Yes!!!!! My blog doesnt hate me anymore!!! So here is my answers for Chapter 2 questions in “Why is That Art?” which i have been trying to get up here since last week. I also have all of my progress pictures to post as well as my answers for chapter 3 of “Why is that Art?” and lots of super fun artists that i have been inspired by lately:) So without further ado, here is Chapter 2, Realism:
Are Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions about the arts relevant today? If not, why not? If so, which, how, and why?
Plato believed that arts should be for the greater good and should promote “truth and good behavior” But he also believed that art could not be “trusted or valued” since it was a copy of an actual object which was a copy of the ideal. I do not think that he would like or value much of what we consider art today since it rarely is made to inspire or to cause us to act morally. Aristotle held many of the same views as Plato but he believed that art could be used as a teaching tool or almost as an escape so that a person could view a “bad” behavior in art without having to do it.
Do you think Plato and Aristotle would differ on their judgements of Koon’s work? If not, why not? If so, how and why?
Based on what I know about Plato and Aristotle, I think that Plato would most definitely not approve of Koon’s work or categorize it as art. Aristotle might view some of Koon’s pieces as art but would dislike many of them and not view them as art.
Can the thinking of Plato and Aristotle be applied to works of nonrepresentational, non-mimetic works of art? How or why not?
I think that their views can be applied to a certain point. If it is an image that is for the greater good or inspires “truth and good behavior” then Plato would think it was good. Aristotle would be able to appreciate the intrinsic qualities of the piece and be able to be a fair judge of some pieces
What do you imagine Plato and Aristotle might think about “reality tv”?
Plato would most likely view reality tv as pointless (which is pretty much true…) but Aristotle would approve of some reality tv since it lets the viewer experience emotions and situations that they would otherwise not, or situations which could cause them harm if they did it themselves.
Plato advocates censorship of the arts. What counts as censorship? Is censorship ever justified? if not, why not? If so, when, why, by whom, and from whom?
I believe that censorship is the blocking of an object from being viewed by one or more people. I think that after the age of 18, there should be no censorship since as an “adult” you should be able to chose that which you do or do not want to see. In terms of government censorship, I don’t think that they should have any say over what goes in museums or galleries but i do think that if they are donating money/grants they should be able to have an input.
In you personal philosophy, is “obscene art” a contradiction of terms? Why or why not?
Art does not mean that something is automatically acceptable or nice to look at just because it is considered “art” therefore i believe that there can be categories (such as obscene) within art that differentiate what types there are.
Are vivid sexual images more obscene that vivid images of violence, poverty, displays of extreme wealth or sickness?
The definition of obscene is offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality or decency (thanks google..)Personally, I feel that images of violence, poverty, wealth and sickness incite feelings of sadness or sympathy instead of being obscene. Based on the accepted standards of morality and decency, vivid sexual images would be considered obscene.
Should it matter to artists working within Realist traditions whether Realism is natural or conventional? Why or Why not?
If an artist choses to portray an apple in a realist manner it should be up to them and they should portray it in the manner that they choose rather then worry about fitting into a certain aesthetic or method.