuals into morally and aesthetically superior societies. He uses the musical forms of historic Western/European societies as the standard against which he judges current musical forms. He chose traditional formation dance as the instrument to illustrate his claims of a properly ordered (and sexually obsessed) community, and that modern dance represents a decline in morals as well as music (p. 119).
I disagree with Scruton’s claims for a number of reasons. First, he is applying an historical culture-specific standard to the tapestry of a globalized, modern, culturally integrated (or at least, exposed) expression of music and dance. His references are temporally and spatially inappropriate for such modern globalized societies. Second, formation dance is well practiced in country music, contra-dance, polkas, Celtic and other traditions. Third, his claims ignore the universal biological element of music’s affect on sentient organisms.
Music is an undeniable force of life; sentient beings are compelled to respond to it. The degrees of response experienced by a species and by an individual exist on a continuum. I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Scruton's assessment that music has potential for offering a character forming nature for us; some of its affect - the biological and emotional responses it elicits from its audience can be aspirational.
The majority of these responses have their origins in biology. I believe these original and primarily functions were engineered to facilitate reproduction in sentient beings (maybe this is why Scruton can't disengage dance from sexual expression?). As a species or an individual evolve, the physiological functions formerly served by music (or any inessential for life function an organism has evolved beyond) can be replaced by aesthetic, hedonistic, or spiritual patterns. Music’s primary role can shift; it can become a tool for socio-political purposes, or artistic and/or spiritual evolution of individuals or societies. I think music has always served individuals in this way, although I think the degree to which that occurs has been undervalued. Today’s society is a diverse, multicultural aggregate of class, age, and spiritual beliefs; and music is clearly a reflection of the societies that consume it.
My Questions:
1. Is globalization a greater influence on modern music than melody, harmony, tonality, or musical style?
2. What impact (if any) has globalization had on religiousness as it relates to music?
I disagree with Scruton’s claims for a number of reasons. First, he is applying an historical culture-specific standard to the tapestry of a globalized, modern, culturally integrated (or at least, exposed) expression of music and dance. His references are temporally and spatially inappropriate for such modern globalized societies. Second, formation dance is well practiced in country music, contra-dance, polkas, Celtic and other traditions. Third, his claims ignore the universal biological element of music’s affect on sentient organisms.
Music is an undeniable force of life; sentient beings are compelled to respond to it. The degrees of response experienced by a species and by an individual exist on a continuum. I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Scruton's assessment that music has potential for offering a character forming nature for us; some of its affect - the biological and emotional responses it elicits from its audience can be aspirational.
The majority of these responses have their origins in biology. I believe these original and primarily functions were engineered to facilitate reproduction in sentient beings (maybe this is why Scruton can't disengage dance from sexual expression?). As a species or an individual evolve, the physiological functions formerly served by music (or any inessential for life function an organism has evolved beyond) can be replaced by aesthetic, hedonistic, or spiritual patterns. Music’s primary role can shift; it can become a tool for socio-political purposes, or artistic and/or spiritual evolution of individuals or societies. I think music has always served individuals in this way, although I think the degree to which that occurs has been undervalued. Today’s society is a diverse, multicultural aggregate of class, age, and spiritual beliefs; and music is clearly a reflection of the societies that consume it.
My Questions:
1. Is globalization a greater influence on modern music than melody, harmony, tonality, or musical style?
2. What impact (if any) has globalization had on religiousness as it relates to music?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Is Philosophy an Art? A response to Ed’s response.
Definitions of philosophy [Gr.,=love of wisdom] - study of the ultimate reality, causes, and principles underlying being and thinking. It has many aspects and different manifestations according to the problems involved and the method of approach and emphasis used by the individual philosopher. < http://www.reference.com/browse/philosophy>
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy>.
Philosophy was designed as a forum for creative communication, an intentional medium with aspirations for the expansion of awareness of individuals and societies.
Your definitions of art include "The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. Whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art. Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself ... but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the conscious intention of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art."
I believe Philosophy was created as an art form. The fact that some "philosophers" are poor artists is a reflection on them, not on the philosophical medium.
My Question:
Should we classify artistic mediums by examples of their highest representation or by the quality of execution of their creators?
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy>.
Philosophy was designed as a forum for creative communication, an intentional medium with aspirations for the expansion of awareness of individuals and societies.
Your definitions of art include "The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. Whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art. Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself ... but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the conscious intention of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art."
I believe Philosophy was created as an art form. The fact that some "philosophers" are poor artists is a reflection on them, not on the philosophical medium.
My Question:
Should we classify artistic mediums by examples of their highest representation or by the quality of execution of their creators?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)