"Kant admits that, 'it seems strange that gardening may be regarded as a kind of painting,' but then explains that this art [Versailles gardens] can meet his criteria for 'free play of imagination'".
This excerpt from "Paradigms and Purposes" was the one part of this section that really caught my interest. As you might be able to tell from my previous writings as well as my comments in class, I am a fan of the more nontraditional forms of art. The phrase "free play of imagination" seems to emphasize the fact that Kant is much the same way. Although Kant seems to enjoy order and adherence to form, as the garden of Versailles depicts, he does not attempt to delve deeper into the "meaning" behind the garden. He sees it for what it is - - "a harmony of the faculties" - - and claims that is the reason why we call it a beautiful work of art.
Kant's definition of art is refreshing to me. He counts thunderstorms, volcanoes, and waterfalls as works of art, and I definitely can see his point of view. Coming from Arizona, I have spent many summers watching monsoons and lightning storms at night. Their beauty is breathtaking, mainly because of the unpredictability associated with them. You never know when you will encounter another one, so there is really no option but to enjoy their strength and power. These occurrences are never planned and to me, that is what makes them so intriguing. Nature is one of the most stimulating forms of art - - there is so many ways in which it can be admired and respected. As Kant would say, it stimulates the "free play of imagination" because of its endless possibilities.
The question I have is why do more people not count the free form of nature as art? I think that answer lies in tradition; for centuries, people have looked at art as something that hangs in a museum or something that must be critiqued or theorized. Society sees art as something to be created, not something natural found in our everyday lives. This is a tragedy in my eyes because people's imaginations would run wild if they only considered all that nature has to offer.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Is our DNA a sort of "ghostly puppet master" determining our aesthetical preferences?
Conniff’s article interested me because of its unique take on artistic aesthetics and our (human) preferences on the subject. It is not something that I would have ever investigated on my own, but when put in front of me, sparks an interest because of the new take on artistic preferences. The theory of evolution if often thought of as controversial but when using the topic in conjunction with art, I believe it becomes even more so.
I agree with the article on the idea that evolution governs much of our DNA, and in some way, can see how the author might link evolution and aesthetical preferences. However, I do not think that evolution can provide a complete explanation for our artistic choices. Take myself for example - - I have never been one to look at art or find excitement in visiting a museum. I prefer abstract art and design to landscapes and portraits, which I often consider boring. Do I not fit the “evolutional” mold then? Does that mean that I prefer chaos and anarchy to the way life is now? I do not think that about myself, and do not think that art preference can say that about any person in particular.
It is my thought that people often prefer landscapes and portraits because it is a topic that they are able to understand. It might seem like a simplistic approach, but to me it provides a good enough explanation for a question with seemingly no “correct” solution. There is no need to search for a deeper meaning, or any sort of meaning, to enjoy the work of art. People are simple - - they like what they can understand without too much thought, or else it is considered work. Evolution may play a role in these aesthetical preferences but only because it ensures that people understand landscapes with green grass and blue skies. These images have been a part of life on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. How can people not understand that after all that time?
I agree with the article on the idea that evolution governs much of our DNA, and in some way, can see how the author might link evolution and aesthetical preferences. However, I do not think that evolution can provide a complete explanation for our artistic choices. Take myself for example - - I have never been one to look at art or find excitement in visiting a museum. I prefer abstract art and design to landscapes and portraits, which I often consider boring. Do I not fit the “evolutional” mold then? Does that mean that I prefer chaos and anarchy to the way life is now? I do not think that about myself, and do not think that art preference can say that about any person in particular.
It is my thought that people often prefer landscapes and portraits because it is a topic that they are able to understand. It might seem like a simplistic approach, but to me it provides a good enough explanation for a question with seemingly no “correct” solution. There is no need to search for a deeper meaning, or any sort of meaning, to enjoy the work of art. People are simple - - they like what they can understand without too much thought, or else it is considered work. Evolution may play a role in these aesthetical preferences but only because it ensures that people understand landscapes with green grass and blue skies. These images have been a part of life on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. How can people not understand that after all that time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
