Huilu’s philosophy of the arts thread gas out

###########

So this is what I wanna do. Beginning here at the Original Post, I will be posting names of Philosophers, theories, and various vocabulary terms on discussing art philosophy right here, and I ask you the people to quiz me and ask me questions! I will post my answers here as well. So, it’s a win-win situation! I study, and you learn cool stuff about aesthetics to do with visual art, music, and more!

I will be starting my perusal of philosophers with Tolstoy and Clive Bell, because our midterm was right before discussing them, and at the moment it’s unnecessary to re-study those other people because it won’t be a cumulative final electricity japan. However, if anyone’s curious about someone like Aristotle or Kant, I can still post some stuff for fun. I remember it all really well, and you know why? Because I studied with someone online by talking to them about philosophers, and also talked to my brother and his wife who know philosophy quite well. The action of typing out helps me retain information.

So here we begin! Now I know these words look scary, but believe me, they’re all really interesting and not scary, and also not only specific to visual art! All these theories apply to music too hp gas online registration. And a caveat, these theories are not all alike in relevance or credibility today. Many of these philosophers contradict the other, and some hold more water than others. The point of the class is to look through as many theories as possible so we can come to conclusions for ourselves.

Of course I’m not sure that helps, but it’s something. And now, if you like, we can talk about Collingwood!As to what you said before about having no overlap with what I posted, depending on how old you are, a number of those essays may not have been written, or at least published to a wider audience, when you were in college. Some of this stuff is very new, even 20-30 years ago. All the more important to read, though.

Material/Means vs. Finished Product: Product must be formed from Material, but the raw material can’t be the product. Thus wood isn’t automatically a chair. HOWEVER, notes aren’t the material of music, as if a composer were given 10 thousand distinct notes and have to use each one once in a composition (that’s absurdity), or a poet is given 100 words for which he must arrange into sentences like a puzzle. Tools are absolutely necessary to craft something (i.e. hammer, nails, glue, etc.) But does a pencil create poetry or music? Does a comfortable chair and cigar spontaneously evoke a melody? Art doesn’t work that way. But see further point.

Plan vs. Execution: Craft has a distinction of plan and execution while art doesn’t. You can plan to build a chair and then follow that plan ortega y gasset la rebelion de las masas, but with art both plan and execution happen interdependently and not as temporally distinct from each other. Furthermore about the success of the plan, the Finished Product in craft must produce the plan (i.e. the plan for a chair should not lead to the finished product being a table). However, if a poet were to start with one plan and proceed in a new direction creating something else, he has not failed as a poet, nor would a composer with music. Also, the Final Product of art isn’t obligatory nor is it determined by its success. A composer with unintended effects in their composition on their audience is still a composer.

Now what I have stated so far is not what’s been debated. A lot of people agree with these kinds of dichotomies (including Glazunov who knew about this theory and stated that this is the reason he considered Jazz electricity and circuits class 6 questions an art and not just a craft of musicians playing random, seemingly unplanned stuff). But what I’m about to say next is on the theory of the origin of art according to Collingwood.

Collingwood proposed the Propulsive Theory – The Artist is inflicted with an unexpressed, unclarified emotion, usually very distressing. There is a desire to express this emotion. Collingwood’s idea of expressing emotion is not the same as describing, arousing, purging, or any such other idea. To express an emotion is to clarify the emotion for oneself in order to gain relief of mind. The actual expressing of this emotion is called the imaginative experience of total activity because it starts in the mind, in the imagination, and can take on any sort of activity, be it music, art, words, etc. It is ideal that the artist express these emotions externally, and Collingwood assumes this as the only way the artist can fully achieve their relief of mind, however, it’s not obligatory. Therefore, what Collingwood implies is that the art is already inside the artist’s mind before they even try to externalize it, and if theoretically they were to gain their satisfaction of expression there, they wouldn’t have to externalize anything in the electricity 220 volts wiring first place! And it would still be called art! And here’s the REAL bonkers idea: when the viewer/audience looks upon an externalize product of expressed emotion, they are not feeling the ARTIST’S emotion, but their OWN imaginative experience which may or may not be like the artist’s. Again, it would be ideal if they were the same, but Collingwood leaves this open and says that this can never be guaranteed.

So final conclusion: Collingwood believes that simply coming up with a musical composition in one’s head without writing it down is still art, and that when someone listens to that work performed, they are not relating to the composer at all but having their own experience. There is no relation between artist and common person, only shots in the dark where hopefully things will end up right.

OBJECTIONS: Some other theorists (ex. Beardsley) have said that there are art works (ex Bruckner’s symphonies) where basically there IS no clarification of emotion. The piece ends in the same confusion as it began, and there was no relief, so was that not art? And what if the artist just wanted to make something to share with others and never had any sort of distress of unexpressed emotion? And what about the gas 02 anti-expressionist artists who refuse to express any sort of emotion? And for crying out loud, how can THINKING a poem, painting, or composition be enough to consider it art?? In that case, we’re all artists, and we never have to show anyone our most wonderful mind-paintings which we’ll never paint for lack of skill. All of these objections discredit the Propulsive Theory.

In his work What is Art? Tolstoy wishes to disqualify the idea that art is anything that simply gives pleasure. He disagrees that the pleasurable element of art has anything to do with the intrinsic nature of the art. Pleasure is something that will be evoked due to subjective and socially constructed elements. There are plenty of art forms that can give feelings of pain rather than pleasure, of sadness rather than happiness. Art is defined by its purpose and not its after-effects, just as food is regarded for nourishment before electricity shock in the body being regarded for pleasure.

What makes good art to Tolstoy? He has 2 degrees to measure this, that of content (quality) and quanitity (# of people). Good art will have either religious and/or universal elements being expressed in it. The emotions evoked would be shared by all kinds of people no matter where they come from. For quantity, it would be how many people are united at the same time, i.e. how many people are infected with the art. The more infectious the expressive power of the art, the better it is. How does an artist make an infectious piece of art? By being sincere, individual, and clear. To be individual and universal isn’t a contradiction, for the more individual the artist’s voice is, it tends to actually draw more people together by its originality.

Objections: There is one thing that electricity lesson plans 8th grade he perhaps leaves out of his theory, and that is the few exceptions where a work of art doesn’t have the chance to communicate to another person. For example, a painting being made up in the attic where only the artist is seeing it. Is that art yet? According to Tolstoy’s theory, it has to communicate to somebody (other than the artist), but that doesn’t make sense. We all know intuitively that an artwork that hasn’t been displayed, or a composition that hasn’t been premiered is still a work of art! Some theorists have modified his belief by saying the artist’s intention to communicate should be what qualifies the work as art, not that it has communicated itself yet.

Another Objection: What about all the avant-garde artists who said they didn’t want to communicate anything to their viewers? It was just meaningless nonsense? Well, Tolstoy would have called them rubbish for sure, and not art. Still, we call things like Duchamp’s Fountain and installations of piles of trash art today. So, Tolstoy has a few gaps in his theory. Otherwise, however, I would say that I like his theory because at least he’s an objectivist electricity year 4 and believes art should be a healthy, life-inspiring aspiration and not something to isolate and encourage evil in society. Nevertheless, I don’t quite like the functionalist view on art, that it has to actually do something to be art. I’d still call it art even if it failed to inspire any emotions in me, or I had no idea what the artist was trying to communicate. I’d call it rubbish, but still art.