Final Paper

Judgments About the Beautiful - Immanuel Kant The Philosophy of Fine Art - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

For our Final we had to write at least 3 pages on our own philosophies in regards to two of the philosophers we'd studied about.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that's what they say. But whose eye are they referring to? Ours, yours, the world's as a whole, the culture as a group, or the individual as a person? How can 'beauty' be defined down the hierarchy of classes, distinctions, races, sexes, nationalities, cultures, backgrounds, upbringing, eras, and ages? It is as unique, I believe, as each of us are. So, how do each us of judge beauty, which is different, as each of us are different?

                  Immanuel Kant's philosophy has said, “The beautiful is that which, apart from a concept, pleases universally.” But again, we all come from different universes. And even within the same world there are cultures, subcultures, divisions, and outcasts. Does this mean that if one is listed as an outcast they are unable to recognize beauty? I think not-what is beautiful to them is, according to their description, beautiful. Hence, the phrase, a face that only a mother could love. As ugly as one thing may be to another, to someone else, it may be as precious as gold even though they are the minority of the world.

                  One thing I have discovered is that many of these philosophers are trying, in very educated terms, to discuss, decipher, and explain something that cannot be seen and therefore, in my mind, cannot be understood. And in there is the challenge: to define a thing not seen to the understanding. With these concepts words are used such as energy, flow, power, taste, or rhythm; regarding 'feelings that can't be explained,' or 'a sense of incomprehensible understanding.'

                  Immanuel Kant describes his theory of beauty, “The beautiful is that which, apart from a concept, is cognized as object of a necessary delight.” He goes on to say that beauty, “...would claim   unconditioned necessity,” and “...they were devoid of any principle...” He also describes it to a sense of taste. To me that says, again, it is something that cannot be touched, is intended to not intentionally serve a purpose, and yet we are drawn to it. He goes on to say, “...that such a thing could be regarded as common sense.” But while it's common for everyone to select a thing of beauty, it is uncommon for everyone to select the same thing.

                  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel equally uses ambiguous terms to try and describe Immanuel's definition of another's 'common sense.' Georg outlines 3 steps. Step 2 is listed as such: “...it is to a greater or less degree delivered from a sensuous medium, and addressed to his senses.”  To me that says that the thing of beauty is intended for and speaks only to our senses. That is all well and good, but how else are we to perceive anything? It doesn't explain how one can call a tree a thing of beauty while another barely notices the forest. Also, if a person is deaf, dumb, blind and missing all faculties of both touch and  taste, are they able to perceive beauty according to Georg's definition? I still want to say yes, according to the dictates within that person's world.

                  An old philosophical question asks, “If the only thing constant is change, then why does history repeat itself?” The answer is people, who make the same mistakes throughout history. As such, people have always claimed that something has been beautiful. So, then, what is the equation, regarding people throughout time, that outlines what is beautiful to each individual?

                  To me, the answer is the frequency of choice.

                  Inside each one of us runs an electrical system that powers our body. It is called the nervous system. It also powers us as individuals, helping to make us who we are, personality, judgment calls, and choices. From an Eastern philosophy standpoint this is called Chi – the power that connects us all to nature and each other.

                  As we grow and choose to pursue one avenue or another our choices act to program our minds and bodies to adapt and accept our choices. These programs, in turn, adjusts the frequency of our energy in our bodies to help us to to what our choices decide on. As long as we remain in a realm that coexists with our current choices, and body's frequency, we will have harmony.

                  However, once a condition that is not conductive to our personal frequency comes in contact with us it creates 'feedback,' just as if a DJ were to accidentally move his microphone too close to his speaker. This creates a stream of energy that causes noise, disharmony, aggravation, and even pain.

                  The old phrase says, “Birds of a feather flock together.” Does that mean the people of the world are just not accepting? No, it means that people, being different, want to be with those like themselves. In other words, people want to be around other people and things that they are attuned to, and can coincide with, their own personal energies. These things may boil down to common interests, competitive skills, natural talents, the ability to communicate, similar goals, and even thought processes. It could be even be something as physiologically cellular as smells or agreeable tastes in clothes. Regardless, the birds aflocking all agree on something.

                  Such as it is with art and beauty. We birds want the things in, and around, our nests (or even circle of influence) that agree with us; that is, agree and are compatible with our personal, natural energy. If it does not agree with our energy it is disruptive, annoying, unhealthy, and even threatening.

                  So, our energies are based on choice. Are we consigned to always follow what our energies tell us? No, we choose to be different and our energies follow suit step by step.

                  The old phrase asks, “How do you boil a frog? One degree at a time.” For if you turn the heat up all at once the frog quickly jumps out. But if the temperature is raised in steps, the frog, in theory, remains complacent and doesn't notice.

                  As an example, let's imagine that one who originally likes fluffy kittens in their art comes across a kitten not so fluffy; it has short hair that is still well groomed. It may not be a far cry from their original frequency, such as a wild, mangy dog would be, so they have a choice as to whether or not they accept this new frequency. Let's say they accept it, and like a computer, the brain adapts their frequency to accept this new energy pattern. It does so on a cellular level and may not be noticeable, at first.

                  In time our imaginary test subject chooses to accept cats, not just kittens. Then they accept large, predatory cats, tame at first, then wild, man eating ones. Then, accepting the violence, they start to investigate the natural nemesis of cats, the dog. This, in time, turns to wolves, and finally, wild, mangy dogs. Someone then asks them, “What happened to the fluffy kittens?” Our test subject then looks back on who they used to be and how they used to feel and they realize the comparable change.

                  Step by step, frequency by frequency, choice by choice. A peaceful man isn't going to go on a shooting rampage all in one day – it takes a constant barrage of steady degrees and small steps to avert his frequency from one healthy choice to a different and unhealthy one.

                  Such as it is with us: place an object, item, or person with one frequency in the place of another who is attuned the opposite, and the energies repel each other just like magnets if there is not a frequency adjustment made. The opposite is also true: place two things together that share the same frequency and they are attracted, unless a conscious choice is made. For that is all magnets are: metals charged with frequencies of energy that repel and attract. Unlike magnets, we can choose to change.

                  So, art that is ugly today may be beautiful tomorrow. Beauty that may be accepted only by one may be rejected by the world. A choice, or people, that is repulsive once may be accepted later.

                  So, what is beautiful to each one of us? Those things that our own personal energies are attracted to or accepted, based on our choices.

Assignment 7 - Richard Shusterman

Richard Shusterman

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

I believe Richard's views regarding the concept of interpretation is an interesting one, in which he believes that the views of the world are such as the product of interpretation. This may inevitably ring highly true but one must also keep in mind that while the interpretation comes from the product, the product does not all come from the same location, upbringing, or batch. What is known as yellowish-red to one is listed as orange to another. And while these sets of individuals are looking at, and interpreting, the same thing, it may be a different aspect altogether to get them to admit it.

            Take, for example, the 30 year old argument of, 'which is better, Star Wars or Star Trek?' This is the classic example of which way the word should should be pronounced, 'tomAto' or 'TOMato.' In both epic universes space travel is applied, scientific fundamental principles applied, futuristic technology used, and advanced laser weaponry. But at any convention, comic book shop, or bus stop the Trekkies would claim Star Trek is better and Star Wars fans would claim their series is better. The Trekkies would claim their world is better because they have phasers, teleportation, and Spock. The Star Wars fans would say their world was better due to The Force, the Death Star, and lightsabers. However, the truth remains that every Star Wars fan knows about the Star Trek universe and vice versa. More also, each group of fan base has more than likely seen all of the other's films. This could fall more into the ying-yang concept, which accepts that there is some of one in the other and again, vice versa.

            My other big argument is one regarding interpretation vs. assumption, which in my mind would be an incorrect interpretation.  Often times in society we have a lack of communication that leads to a misunderstanding of intent. The end result is a misinterpretation that can lead to some serious arguments and conflict. While the aggressor intended to do something good but it ended in harm either out of ignorance or accident, the recipient is forced to make a judgment call without having all of the evidence. In novels, tv plots, and movies it's where we get a lot of our plot developments and compilations. Unfortunately, it is something we all can also relate to.

            Another argument regarding this concept is in the form of perception regarding the interpretation of a situation. In some cases, and even martial arts disciplines, we could very plainly have the obvious intention placed before us. However, due to a choice to alter our perception a more positive attitude could be taken to view the situation. This is an example of the old phrase, 'when life closes a door, it opens a window.' I recently saw a film that personified this angle of perception very well, when a martial arts sensai told his rising, and troubled, student that he controlled the outcome of his fights. He told him that whether or not he fought was his 'fault,' as it were. The troubled student argued that the aggressor aggravated him to fight. But his sensai warned him that he chose to be aggravated.

            Along these same lines a man could be released from his current position. As far as his interpretation goes he has a few options placed before him: he could chose to believe that the company was out to get him and felt threatened, his quality of work was low so they didn't like him, or the universe was rewarding him for a job well done by providing for him the opportunity to search for something much better.

            In the end the question remains, how will you interpret your situations?

Assignment 6 - Ted Cohen

Ted Cohen

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

In his statement Ted attempts to categorize, or even explain, what is listed as funny. He provides several factors, ranging from hermetic jokes to pure jokes to affective jokes and conditional jokes.

The types of jokes he seems to spotlight the most are those that involve some sort of prejudice name-calling, as though he were still battling school-yard bullies. Such a stance on humor could be considered a confession on the part of the philosopher. As it were, one might wonder if himself ever ventured farther from the concept of comedy than a “Knock, Knock” joke or repressed the urge to watch a situational comedy or even a humorous movie. If he were truly an expert on the subject then perhaps he’d consider using his full first name Theodore, as the shortened name ‘Ted’ can hardly ever be taken seriously. It is, after all, the preferred shortened given name for stuffed bears everywhere, thanks largely in part to our past president, Mr. Theodore Roosevelt.

However, he is missing a few factors, such as the types of accidental jokes made famous through America’s Funniest Home Videos. These are relatively random, and typical painful, phenomenon that make us laugh and wince at the same time. I theorize that these evoke an emotional reaction due to the unexpectedness of the situation and also because, being human, we can typically all relate. This may fall into the ‘pure joke’ section, as it is something that speaks to the part of us that is simply human. However, given that these random acts of humor are not planned they may not fall into category of ‘joke.’

Another category might be word humor, or using a play on words, in a unique manner. A quick example might be, “What do you call a real life story with no conflict? A non-friction.” Certainly one must know what the difference is between fiction and non-fiction novels and perhaps avid readers could appreciate this joke more than someone who preferred tv to books but there is no stab at any ethnicity, minority, gender, or age. It is simply something that strikes us as odd, off-the-wall, or maybe even silly.

Let’s not forget physical comedy, which like accidental humor, strikes to all those in the human race that possess the skeletal item “funny bone,” which is a joke in and of itself, since it’s called the humorous bone. I recently listed to several Jackie Chan movies while at my day assignment. Not even a chortle erupted from the back of my throat. However, I am a big Jackie Chan fan, who has made a fantastic lifetime career out of making action films with humor richly lathered throughout the action sequences. Often times the joke is on himself, sometimes it is on one of the many bad guys he is thumping on. While this may also fall into the category of ‘pure humor’ the point I am trying to convey is that these styles of humor break the language barrier. A Jackie Chan action sequence can generally still be enjoyed in his native tongue, even if you don’t speak Chinese. In fact, the greatest example of this could be the genius of Buster Keaton’s physical comedy during the silent film era.

At the same time, what is funny to one is not always funny to all. Like beauty, it is in the humorous bone of the audience. This is why professional comedians need to read their audience as to not approach a comedic topic that might be ‘below the belt.’ So, perhaps the question should not be what is funny, but perhaps the question should be what is funny to you?

Assignment 5 - Edmund Burke Feldman

Edmund Burke Feldman

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

 
As a critic, Edmund Burke Feldman explains many of his own principles regarding his critique of Pablo Picasso’s work of art, “Leds Demoiselles d’Avignon,” painted in 1907. Despite all of his various critique elements as to ‘why’ the one thing he seems to be certain of it that the majority of the elements within the famous piece are intended to depict women, most likely in the nude. Other than that, Edmund appears to remain unclear as to the purpose of the piece or why it is created the way it has been. Many of Pablo’s pieces are collages of elements and color, so why would this piece be any different? Because it is not, as it appears, in his book, as a very clear representation of his subject matter it must needs contain an additional message of some sort.

            However, in agreeing with his concept that we must look with the vision or view in which the artist has intended we run the risk of failing to miss the whole point altogether or, in the case of his own critique, shoot beyond the mark altogether. Edmund gives the critique that the subjects give the impression that one might be falling, or of different national origins, or of different sexes. However, the intended focus could have nothing to do with the shapes before our eyes. Like children staring at clouds, we naturally try to find meaning or purpose in the objects before our eyes, as taught to us in psychology; which is, our brains naturally try to ‘fill in the gaps’ of missing  elements to create the impressions of physical objects. It is by this principle that we have motion pictures, which are simply a reproduction of fast-moving photos. It is also by this same principle that there is not a big, black dot in the center of our field of vision where our iris is, for our brains fill in the blanks where there are no cones or rods on the back of our retinas. It is also by this concept that stipple art is made famous. From up close, the technique employees hundreds of small dots. From a distance, the dots turn into images.

            Perhaps the focus is not to be placed upon the subject matter at all. Perhaps, like many beautiful color spatter arts, like the one on the second floor of the Art Institute across from the drawing lab room, the focus is in the color or the emotion of the painting. Pablo does use lots of vivid colors, angles, and lines in his pieces. We do know that each of these elements portray different feelings in each person. Horizontal lines give the feeling of resting, as we generally lie down when we sleep. Angled lines promote action while vertical lines keep us busy, like when we are standing in a line.

            Colors equally evoke imagination and emotion. As someone looks upon the picture of a soft, tan ball with a pinkish hue their memory or imagination may be drawn to what their recollection or memory knows. We associate colors and emotions with familiar objects.

            As such, perhaps our job as the viewer is simply to see and feel. Anything else beyond that could be missing beyond the mark as to the ‘why.’

            Unfortunately, as Senior Pablo is no longer with us we can’t simply ask him anymore. Therefore, we are forced to speculate – which might also be what he wanted all along.

In-class summary - Edmund Burke Feldman

Edmund Burke Feldman summary

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

Each student had to give an in-class summary to start the discussion regarding one of the week's philosophers. I chose Edmund Burke Feldman and here are my notes regarding him. 

Born December 17, 1894

Spoke regarding Systems art and Combine painting.

Systems art is art influenced by cybernetics, and systems theory, which reflects on natural systems, social systems and social signs of the art world itself.[1]

Systems art emerged as part of the first wave of the conceptual art movement extended in the 1960s and 1970s. Closely related and overlapping terms are Anti-form movement, Cybernetic art, Generative Systems, Process art, Systems aesthetic, Systemic art, Systemic painting and Systems sculptures.

A combine painting is an artwork that incorporates various objects into a painted canvas surface, creating a sort of hybrid between painting and sculpture.[1][2][3] Items attached to paintings might include photographic images, clothing, newspaper clippings, ephemera or any number of three-dimensional objects.

Edmund Burke Feldman is the author of Varieties Of Visual Experience

Quotations From EDMUND BURKE FELDMAN

“The greatest crimes do not arise from a want of feeling for others but from an over-sensibility for ourselves and an over-indulgence to our own desires”

― Edmund Burke Feldman

First You Must Learn to See

It seems likely that artists will always endeavor to master the devices which create illusions. As they grow beyond the student stage, they may abandon some of these devices, or they may discover new uses of the tools they have acquired. Certainly our principal masters have undergone the discipline of reporting their visual experience, and it has served them well when they have sought “to render the invisible visible.” But mastery of the techniques of representation is not undertaken merely to discard them later, or to possess the confidence which is based on having endured a difficult discipline. Learning to draw accurately teaches the artist to see, that is, to understand what he is looking at. He must learn to distinguish between imitation of surfaces and informed representation. Laymen can benefit from the artists’s struggle to learn to see if they compare his rendering of reality with the world as they know it. In the difference between the two lies the important body of meaning which the study of art endeavors to uncover.

Edmund Burke Feldman from Varieties of Visual Experience (1972)

At least 10 Book titles:
Varieties Of Visual Experience; Art As Image And Idea

Engaging Art in Dialogue

 The Artist: A Social History

 Practical Art Criticism

 Philosophy of Art Education

 Thinking about Art

Art as Image and Idea

A Sermon on Work, Language, and Values

Becoming Human Through Art; Aesthetic Experience In The School

 Art In American Higher Institutions (No 205)

 Teaching Art And So On

 And Irvin Tepper -- When Cups Speak: Life with the Cup-A 25 Year Survey

Assignment 4 - George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

He introduces the concept with 3 steps, which are as follows: 1. Actual art comes only from man and not from nature. It cannot be naturally produced. 2. Not only is it created by man but it is also created for man with some type of medium which is intended to stimulate his senses. This is intended to arouse a feeling or feelings in the intended audience. 3. Actual art must have a purpose, or, as he called it, an ‘end.’ However, although as outlined in Step 2 it must evoke an emotion it must be accomplished unintentionally. It must serve a purpose but must arrive at said purpose almost by accident.

            While these definitions fall well under the categories of some types of art, including dancing, music, martial arts, and perhaps gymnastics it does not include all realms of what is now considered ‘art’ in our modern day. Both theatrical performances, such as the professional performances on Broadway, and also the film industry, where such celebrity’s performances are highlighted at the Oscars, are included.

            To further argue this case would be the example of a panoramic vista setting, such as the Grand Canyon, whose majestically sweeping location draws artists, photographers, painters, film crews, and spectators from around the globe on a regular basis. Many even come to try and desperately capture its power and majesty on film, canvas, or paper. If it contains the awe and beauty as described by other philosophers then how come people are drawn to it like flies to honey? I believe it would be safe to say that the Grand Canyon has pulled in more visitors in its lifetime than any art museum has had in its lifetime. According to his definition this marvelous feat can only fall under the description of ‘art’ if someone were to place a mounted frame alongside one of its viewing areas.

            Along these same lines, gardeners and even home owners enter their naturally grown but hand-treated gardens, flowerbeds, vegetables, fruits, and even livestock into aggressive competitions to see ‘who’s is the best.’ Yet each of these would argue that theirs is a work of art, although no brush, pen, camera, or computer graphic tool was put into place.

            Plus, his descriptive definition is limited to mortal man alone and does not include that All-Powerful Creator who made such things of beauty that we are trying to emulate. As the Original creator of all things, are His hands not the foundation of what is art and beauty? Is it not His hands we are trying to copy? So, how can we not consider his Works to be art?

In conclusion, whether created by hand, song, movement, imagination, camera, or computer I would argue that ‘art’ is anything that touches or speaks to our soul. In this regard anything can be categorized as art if it enlightens, strengthens, or speaks to us, however trivial or grand it may be.

Assignment 3 - Walter Benjamin

Walter Benjamin-Mechanical Reproduction

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

I believe that Benjamin is stating that the reproduction of art is not art itself but a forgery of the original and a step towards a painful legal procedure in defense of one’s copy to prove it is not.

            When the movie “The Matrix” came out the Wachowski brothers were upset that so many people mimicked their technical process in their own creative works such as commercials, film cameos, and parodies. They were so upset that their very cool special effects became so common place that in the sequels they intentional made their effects so expensive no one could copy them.

            So Benjamin did have a point. What hard-working artist wants their work stolen? And it’s not just in the process, the structure, the color, or the technique. It’s also in the energy, the thought process, the planning, and in the vision. Those cannot be copied and in many ways, the real hard work. So a true forgery targets the end goal without the envisioning, planning, and thought processes involved to bring it to the light of true art for their initial intention is in a completely different direction.

What exactly is forgery? By definition, it is listed as, “…the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive.” In legal terms, in order for something to be made ‘original’ is for there to be a 10% difference between two similar subjects.

So if his argument is simply in regards to the process, what about the performing arts? This would include martial arts, acting, dancing, pantomime, gymnastics, magicians, and even the amazing abilities of circus performers? Here we have some seriously unique talents where the ability to simply reproduce the original masters is the art form itself?

Also, what about the original thought? Isn’t the construction of the project simply a reconstruction of the ‘original,’ meaning of the thought itself. Besides, despite the mastery of the hand, how do we know that the final, presented piece is what the artist originally envisioned in his mind? Therefore, the finished piece could be considered a forgery of his mind’s eye and a flawed, failed one at that.

            Consider also the old phrase that says, “A true artist never really finishes working on a piece.” If that is the case, some of the best works of art have never been made public. They are either still being constructed in the artist’s brain or played upon little by little throughout the ages. In many cases, they are forced to the light without all of the glamour and majesty they were originally intended. For instance, look at George Lucas’ Star Wars, which has received a new facelift every decade since its release. Lucas himself released the concept of THX Digital reconstruction in the attempts to preserve his own piece of work. Since then it has literally saved many films considered classics, from “Gone with the Wind,” to Disney’s classic favorites like, “Lady and the Tramp,” and Oscar winning, “Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs.” Without this process the work would be lost forever and how can we appreciate it then?

            My final argument is in the process itself. What if the art of copying or creating a piece with the process of mechanical reproduction is the art? In the early days of mechanical reproduction some early printers were possessed with the title, “Master Printer.” That didn’t necessary distinguish like, “Mr.,” or “Sir,” would, but it was a way to distinguish that this individual was considered an expert either through proven technique or experience. In modern times it could be considered the equivalent of an educational degree, such as a Masters or Doctorate. So, an individual of that expert caliber could be considered a doctor of printing, a professional expert in the craft of recreating perfectly, regardless of what was being copied – but that he could copy it perfectly over and over and over again.

            It has been said that there are no truly unique creations anymore. If, in the process of trying to prove this theory incorrect, wouldn’t it be best to begin by studying the original masters? Who know that if, in the process of studying how the Masters did it, we are finally able to create something new? After all, we must teeter perilously on the last rung of the ladder in order to climb higher.

            And that’s why I believe his final statement is such; that the practice of reproducing becomes so effectually simple that a novice can be made to look like an expert in such a way that all that remains is the practice to protect one’s original work legally. With today’s digital, high-quality scanners, cameras, and programs we are at that point already.