Paradigms and Purposes

Something that I think is worth discussing is Plato's philosophy. First of all, I don't think that if life is an imitation of the ideal, that art is imitation of imitation, or a copy of a copy. In fact, I would say the exact opposite, that art is closer to the ultimate idea. I've been taught that Plato philosophized about everything trying to get at its most essential "essence", so to speak. For example, all pens are at different levels of "pen-ness", all attempting to be the "most pen". So! That means that every piece of art is an imagining of something, usually with a twist from the artist who has imagined that thing at its most pure. So if a piece of art is an abstract representation of an imitation, then it could be that art is closer to the truth or the real than the original worldly thing that inspired the art.
Though in some ways I can see his point about a copy of a copy, it bugs me that just because it's not the ideal, it's not worthwhile. Who cares if it's a copy of a copy if we can walk away from it with a point? It's like saying that because someone took the bus to a job interview instead of a cab, that person isn't getting the job. Who cares how he got there if he's qualified? In some ways that leads to the argument about intent, but I don't think that's very applicable in this case.

I always did admire gothic artists' ability to truly elicit the emotions and reactions they were going for, at least at the time--a sense of inferiority in response to a grand cathedral or their use of light to represent the divine light of God. Versailles is another example of personal environmental artwork that I would love to visit. As we discussed in class, apparently there are some spots in the garden that, despite the rigidity of it, are solitary and more overgrown. It makes me think of people finding their own place in the world. I like the physical environmental space form of art because it tends to impact me more and puts some things in perspective.

Nature and Nuture

The question that's plagued the social sciences for ages is the ever-present, "Nature or nurture?" There is really no way of knowing, almost ever, which is responsible for anything because the two are so deeply intertwined. Asking that question is like asking which eye is more important in the grand scheme of things, or in the event of a double-amputation, which leg you'd rather have cut off first. It makes a small difference if any because it all culminates in the same ending: You like what you like when it comes to art. Of course, it is human nature to seek answers; it's apparent from psychological experiments that people are more comfortable with a wrong answer than no answer at all. That's not discounting the article's proposed explanation of art and evolutionary psychology, but it is something to consider.

Personally, I think one reason people like the landscape scenes so much is partially because it is noncontroversial. What's not to like about a wide-open landscape? Sometimes people put them down as uncreative or decoration instead of true art, but they seem to be a minority. The skeptics probably even liked the pretty pictures when they were young and open-minded. Maybe they don't like landscapes because they have an internal definition of what they like or what they like to be associated with, and because a landscape doesn't fit that criteria, it is cast aside.

What the article seems to be arguing is not so much if DNA helps determine what we like in art, but what we like to see in general. And it seems silly to tell me that I obviously wish I was in the savanna just because I need shelter, food, water, and safety. Far from it. Sunsets don't make me nervous, and I don't always like wide open spaces. Maybe the reason we like those things is because we need them to survive. In one way, that supports the article, because those who didn't follow those rules and needs of survival got eaten by lions. On the other, that's like arguing that because I need contacts to see, I must especially appreciate art that features glasses, x-ray vision (like Australian Aboriginal art), or blind people.

Art that's compositionally sound is actually a "nature thing"--symmetry and the composition rules are evolutionary and scientifically supported. Whether I like desert landscapes or jungle landscapes--that might be nurture. Do I like snowscapes? Yes. Do I want to live in one, say, when it's really bad in Pullman? Not necessarily. In fact, someone who was here last winter might be less inclined to have one on the wall now because s/he is sick of it. Voila! Nurture. And I don't buy that having a picture of one on my wall enables me to cope with a new ice age.

What is art?

Art is intentional manipulation of a medium to convey meaning (or a message) beyond utility. By "intentional manipulation" I don't mean a specific product of the efforts because sometimes art is the process, like a meditation. In some cultures, people spend hours a day creating a mandala (example shown), only to blow it all away at the end. For them, the end product, while often beautiful, complex, and full of meaning, is not the artistic part of art-making; instead, the art is in the meditation involved in spending that time creating the piece. In contrast, photographs or paintings are often purely "end result" art, appreciated almost solely for what is tangible at the end. Paintings are not often famous for their creator's mental process during the creation of the work; instead, they are famous for content, composition, and so forth.
Where art becomes confusing is in the utility it transcends. Can something still be art if it's usable? In class, one newspaper featured a print of a barn. A napkin circulated with it on which a similar barn was printed. If illustrations of barns can be art sold for millions, is it still art on a napkin? If it was the exact same picture, would it be art on the napkin, or merely decoration? If the Mona Lisa was printed on underwear, is that still decoration or does it become desecration of art? Or is art just decoration?
I would say that all art contains the capacity to be just decoration, but all decorations are certainly not art because decoration is not meaningful manipulation (more about status).
Are movie graphics art? Is the flag art? Is porn art? Are company logos art? ...Hmm.