Response to Sarah LaBaire's Question

 If we were as calculating, rational, and unfeeling as Plato wishes us to be, what would civilization look like? What would life be in this world?

When I think of a world without human emotions, I think of a scifi show in which the human brain was removed, had all human emotions removed and was placed into a robot body. They were supposed to be perfect, incapable of human error because they didn't have emotions to cloud their judgement, but it made them inhuman. With the very thing that made them human gone, they considered themselves better than humans, and sought to destroy all who were deemed inferior. They had not pity or remorse for their actions, and in the end, they miscalculated, and ended up destroying each other. Human emotions influence of desicions, in order for us to be calculative, we need emotions, or we'll be nothing more than computers. The same gut feeling that helps us make desicions is the spark that fuels creativity in ideas.

Plato wouldn't like Play-dough

The title of this post was inspired by a comment made by my ten year old sister made when I was telling her about Plato. She asked if Plato invented Play-dough, and I told her no, he would probably disapprove of play-dough, because it is used by children to sculpt their versions of real life people and object, in other words, an imitation of an imitation.

While I initially disagreed with Plato's views on art as an imitation, and of no real significance, I was out of context. I didn't undertand the mindset of Plato's time. They believed that there was a world of ideas, a world of 'forms' which were the most perfect forms, created by the gods. Then these ideas, these forms, are given shape by craftsmen, and loose some of their perfection. So reproducing these objects as art is only taking them further away from the world of forms, and further away from perfection. Once I understood this, I could understand why Plato seemed so down on art. It was like making a photocopy of a picture in a book, and then making a photocopy of the photocopy. The resolution will be far withdrawn from the original picture.

My questionis, do we in today's society hold art to a higher standard, and consider it more infulential, or do our school's budget cuts on art programs stand as a symbol to our view on the importance of art?
.

Response to Katie Sparagna's question.

Is the intention of the artist  to  evoke a specific reaction to their art more important then their intention to create a piece of art itself?

I think that they are equally important. Yes it is important for the artist to intend for his art to be recieved a certain way, but it is just as important how people recieve it. The artist may intend for a peice to put forth one message, but people may come up with an entierly different meaning for the work. If the people  viewing the work comprehend the same message the artist intended, the piece is considered a sucess and usually deeply moving and symbolic. If people doint get what the artist was implying, it does't make the piece not art, it just makes it pooly executed art. I think the most important concept is what the people get out of it. Besides, the artists intention to evoke a specific reaction should be synonomus with their intention to create the piece. If they are sepate, then the artist isn't creating art in a natural, creative way, but rather a forced, logical way, which looses alot of the spirit and honesty that goes into making art.

Class discussion about intentionality of art.

In class, several things came up that got me thinking. One thing that I found very interesting was the issue of natural art vs natural beauty. Before the discussion, I would have argued that there is such a thing as natural art, which spawns from natural beauty. But a good point was made. If we consider that intentionality plays a role in defineing art, then there can't be such a thing as natural art, because a person didn't intend for nature to look a certain way, it simply does so naturally. It only becomes art if it's image is intentionally captured through a medium, like photography or painting.
We also discussed how large a role intentionality plays in defineing art. I will be the first to honestly admit, this confused me. I mean, I couldn't understand how anyone could even try to define art. It's just art, a wonderful, broad subject that just is. Everyone has there own mindset about art, but it's near impossible to put to words.
With all this talk about art and deeper meanings making my head spin, I start to wonder, if intentionality is only one factor that makes up what art is, what else is there that makes something art?