Objective and Subjective

I want to discuss objective and subjective qualities in art; to do that, I'll use one of my favorite paintings, Ashes by Edvard Munch, as an example.

Some objective qualities of this painting:

• Relatively drab color scheme
• Depicts two people, a man and a woman
• Forest background
• The man is painted in mostly blacks and grays, while the woman is mostly painted in a yellowish skin tone, light brown, red, and white

These are easily observable qualities, that could probably come under fire only if others wish to dispute the specific shades of color used.

Some subjective qualities I observe:

• Both figures appear to be distressed.
• The contrasting color schemes of the two figures illustrate the emotional distance between them.
• The unnatural colors of the forest add to the sense of isolation
• The strong outlines confine each of the figures and trees.

These are all qualities that I think contribute greatly to making a case for this painting being a work of art.  However, while they are based on components of the painting, they are only my opinions.   Others may share them, but it is only because we happen to perceive the lines and colors and shapes in the same way.  This is what Hume means when he talks about beauty relying entirely upon the sensory organs of the observer.

Image from http://www.edvard-munch.com/gallery/love/ashes.htm

Abandoning hope?

Weitz's application of Wittgenstein's concept of family relations, while a little too easy too accept, is still tempting.  Consider an actor performing Othello's monologue from Act 5, Scene 2 ("It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul").  His artistry lies in the way he chooses to move or not to move, on the words he stresses, on whether he portrays the character as visibly sorrowful or coldly resigned.  His is an audiovisual art form.  The speech itself is another work of art, and though it uses the same text, the two are completely different.  Shakespeare created his art through words, paying close attention to the meter of lines.  The actor might entirely ignore the meter, might play the role in a completely different way from the first Othello.  So these two works of art both include the use of words and convey some emotion.  However, many works of art use no words.  So we are left with communication of emotion as a common trait.  Consider a third work of art: perhaps a still life of a bowl of fruit.  Perhaps no clear emotion is being conveyed by this painting (perhaps the emotion is present, but not immediately apparent).  The most specific link between these three works is creativity--I know I keep talking about it, but I feel as though I'm on to something and I'm going to hold on to it. 
What else do these works share?  Or is Weitz correct?

Create

"Creativity" comes from the word "create," whose root is the Latin root "cre-" which means "to make." Creativity starts with the basic level of constructing, shaping, forming.  It is at the very foundation of a work of art.  An artist can exercise creativity at every stage of the artistic process; even when doing something procedural, like mixing up plaster, the artist may add another step or ingredient that is exclusive to her and her style.  When in the finishing touches or editing stage, the artist tries to improve her work by tweaking the details until she is satisfied with the result, making it as strange, beautiful, disturbing, unique as she deems fit. 
"Creativity" can also be linked to "Creation," as in that of a higher power.  I am not trying to discuss religion here.  But it could be said that artists are like gods, bringing their creations to life, making their art in their own images with their own personal style.
Creativity is vital to art.  What role do you think it plays in other areas of life?

Hope for a definition

Weitz looks at art the same way that Wittgenstein looks at language, that is, in terms of "family relationships."  They say that these categories have no solidly defining traits, that there is no one trait or set of traits that links the parts of these categories.  Instead, they say, the components of these categories are linked by family relationships.
I find it tempting to accept this explanation--we haven't collectively come up with a definition of art yet, and all of the different essays argue rather different and sometimes conflicting points (with varying degrees of finesse).  Maybe there isn't even one trait that all works of art share.  With all of art's categories and subcategories, it is easy to be overwhelmed.  However, it seems that art should have a definition, otherwise it becomes this unexplainable force, something practically omnipotent. 
To some, like Bell, it may well be omnipotent.  To others, like Dewey, it may be ordinary but also the work of a Creator or nature itself.  But I think that, while that art is undeniably powerful, it is not beyond our grasp. 

This post brought to you by graffiti

In the women's restroom on the lowest level of Venable, there is some somewhat unusual graffiti (along with the standard "I <3 Jim H.," etc).  On one of the walls is written the line, "To Avalon we line the streets."  I was always a bit intrigued by this, figuring it was a quote but not knowing what the quote was from.  Maybe some epic tale or poem?  No.  Not really.
It's actually from the Hanson song "Lay Me Down."
I admit, when I Googled the line, I didn't expect to come up with that.  Having spent many of my formative years listening to my parents' favorite lite rock station, I didn't know much popular music as a kid.  I didn't think this was a typical line for pop songs, though.  I have to wonder whether or not that line was an organic part of the song-writing process, or if whoever wrote the song put it in afterwards because it sounded cool.  Maybe they'd always wanted to use the line and didn't know where else they could put it.  I guess it's a silly subject for a blog post, particularly since I'm not sure where most pop music fits under the umbrella of art, but it made me think, so I thought I'd share.

Importance of the Superego

Sean Glennon asked this question: Does the child need to have their superego to be intentionally creating art?

Well, the superego is just another way of saying the part of the mind reserved for higher thought.  I would say that in order to create something like a drawing, only the ego is needed.  Putting down marks on a paper requires no higher thought, only conscious thought and motor functions.  What differentiates that from intentional art is another level of processing thoughts and emotions.  No matter what you call it, yes, the superego is needed for the intentional creation of art.

Is there any art in which the id is obviously celebrated, instead of being disguised?

What is art which doesn't have any intended emotion?

This question was posed by Natalie Pozzetti.

Personally, I think that all art conveys some sort of emotion.  The artist may or may not intend to instill a specific emotion in those experiencing the art, but all real art stems from emotion.  Say for example that I created an abstract painting, consisting of swirling, curving lines in various shades of green.  When I painted this, I was feeling refreshed, although I want to know what others get out of it.  Someone looking at the painting might feel a sense of curiosity.  Someone else might see hope.  Although I created the painting while feeling "refreshed," I didn't necessarily want everyone who looked at the painting to feel the same way.  I think it's okay to make art that is open to interpretation.


Question: What do you think about the role of religious art?