The Intentionality Thesis & The Violation of Art.

In class on Friday, we discussed the intentionality thesis of art in trying to describe what makes art the way that it is. The intentionality thesis states that there must be an intention behind the piece in order to consider it art. However, this could be intention on either the artist or the observer's side. For example, an artist may create a painting with the intent for it to be art, but when the painting is completed, a critical observer may look at it in such a way that his or her intent is not for artistic purposes. Does that still make the painting art? Another example, something in nature may have come about not for the intention of it to be art, such as the aurora borealis, but onlookers look at it with the intent of seeing art. Is the aurora borealis, then, considered art?

In class, we also discussed whether or not we thought that technology has violated or "molested" art in contemporary times. My personal belief is that technology has both violated and benefited art. A lot of modern art nowadays is very abstract and controversial, consisting of a lot of mixed media and human interaction pieces. Without new technology to make such art possible, it would cease to exist, so technology has completely transformed the way art is. However, it has also violated art. Music post-production doesn't sound quite the same as it used to back in the 1970s and 1980s - the raw, natural sound is gone, replaced with ProTools and other layering technology. Also, we have become so accustomed to seeing classic pieces of art on the Internet like the Mona Lisa that the enthusiasm when seeing it in real life has diminished greatly - people figure they don't even need to go to art museums anymore because they can just as easily see art online. It just isn't the same.

My question is, "Art has become so metaphorical and abstract nowadays that almost anything can be considered art. Some artists take it to the extreme and put others and themselves as risk for their art. Where are the boundaries between what is art and what is just plain reckless?"

Response #2.

This is in response to Chelsea's blog in which she asked, "What do you believe is the best course of action if people are spreading a rumor about you that is not true?"

All throughout high school, I was always that kid that nobody really knew too much about because I kept to myself and to my friends most of the time. However, for some reason, my name floated around the school despite my tendencies to lay low - I guess out of intimidation because I was never afraid to really be myself, or because I've always been a bit out there, so people didn't really know what to make of me. But nevertheless, there have been instances where people did spread false rumors about me.

Through my experience, I can say the best way to deal with these rumors is just to ignore them. Rumors are a really immature and childish thing to deal with, and if you create them into a problem bigger than they should be, you're not only giving people the attention that they want, but you're also making a spectacle of yourself, leading people to further believe that the rumor is true. However, if you just ignore the rumor, brush it off your back as if it's nothing, then it will soon die off. You won't be giving people the satisfaction of knowing that it possibly bothered you, and because you showed that it didn't bother you (even if it did), then people may figure out that it is untrue and go about their daily lives and leave you alone.

Although this is on an unrelated note, my question is, "Do you believe that Beauty is purely subjective, or is there a collective social standard of what is deemed beautiful and what is not?"

Response #1.

This is in response to Chelsea's question, "Do you believe that tattoos should be considered art, and would you ever get one?"

I do believe that tattoos are considered works of art, for numerous reasons. Number one is that the artist who is tattooing on your skin is an actual artist; their work is normally talented both on the skin and on the paper. Skin is just merely another surface to make art upon. Secondly is that the tattoo can hold just as much meaning and just as much symbolism as any other visual piece of art. Art is known as art because of it's way of reaching into the human soul and grabbing a piece of it and churning it into something not only visually-stimulating, but also worthy of deep thought. I'm personally a tattoo enthusiast, I've loved them for years, and many of the tattoos that I've seen on other people (and the ones I have myself) are both artistically well done and has deeper meaning that is unique to each tattoo.

As for myself, I already have a tattoo and I'm planning out many, many more. I have a yin yang separated by yin and yang on each shoulder blade with two dots next to each side to represent a bass clef. It pretty much represents my belief that there is good in every evil and evil in every good, and how the universe naturally balances itself out, and how I also believe that music plays a role in that process because it's one of the oldest and most organic forms of artistic creation known to man. It's my first tattoo and I couldn't ask for anything more perfect.

My follow-up question is, "In contemporary society, almost anything can be turned into art. Where is the line drawn between something that is art and something that is not?"

Theories of Truth.

In class today, we started discussing the correspondence theory of truth versus the coherence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that a statement or idea is true if it corresponds with the way the world is, or is perceived to be. For example, Johnson gave the example in class of the statement "The cat is on the mat." The statement is only true if the cat is, indeed, on the mat - the claim is in accordance with the world. However, if at that particular moment the cat is not on the mat, then the statement is false.

On the other hand, the coherence theory of truth states that a statement or idea is true based on whether or not it coheres to other statements surrounding it. An example of this would be that my coffee cup is brown because it looks like the same color as the tree bark outside, and the tree bark is known to be brown because it is true. Therefore, my coffee cup is brown.

However, both the correspondence theory and the coherence theory are flaws in that they are both based off of our perspectives or how we perceive things, especially in the case of colors. One color to one person may not necessarily be the same color to another (what if they're colorblind?) so the system is flawed. Furthermore, in the case of the correspondence theory, optical illusions such as looking at a straw through a glass of water may distort our reality and distort truth.

My question is, "Where is the line drawn between critical thinking and skepticism? How does one think critically without being too much of a skeptic?"