Response to Kim Pincus's Post: Hume's theory of art

Hume says that the reason for a difference of opinion stems from different distracters in life.  These distracters come from the differing points of view of people.  These differing points of view come from the various cultures, chemical and emotion influences, age, etc. that are experienced.  More than that though, it alludes to anything that would influence or change a persons’ outlook or way of thinking.  Whether physical or genetic differences it still remains as a variance in life that could make for a difference of point of view.  Once separating the things that create these differences you are left only with the things that are common among every member of the human race.  In essence this means everyone is the same.  If everyone was the same and had the same points of view then it would only be natural for their thoughts and opinions to be the same.  As an idea this is sound.  However, since this type of breakdown is highly improbable in this world the idea has no real practical application beyond saying that if everyone was the same there would be no difference of opinion.

If this idea only works under ideal conditions does it really mean that it can't be applied to the real world?

The Problem with Definition

Defining something as art exists as a two part problem.  The issue is the connection from the artist’s intent to the acceptance by the art community.  Anything that is created with the intent of being art has the potential to be art.  Only when it is agreed by observers of the piece that it is art is it then considered as art.  The only true objective component what makes something art is the intent in creation.  Art is not accident.  All other determining factors are subjective.  People have different views on what makes something a work of art.  These views come from each persons’ experience and learning of a definition of art.  When people from multiple points of reference can agree that a certain piece is a work of art then it is probability an acceptable example of art.   This alludes to a collective subjective understanding or agreement.  Everything is defined by what it is commonly understood to be.

No belief or understanding of concepts can completely be wrong unless it goes against definable properties that the concept entails.  Personal understandings of a single piece of art are all correct.  However, as the determination applies to a larger world outside of one’s self it must coincide with the overall understanding of the majority of that world.  For the artist something may be art, but if everyone else disagrees with that finding, then as it applies to them it is not art.  That doesn’t mean that the artist’s determination is wrong.  It simply means that it was added to a personal classification or medium of art.

As more people agree with this classification or reasons why it is art, that particular grouping may grow.  This in turn can create a new medium for art to exist.  This is the precise thing that allows for the expansion of the art world.  The more people that accept this new medium, the greater the probability the piece being defended will be accepted as part of the art world.

Does the implication of limiting what is included in the art world by a collective agreement of whether it should be accepted help to add limitation to the intentionalist theory of art?  Is it a just limitation?

From the Unconscious to the Conscious

Artists intentionally manipulate emotion through depiction on canvas, through theatre, and with countless other mediums.  They make their living by accessing their unconscious to do so.  Just like with professional pitchers throwing a baseball.  Anyone can throw a ball, but with much practice they can hit a desired target following a specific path of flight.  This is also true of what artists do.  They pick certain emotions to pass on to others in their art.  Through time they become more attune with their unconscious because of willful access.  It the willing access of the unconscious mind that helps artists understand their inner desires better.  They learn how to better manipulate the desired emotion to make it more receptive to audiences.  The need to be able to access and manipulate unconscious desires becomes a major aspect of the life of an artist.  How an artist begins to do this as Freud says, “Is his innermost secret.”

The act of taking inner feelings or thoughts from the unconscious mind and intentionally manipulating them into art brings those hidden aspects into the conscious mind.  This has to be because art is intentional by necessity.  Therefore an artist must know and understand what desires and emotions he/she is trying to reproduce.  This reasoning seems to suggest that Freud’s understanding of art is contradictory.  Freud says that art is skillful presentation of an artist’s daydreams.  Daydreams are a manipulation of hidden desires.  Therefore the art is a presentation of the hidden or unknown.  Artists must know the feelings that are being portrayed because they careful crafted their works in order to pass on these feelings to others.  For them to do this they have to be conscious of the desired emotion behind the piece.

How can an artist not know the true meaning behind his/her art, when art is the intentional manipulation of feelings or desires?  How can they manipulate what they don’t know?

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibilty"

Art is a very powerful tool.  Its power lies in the power of influence.  Art can influence and manipulate emotion.  Tolstoy even says that the goal of art is to infect observers with intended specific emotions.  As with all things of great power, the potential for good and bad are equal. 

Art can be used to inflict all types of emotion.  This extends from inciting fear and helplessness to happiness and optimism.  The use of art to inflict the former can be dangerous while the latter can be of great use and good.  Making people feel helpless makes them depressed and provides a lack of motivation and drive to do much of anything.  On the other hand optimistic people are more likely to take risks and with that potentially succeed in new and great developments.

It is because of the nature of duality that art is a very dangerous tool. Artists have a great responsibility to use art carefully.  Like Stan Lee’s character Uncle Ben said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Is this too dangerous a power for mere humans to control?

Defining Art as Good or Bad: A Necessity?

Making judgment as to whether pieces of art are either good or bad is absolutely necessary.  Without making this decision the art world is simply over populated. Art in its basic form is something that the artist intended to use as a mode to move you in some way. It is because of this definition that allows almost anything to be portrayed or created as art. Almost anything can be considered art but whether it is worthwhile or not lies in the distinction of good or bad. This determination can be made in a number of ways.

The skill of the artist is one way that people can use to decide the quality of a piece of art.  The ability to create something that others cannot is definitely something of note and is many times taken into the consideration process.  This helps to avoid the common “A child could have done that,” response which can be given to works that many consider to be bad art.

The history of the artist is another thing that many people use to justify art as good.  If an accomplished artist says that something is art it generally has more leeway when others look at the piece.  An example of this is John Cage’s The Sound of Silence (4'33).  If this was created by anyone that was not an accomplished composer it would have simply been ignored or thrown out, but since it was people tend to give it some thought and debate.

In the end what tends to win is simply majority consideration.  Since art is highly subjective, what the masses decide is what goes.  This arguably can be unfair but you really can’t fight the majority. This is what really ends up limiting the art world as a whole.  Without this limtation art would have no discernable value.

How else can we set just limitations to the art world?