Midterm 1 ( FRQ) Flashcards
What is formalism? Is this a defensible theory of art? In your answer, be sure
to characterize significant form
Forms are an intrinsic quality that are present in works of art, whether it is arrangement of lines, colors, shapes, etc. It is the element that make up the work itself. These form are what makes it possible for us to judge art, and be in pursuit of better our works of art. It is defensible. The fact that it can invoke aesthetic emotions, thus sensory experiences, and helps us dintuiguish between different works makes it a suitable and defindible theory of art.
What is the Common Denominator Argument for the theory of art as
significant form? Does this argument succeed?
Clive Bell, attempting to find a common feature within all art works, or a property that they all share that would evoke certain aesthetic emotions in their viewers.
Certainly there is a common element eliciting aseshetic emotions if multiple people experience these from the same work of art in different contexts and time. This then might have something to do with the significant forms within an artwork, contributing to the aesthetic impact of the piece. These formal arrangement give art its aesthetic value. Succes lies whether or not one chooses to accept it, this theory does deny the opportunity to engage in arts complexity beyond its forms as a matter of the times, culture and interpretation. But it does do a good job in unifiying a lot of different works of art together.
What is the imitation theory of art? Is it defensible?
It centers itself as work of art being representational, or an imitation of reality, the external world: landscapes, human, events, emotions, etc. Thus the value just becomes a question of whether one accurately or faithfully represents/imitates, or captures as perceived by viewer. Not defensible ; neflects creativity , expression and innovation while focused too much on realism, denies the subjectivity of reality and sensory experience, it oversimplifies the meaning of art, and neglects the opporytunity to engage further as means of expression, passion, communication, social commentary, etc.
Are artworks universals or particulars? Or are some universals and some
particulars? Why would someone think artworks are universals? Particulars?
What are the problems with each of these approaches?
Basically my essay lol
What is the intentional fallacy? Is it really a fallacy? What is the best argument
for New Criticism? Is it a defensible argument?
Intentional fallacy introduced by ciritcs W.K WImsatt and Monroe C Beardsley in their essay “The Intetional Fallacy” 1964. Essentially isolates a published work of art from their creator. The authortity does not like with the intent meaning of the creator, rather it can be sued to guide or use as external evidence. Meaning lies within the work itself.
How is it a fallacy? Authors may not even be fully aware of their intentions, an authors biography may have nothing to do with the true meaning of a piece, we need to consider the meaning that occurs between reader and text.. Based on these premises it can be considered a fallacy if accepted.
N.C encourages the reader to engage solely with the text, imagery, symbolism, and structures of the work rather than relyig on any external factor like authors intent or interpretation. It can be defensible as it encourages and help push deeper understanding and new interpreations that can lead to discoveries or knowledge not limited by a single authority. My biggest criquite it fails to recocgnize the important role that art/pieces play as a refelection or representation of the times, which is an external factor that heavily influences texts and works of art.
What are objective and subjective theories of aesthetic value? Which of these,
if either, is to be preferred?
A property X is subjective = df X has the power to enact/establish/manifest some sensory experience like psychological attitudes, response, but all that an observer has to some phenomenon. X is Objective = df X is not subjective. Objectivity fails to build on the multiple interpretation and intentions that occur via arts, it also fails to recognize and myriad of aesthetic experiences that differ from person to person, our percetiopn abilities are all different. I think objectivity is a good framework to build meaningful discussions, but ultimately it lies within the subjective. As it values the individual , and the observer’s relationship with the work of art, which is the point of it all anyway.
the objective property is the quantiable wavelneght of light that is reflected, and represents a color, like red. the subjective does cause the manifestions of such sensory experience. WHether or not you like the color red is not a matter of the objective, because that exists outside of your opinions, thus your taste having to do with pleasure or not pleasure is due to the subjective property of taste, that the observer manistedf this sensory experience and experienced whether they like it or not.
What is taste? Does the fact that we disagree about taste create a problem of
subjective theories of aesthetic value? What was Hume’s attitude towards this
(putative) problem? Is his view defensible?
Taste arises from the secondary qualities from certain artefacts/work of art that we discern are good/bad. Thus it lies under the subjective, and thus is a matter of preference and judgemtn that varies from person to person. This does pose a problem to aasethetic value. There is a conflict when there are contradictory tastes due to each individual opinion on the art, this disagreements on the value and quality of arworks. Hume does recognize the existence of common norms/standards within artworks that they share in order, this is seen through critics or those in certain fields coming in agreement of what can be good or bad in such field of art. Thus allowing room for criticism and meaningful dialogue to learn and grow from. Not only does this combine two different schools of aeshetitcs judgement, and helps unify a common human experience and nature of aesthetic value.
Why does perceptual variability pose a problem of naive realism as a theory
of perception? Does the Argument from Perceptual Variability show that naïve realism is false?
Perceptual variability questions the validity of naïve realism, mainly, that it argues that each person perceives the same object/art differently. Naïve realism perceives objects as they are, and thus we should all in turn experience the same thing, but that is not what happens in reality. Even one person may perceive an artwork differently at different points in their lifetime. It does not necesirally lead to the conclusion that naivec realism is false, rather it allows us to accept the idea of multiple interpretations , and welcome the subjectivity into art works. And allows the validity of works of art of themselves. Perceptual variability welcomes and understands the importance of context, intent and growth.
What is the difference between autographic and allographic works of art?
Which kinds are which? Is this distinction defensible?
Autographic : X is an autographic type iff even the most exact copy, or duplication of X cannot be considered a genuine instance of the work X. Like a sculpture, water colors, drawings, etc.
Allographic :X is allographic art type, iff every exact duplicate of X also vounts as the same work. Like poems, plays, music, operas, dance .etc.
Yes, it certainly holds true. It allows there to be a clear distinction between different mediums of art, and for them all to be considered art, and unify these different forms into the aesthetic realm.
How does this argument generalize to the claim that beauty is not an intrinsic
property of works of art or of nature? Does it show thad naive realism about
beauty is false?
Basically follows the same structure of logic, beauty although has underlying common themes as explains through naïve realism. The truth is the disagreement on beauty is understood through perceptual variability, and allows room for the complexity of the debate. It is subjective rather than objective. Naïve realism is not compeltly false, rather it does not stand true if it were the only explanation. If it were intrinsic, the truth of the matter would be that it would not change regardless of individual percepvtion, and thus aesthetic theory in general would not exist at all. It does challenge it further, because naïve realism leaves out this interpretation is not concerned with the subjective properties of a work of art, rather onlt the ‘observable objective ones’
What are descriptive aesthetic relativism and aesthetic relativism? How are
these claims distinct? Does one entail the other?
This merely observes and describes work of art through its diversity of aesthetic values without making evaluation on their values or validity or meaning. Unlike normative who takes all judgements as equally valid. Observant , cultural variation, individual vraiaiton, and historical variation all stand . One does not entail the other. Because they do not care about the same things, and approach art works seperaetly.
What are the positive and negative formulations of aesthetic relativism (or,
relativism about judgments of beauty)? Is either of these theories defensible?
Aesthetic relativism leaves room for the multiple experiences/perceptions of beauty for each individual, and different contexts in culture and history.
Positive: Only truth follows, only tautology, we learn nothing, we just leave it at that. ALthought it accepts the truth of everybody, it leaves no room for discussion. No room for growth and meaningul experience in the struggle to learn from ‘each others’ truth’
Negative: It does not leave room for any meaningful conversatin since there are no objective theories to go off of, it is only a mtter of personal preforance or cultural bias, and thus no aesthetic judgement, and no aesthetic value can be made of this. The biggest danger being nihlim and therefore making it seem meaningless.
It helps be open minded- and humble of all aesthetic traditions in different cultures, but its extreme version would lack any room for meaning, value, and experience. Thus it can be, and a matter of acceptance which truth you want to accept.
