Response to Jaime: Does Lack of a Universal Definition Allow Art to be Subjective?

I believe some forms of art must exist that would be universally (for beings possessing the necessary biophysiology to experience the artistic medium) recognized as art (musical expressions spring to mind). I also think some visual art forms possess the capacity to trigger within us an internal recognition of their intrinsically artistic nature, and that this also occurs universally (same caveat).

Definitions of art often tend toward the subjective, but art is not necessarily subjective or objective. Objects subjectively defined as art, particularly when money or fame is the primary motivator for their creation, will often be considered art by some, but not others; others are created from a construct radically beyond the accepted concept of a societal norm (see Ed’s link to Natalie Jeremijenko: Tree Logic in his Art and Aesthetics blog entry).

Artistic expression can manifest in objective form, while resonating with certain bio-physiological elements of our being, which we interpret artistically.
Question: Do you think art can be created and understood objectively?

Art - Where Did It Come From? Where Is It Taking Us?

In "But They Don't Have Our Concept Of Art," Denis Dutton raises the issues of appropriation, colonialism, anthropological ethnocentrism, and aesthetic ethnocentrism.

I chose to respond to the question raised by DKJ in Q & A #10 through the issues raised by Dutton. I developed my philosophic inquiry from a bio-evolutionary, ecological viewpoint rather than an aesthetic or an anthropological perspective.

Individual and societal concepts of art are ecological reflections of the diverse historic, cultural, and environmental origins of the concept-holders. Given the great biodiversity of the planet’s natural communities, divergence in the composition of concepts between individual and group inhabitants would occur naturally along a continuum. Along this continuum, the nature and degree of conceptual divergence would reflect the degree of difference-intensity between the inhabitants’ respective natural communities. This intensity is remarkably related to each society’s original concept-producers and the ecologically-driven processes necessary for the fulfillment of their life-cycle requirements within their respective natural communities.

The life-cycle requirements of tribal individuals and communities of the Saharan Desert, Tibet, and the Amazon Jungle would necessarily be met through radically different means. This is true, as well, for the individuals and communities of Hong Kong, Montreal, and Los Angeles.

Adoption and modification of others’ goods and practices are normal elements in the evolutionary process; these traits are characteristically found among intelligent species.

I believe the appropriation of others’ goods is an instinctual element of the evolutionary process common to all species morphologically capable of such actions. Appropriative behavior originates from ancient survival mechanisms. Such primitive appropriative behavior is not dependent on cognitive intelligence.

Appropriative and cognitive behaviors can, and do, co-occur. Appropriative behaviors classically manifest as part of the developmental process in faunal species. Juvenile members of intelligent, sentient species may mature beyond appropriative behaviors if such behaviors are not necessary to the life-cycle success of the organism, and the organism has the necessary levels of mental and psychological health to function as a healthy member of their society.

Organisms displaying entitled, uncompassionate, or non-empathetic orientations would be considered lacking sufficient necessary, mental or psychological health to be viewed as viable members of their society. These traits have become more common in large, technologically orientated, consumptive-driven, Western-style modern societies.

Choosing not to appropriate an other’s goods is a reflection of an individual’s morality. Morality has resource relational and opportunity-dependent requirements, which are necessary for its creation and maintenance. A sufficient amount of necessary familial, societal, educational, genetic, and environmental resources in appropriate, but not necessarily specific, combinations can facilitate the moral development of individual persons.

Intelligence is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient requirement for moral behavior. Intelligent cogitation and morality should be the foundation of our conceptions of art, and our willingness to accept, to reject, or refuse to inappropriately judge others' concepts of art and artifacts.

The volumes of passionate discourse produced in arguments attempting to define art, and the inflamed proselytizing of a preferred concept by certain individuals and factions within some cultural, artistic, and philosophical societies, is what I find significant about competing theories of the nature of art.

Environmental biodiversity and bioproductivity in combination with cultural and cognitive perceptions could serve as cardinal influences in the development and composition of human-created concepts and artifacts. If that were the case, then environmental, biological, cognitive, and moral evolutionary processes could prompt re-conceptualizations of humankind's constructs.

Art, one of the constructs that human beings are the most passionate about, has the potential to perform as a pivotal axis around which humankind might progress to its next evolutionary rung.

Perhaps we might apply techniques of Biomimicry to art and constructs of art, viewing and valuing art based not in the context of what we can extract from it, but instead by what we may learn from it. (http://www.biomimicry.net/)

Questions:
1. Is art an organic element of evolution, biological in origin like morality - born out of a survival instinct, or does art only exist as a construct? Is it both, more, or other?

2. Why do so many people possess that passion-driven need to produce a defining determination of what constitutes art? What do you think humankind will gain from such a determination?

On Viewing Violence

He who fights with monsters might take care,
Lest he thereby become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss,
The abyss gazes also into you.

Fredrick Nietzche

Response to Jacob's question on aesthetics, morality, pornography and erotica

Jacob's Questions:
Would an aesthetic difference between erotica and pornography change a moral view of the subject?
Would it be more likely that viewing one would be considered more moral than the other?

I think it is our personal moral views that determine whether or not we consider a work to possess an aesthetic, and that judgment would determine whether or not we viewed the work (except in individuals suffering with compulsive or aberrant disorders). For instance, I choose to limit my exposure to material that I consider either uninteresting (brain can't compute) or not helpful to my evolution as a human being. I strive for economy of energy. Therefore, I have not been exposed (since early 70s) to what is generally considered erotic or pornographic materials - including explicitly descriptive lyrics.

I consider this an evolutionary choice, some might consider it a moral choice.

Or should a class on aesthetics not even broach this subject?

Your questions remind me of the chicken or the egg dilemma. Personally, I think Philosophy class is an invigorating and appropriate venue for a discussion of morals, erotica, and pornography.

My Question:
Do you think most people's decisions are based in their morality?

Contemplating Thanksgiving

After President Obama pardoned "Courage" at his daughter's request, I wondered if the Obamas or any other Americans would be prompted by this child's compassion for that turkey to think about the relationship between a living creature and what they consume as food.