Final (FRQ) Flashcards
Plato has two main complaints about the arts, one moral and one
metaphysical. What are these complaints? Is either defensible?
Moral:
Moral Complaint
Influence on the Soul:
Plato’s moral complaint is that art can have a corrupting influence on the soul. He believes that exposure to certain types of art can lead individuals to emulate immoral behavior. In “The Republic” (Books II and III), he discusses the potential harm of stories and poetry that depict the gods and heroes behaving immorally or succumbing to base desires. Such portrayals can instill undesirable values and behaviors in individuals, especially the impressionable youth.
Emotional Manipulation:
Art, particularly poetry and drama, can manipulate emotions and distract people from rational thought and virtuous living. Plato is concerned that art can evoke strong emotions like pity, fear, and desire, which can overpower reason and lead to irrational and immoral actions.
Metaphysical:
Metaphysical Complaint
The Theory of Forms:
Plato’s metaphysical complaint is rooted in his Theory of Forms. According to this theory, there is a higher realm of perfect, unchanging ideas or forms, of which the material world is merely a shadow or imitation. For instance, the concept of a perfect “chair” exists in the realm of forms, and all physical chairs are imperfect copies of this ideal form.
Art as Imitation:
Plato argues that art is an imitation (mimesis) of the physical world, which is already an imitation of the world of forms. This means that art is twice removed from the truth. In “The Republic” (Book X), he uses the example of a bed: a bed made by a carpenter is an imitation of the ideal form of a bed, and a painting of a bed is an imitation of the carpenter’s bed. Therefore, art is an imitation of an imitation and thus even further from the truth.
Metaphysical Complaint:
Art misleads people by presenting illusions rather than truth. Because it deals with appearances and not reality, it can distort one’s understanding of the true nature of things. This concern is particularly pronounced with poetry and drama, which Plato believes can stir emotions and perpetuate falsehoods about the world and human nature
What is Tolstoy’s account of the role of emotions in the arts? Is he right?
For Tolstoy, Art is a medium for emotional expression. Art’s purpose is for an artist to be able to convey their emotional experience to us. True works of art successfully convey the experience/emotions of the artist to the spectator. He then emphizes on the emotional connection between artist and audience.
Tolstoy definition is very narrow, and though it applies to some works of art and the their meaning/purpose, it fails to account for other major works of art. Per His definition, the value then is how well the emotions were conveyed, but spectators might react differently to one art, and experience emotions different ways. The color red to you might induce more horrific experienced, whereas another it might just remind them of love. Thus is hard to fully accept his definition.
We speak of some artworks in emotional terms. We say, for instance, that a symphonic movement is sad or that a painting is joyful. What are the local quality and arousal explanations of this phenomenon? Is either correct? How do these approaches contrast with an appeal to a distinction between
encoding and exemplifying? Is any of these approaches to be preferred over the others?
The Local Quality Approach: Movements in works of art, especially (but not only) music, can parallel emotional
movements; they can be in some way isomorphic with them.
❖ We speak of music, as we do of people and their moods, as ‘upbeat,’ ‘boisterous,’
‘funereal,’ ‘happy’, ‘angry,’ and so on
The Arousal Approach: When formal structures elicit emotions, we retrofit them onto the work.
❖ Perhaps it is simply a physiological fact of some sort that certain colors or shapes or
sounds, are for instance, soothing or distressing or disorientating
Its a good way to explain why for example is an opera sad because it features sad music/plot, or is sadness mainly an encoding aspect of the art work? I think encoding is a better way, because exemplifying emotion in an artwork would invalidate or negate multiple interpretations of a piece that are certainly possible. So the arousal approach with encoding is a much better way to accept art pieces with those predications. But it is true that SOME works are EXIMPLIFYING, so it does not always hold. So one cant be preferred over the other.
State and explain what Hick calls the paradox of fiction. Is it really a paradox?
A problem of any kind? Motivate his worry and offer a response to it
(1) We believe that the objects of our emotions exist.
(2) We know that fictional entities do not exist.
(3) We sometimes have extreme emotional reactions to fiction
We established however, this is not a paradox, merely a curiosity.
If we sharpen Hick’s paradox, we find ourselves able to offer a valid
argument for the conclusion that it is irrational to respond emotionally to
fictional entities. State, explain, and assess this argument
Sharpening argument:
(1) It is rational to respond emotionally to some situation, whether actually or
potentially occurring, only if that situation is real—which is to say, only if it exists.
(2) Creatures of fiction do not exist.
(3) So, it is irrational to respond emotionally to fictional entities (broadly
construed, so as to include characters or depictions in not only novels, but also
films, dramas, operas, and other forms of depicting narration).
❖ Yet we do so respond, plainly, and we seem in no way blameworthy for doing so.
❖ (Here let us understand the charge of ‘irrationality’ as censorious.)
Do creatures of fiction exist? If so, what might they be? If not, how are we able to say (evidently) truly that Antigone has a sister?
They DO exist, if merely just as something that elicit a psychological/emotional experience to an audience. To deny otherwise, might be to deny an author their creation, and their art piece. If it exists merely as a tool in art, it is enough. It exists as a tool to make the overall art, thus it is real within the piece that definitely exists in our reality. Or would one say “The Exorcist” “does not exist vs “its just not real!”
In ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’ (1971), Linda Nochlin suggests that feminist aesthetics points the way to a rethinking of the tendency of art historians and critics to lionize the artist as an individual genius. What are her reasons? Are they defensible?
Nochlin takes aim at the tradition of celebrating the individual genius—as the godlike creator of
the sublime—in favor of an understanding of art and its history as socially enmeshed, as co-
operative, and as dynamically produced by whole institutions. The problem here though, is that these are the same structures/instituions/social norms that have systemically repressed groups such as a women in this case. Since art holds a big part in political,social and cultural aspect of our civilized life, it is important to consider the way we ought to treat artists and art works alike. We are called as artist to question these institutions, and removing any form of “elitism”
One feminist critique holds that the premium on disinterestedness promoted in rationalist (largely Kantian) aesthetic theories reflects an implicit bias towards formalism. Why? Is this in fact so? If it is so, is it a problem?
The feminist critique argues that when one places the art outside its social or emotional context, the only thing left to analyze of a piece is its forms. Thus placing bigger emphasis on the formalist features of a work of art. This is a major problem, since it discounts and has marginalized many works of art whose meaning and intention ARE rooted in their political and social context. Thus this has enabled for “formalist works of art” to take center stage, and invalidate any other. This negates the complete aesthetic experience surrounding art, and it is not simply rooted in its objective properties.
State, explain, and assess one argument for autonomism (aestheticism)
A Clock Work Orange, is one of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpieces. A central conversion not only in free will, but our relation to forms of government and what that means for our day to day lives, it questions structural and systemic issue of class,race,etc. However, this movie is notorious for displaying horrific and hard to watch scene of acts of violence like rape. Per a definition of a moralist this would conclude this as bad art. However, I think judging A Clockwork orange like this, or any art like this, following the fallacy of division. AUtonomism does hold true in this scene, Kubrick is not promoting the acts of violence, he rather forces his audience to think about them and elocit a form of response to make his audience question forms of government and our cognitive biases we may not be aware of. SOme of the scenes are also beautifully shot contrasting with violence, here we can separate the work beyond moral grounds.
State, explain, and assess two arguments for moralism
1.One would argue we should be moralist about art because of its strong sense of conveying strong sense of emotions that lead to patriotism, propaganda, availibity bias, etc. Art has been used to cause harm and convey feelings that are not appropriate or should not be conveyed to a public. Like displaying a Nazi documentary or teaching it, when there are other possible ways to learn about the techniques of cinematography.
- One ought to reject films that convey sexism, racism, and other forms of hatred towards a group of people. As it might help justify immoral feelings, forms of impression, and help build harmful stereotypes. One can try and prevent their cognitive biases, and see a false cause fallacy, but that is not the case for everyone. Although there are directors (Like Kubrick) who intentionally depict this to act AGAINST, some artists do it for. Therfore, we should consider moral implications that an art piece might have based on its context.
State, explain, and assess one argument for beauty nihilism
A nihilist about beauty holds inhirits follows a subjective view on beauty. There is no standard of beauty, since there is no normative agreement of what beauty can be. When we call something “beautiful” it means it has some normtaive property that makes it beautiful, but if there are no normative properties, then there it CANT be beautiful, and since it can’t be then there is no beauty at all.
How does beauty nihilism differ from subjectivism about beauty? Is either of
these views to be preferred over the other?
A nihilist about beauty does not believe in the existence of beauty at all, and any discussion about it is meaningless. A subjectivist view, holds that beauty does exist, but it exists differently in each individual. Thus rejects any sort of normative claims or standards on beauty. A nihlist about beauty helps us to question what we really mean when we make judgements about beauty, but it is not helpful for the everyday person and the realism about our world. A subjectivist view is more align to our experience and how we communicate about beauty with others.
What are the differences, if any, between beauty in art and beauty in nature?
Beauty in art seems to follow both formalist intentions behind its creation, like brush strokes or mise en place in a film sequence. It also might follow a representation or depiction of humanity whether emotional,social,political, etc. Natural beauty does not follow any sort of formalism theories based on art, or has any major relevance in social,political or humanitarian movements. We are more concerned with the amazement of the probably of its formation and how it came to be. THis marks a very clear difference between both types of beauty.
Does the existence of natural beauty, if there is natural beauty, render the
definability of beauty easier or harder? Or is this a matter of indifference?
It makes it harder to try and find a univocal definition about beauty. One might conclude that beauty is just another form of pleasure. Since at the end both art and natural beauty seems to have that common denominator. Yet, this single definition would reject forms of art that aren’t meant to make us feel good, but to challenge our way of thinking, or perhaps call out horrific events in history. Thus ending up rejecting this potential common ground between these two types of beauty.
State, explain, and assess one argument for the non-univocity of beauty. In
your response take care to explain the ways in which art is (or seems to be)
framed and intention-enmeshed
The relativism about our experience is inherently what promotes an argument for non-univocity. This holds for any individual but for any culture and historical context as well. There are many different intentions behind a work of art, one might find the forms beautiful, while another might only be interested in the intent of its creation for a political movement, framing it in such context as well. This poses a problem when attempting to define, when the framing and intention are different.
