UHP399 Gardens & Machines

Cynthia Freeland’s book But is it Art? deals with the idea of defining exactly what art is, obviously not an easy thing to do, as art means something different to everybody. Chapter 6, “Cognition, Creation, Comprehension” deals with the idea of defining this exactly. Art, Freeland claims, can do a variety of things, and the same piece of artwork can do different things for different people. For instance, Freeland cites work by the painter Francis Bacon, whose artwork seemed horrific to many people due to the images of screaming people. However, other critics saw only his superb technique, taking nothing from it symbolically.

Freeland claims that a proper interpretation is somewhere between these two extremes, looking partly at both and taking the art as a medium to express complicated thoughts. She goes on to explain why she finds this view relevant, as well as other ways art can be used for expression, and cites specific scholars who take that approach. For instance, Tolstoy feels that art expresses an emotion, Freud that it serves to express unconscious desires and lust, Suzanne Langer (among others) feels that art represents an idea instead of a feeling, and Dewey sees art as a tool to enhance people’s world and perceptions.

I feel that while this is a good basis, there is still the issue that each analysis is essentially correct. Nobody can really entirely know what the artist was trying to express except the artist. Therefore, there is no one “correct” way to interpret art. Art says different things to different people, and that is what makes it so wonderful. The fact that the meaning isn’t spelled out in black letters on white paper is what makes you want to come back to it time and time again, because each time you take a different meaning out of it. It also is what makes us reach for art as an expressive medium when we have feelings too complicated to express in words, or if we are confused about what we’re thinking. For instance, I know if I’m confused or angry or upset but don’t know exactly why, I reach for my camera or cello and lose myself in art momentarily. Once I’ve come back and thought about what I’ve done, it becomes easier to realize what my feelings were because they have been spelled out in the art, even if I couldn’t put them into words. This doesn’t mean that they say the same thing to everybody, but I can retroactively see what I was trying to say, what I couldn’t get across with words.  Therefore, an essay on how to interpret art can only achieve limited usefulness, as there is no one “right” way to go about it.  Freeland’s critique is good for trying to see different ways that one could interpret things, but in the end, art is still a highly personal endeavor.  Another reason that this was hurt was that each method that was examined was used to evaluate a different work of art.  Therefore, there was no consensus on when one interpretation should be applied over another.  It is as if the reader is expected to know this, and to intuitively know how to look at art.  While this is true in the sense that people look at art differently, it would seem that if people know which way to view the art, they would know what that view is used to say.

The next chapter, “Digitizing and Disseminating” looks at how technology has impacted our views of art.  The main arguments follow the thoughts of three main philosophers.  The first to be analyzed is Walter Benjamin.  Benjamin believes that each work of art has an “aura,” something that can not be easily explained.  This so-called “aura” is lost as art has become more easily accessible through technology, but Benjamin does not find this to be a bad thing.  Instead, he claims that it makes people more perceptive and that it brings art to many people who would previously have been put off by the aura.  The second view is that of Boudrillard, who takes a much more negative, dystopic view of the impact of technology.  Boudrillard finds that life has become “hyperreal” or larger than life.  An example of this would be Disney World, where everything is more perfect than it could possibly be in the real world, and weddings, which now seem to exist only for taking pictures and video, so that one can remember it rather than experiencing it.  The third view, that of McLuhan, is again optimistic.  He feels that art has become more democratic, it can be experienced by more people.  It also increases the level which people are social through technology.

Again, Freeland takes a moderate approach between the extremes.  She questions the optimism of Benjamin and McLuhan, but also finds Boudrillard to be overly pessimistic.  She ends the conclusion encouraging readers to make their own decisions.

I find myself agreeing with Freeland to an extent.  I feel that Benjamin is perhaps too optimistic, for there is still something to be experienced in seeing the aura of a piece of work. Boudrillard’s view is definitely valid, as one can see the effects he mentions all around us.  Buildings are bigger, the lives of the extremely wealthy more extravagant than before.  However, it seems a bit excessive to believe that people are no longer experiencing life, but only a simulation of it.  McLuhan brings up some good points, but often, technology leaves us as lonely as before.  If people are truly “interacting” with it, then it is only as a faceless stranger somewhere in space. The human element has then become meaningless.

Overall, the reading left me with several questions:

1. Does the medium of the artwork effect the magnitude of the impact of technology?

2. Has society always been this way and technology only heightened our awareness of it, or has technology truly impacted society?

3. If someone’s view of a work of art is different than the conventional view, to what extent is it “wrong” or merely “different”?

In Cynthia Freeland’s But Is it Art?, chapter 6 is titled “Cognition, creation, comprehension”, which in three words summarizes the main ideas in this section. She discusses the various factors of intent, environment, creator, viewer, and etc that influences the interpretation, and ultimately the enjoyment, of artwork. Two schools of thoughts are introduced in attempt to classify these factors: “Expressive Theory” and “Cognitive Theory.” Freeland continues to describe that art communicates with the observer. Expressive theory captures the essence of how art relates to the viewer through feelings and emotions while cognitive theory focuses on the knowledge that art brings to the viewer. To demonstrate, Freeland elaborates using the Triptych of 1973, by Francis Bacon. This piece is supposedly the perfect example of both theories because it contains “emotions” like laughing and “complex thoughts” like language. This leads her to conclude that both theories are valid and in fact accurate in many artworks; but in the end, interpretations are to help “enable us to see and respond to the work better,” not to “tell us what to think.”

In many ways, Freeland’s thoughts and comments on art interpretation are in line with my rather limited ideas and actually reinforces what I have come to believe in art interpretation. Simply put, art interpretation is an art in itself. We study art and interpret art in order to better understand art, to better enjoy art, and to feel closer to what the artist felt. But because art is created in so many ways, under so many different circumstances, and by so many different people, interpreting art has become an incredibly complex task. With the evolution of new art forms, this is more true now than it has ever been, and will continue to grow more complex in the future. This is best seen by example. Search Amazon.com for recordings of Beethoven’s Symphony #5 and you’ll find over 50 different results. Every recording represents a unique interpretation of this great symphony by that particular conductor and orchestra. Some can be similar, but you’ll find that no two are alike let alone identical. Even more amazing is that even two recordings of the same conductor with the same orchestra can sound drastically different. Since conductors and musicians interpret music, and we call them artists, then we can rightfully conclude that interpreting art is an art.

Chapter 7 shifts gears into a different aspect of art: original vs. reproduction. This is obviously a bigger issue for certain arts than others, but Freeland mentions a few things in particular. First is the “aura” of some artworks that is lost in the many reproductions, causing them to lose the “magic” of the original. She continues to describe that reproductions are more personal and seem less prestigious because they are easy to obtain. This brings up her second topic of art for the masses (democratic art). Here, she discusses the internet, technology, and photography, and how they’ve changed the way many people look at or think about art. Why travel half way around the world to see the Mona Lisa when you can pull it up on your internet browser? Is what we see in reproductions actually close to the real thing? This question leads us to Freeland’s third point of hyperrealism. The main example here is Disneyland, where everything down to the white picket fences create the image of a perfect American town. Here, people can relax and completely immerse themselves into a man-made illusion that perhaps surpasses any real American town today.

What I found most interesting about Freeland’s discussion was the difference between real and hyperreal. Is there always a difference? In some instances, the real version is quite different from the hyperreal, but that certainly isn’t always the case. Once again, my analysis relates to my musical experience. I can say with certainty that live musical performances are in many ways both similar and different from a recording. Recordings are made in the studio with many days of rehearsal, practice, and fine tuning. Any minor mistakes, errors, and excess sounds have been filtered out to ensure that the music is a perfect as possible. Some say that such recordings make certain artists sound much better than in live performance. In such cases, we’d probably say that the recording is hyperreal because it exceeds the quality of a live performance. However, there are times where the recording cannot fully capture the wonderful tone, texture, and beauty of a live performance. Recording techniques have improved greatly in the last century, but even so, one can easily differentiate between a high end speakers system and a real orchestra. Even if such as recording is technically perfect, perhaps more perfect than the live counterpart, can it really be called hyperreal?

3 questions to think (or not think) about:

1. How has art interpretation changed throughout time?

2. How does hyperreal art affect our view of the world?

3. Has democratic art lessened the gap between lower, middle, and upper parts of society?

Chapter 6 of Cynthia Freeland’s book, But is it art?, is focused mainly around the idea of the meaning and interpretation of art. She also mentions the two main theories of art: the expression theory and the cognitive theory. Cynthia starts off by stating that all art communicates. To understand what it is saying takes knowledge: of its culture, of what the artist was going through, and of what was going on at that moment in time. Depending on what is taken from the artwork affects the interpretation that is created by the viewer. Cynthia brings in a painting of Francis Bacon, Triptych of 1973, to interpret. She informs the reader of what a few critics’ thought and then makes a strong statement that Bacon is the perfect example for both theories. From the expression theory he shows “emotions, so is like laughing or screaming.” From the cognitive theory he shows “complex thoughts, so it is similar to a language.” Cynthia then goes on to give more examples and more literal definitions of the two theories. The expression theory is based off of art communicating with the viewer mainly in the form of feelings or emotions. One of the greatest examples to describe this theory is abstract expressionism. Another one is music. The one main problem with this theory is that it is too narrow, it says that an artist can only create artworks that emit emotions. The cognitive theory is based off of art communicating with the viewer mainly in the form of enabling people to deal with reality, gives them knowledge. It is a place where people can come to terms with issues in their life’s and figure out a way to move on and grow.

I enjoyed reading this passage from her book. It made me realize that art can have more than one meaning behind it. An artist may begin a painting to express an idea, but it can evolve and emit a feeling in it as well. Before I thought that a painting had to be one or the other. It either had to only focus on a feeling or an idea. I can see that my “dislike” to Jackson Pollock’s work may be cause from my misunderstanding of him. A little like Bacon’s Triptych of 1973. When first hearing of the artwork I thought that he was dark and depressing. That he was only looking at the morbid part of life and nothing else. Once Cynthia started to bring in other critics’ ideas and other meanings, I learned that to truly understand an artwork you have to look at their key beliefs and what their past works came from. In addition, the main thing I learned was to take into account what the artist was going through. I would have never guessed that Bacon might be making the artwork to mourn the loss of his love. I forgot that real life experiences take form in an artwork. I also enjoyed the thought that Suzanne Langer made: the idea that art maybe another way of gaining knowledge without speaking. It made me realize that there are more ways of speaking other than actually saying words. When I usually look at an artwork I look at it quickly and move on. After reading Langer’s idea, I will now make an effort to truly look at an artwork and try to understand what the artist is trying to say. The cognitive theory was very insightful. Looking back, I now know that artworks do teach me new things. They teach me to appreciate true talent, that a smile is worth a thousand words (aka Mona Lisa’s smile), and that sometimes less is more in a painting.

Chapter 7 of Cynthia Freeland’s book, But is it art?, is about the reproductions and the originals of works of art.  She quotes Walter Benjamin when he talks about how the originals had an ‘aura’ about it and by having multiple reproductions of it, the copies don’t have the same ‘aura’ and therefore it loses some of the magic to it. Benjamin goes on to say that it is good to have the ‘aura’ gone because it makes the piece more personal and less untouchable. It makes the masses feel as if they are able to see it at a normal level and not on the pedestal that we put famous artworks on. He credits it to new media and he focused on cinema. Another person mentioned that agrees with Benjamin is Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan focused mainly on new ways of communicating with others, such as the television and Internet, and its impact on people, their culture. He said that television was more social and the Internet was more individual. In contrast, Baudrillard said that the new media created hyperrealism. Baudrillard stated that, “an audience is not simply absent-minded, but absent: lost in its own images.” That it made things beyond real. The examples given were getting married was only for the videos and photographs and Disneyland; that both of those things make everything seem perfect, picture perfect. They put you in a state of mind that allows you to think that nothing can go wrong and that everything is just right. Cynthia summed up this chapter by talking about how all art in the end will end up going from galleries and museums to the Internet, television, and other mainstream places.

The ‘aura’ of a work of art is what we described in class as the indescribable part that makes us like it. It is the part that draws us in and makes us want to look closer and makes us feel connected to the piece. In addition by not having the ‘aura’ it makes the piece less untouchable and more personal to the average viewer. In addition, during class we were talking about the negative impact that comes around as a result of having an artwork be given to the masses. It results in there being more copies of the artwork. When there are more copies out there it makes the original less noteworthy because you have seen it so many times before. You develop this expectation of the artwork that is not delivered when you see the original in person. There is a disappointment from not having it live up to what you believe it should be. I know this from experience. When I saw the Mona Lisa in person, I expected to be huge, breath taking, and awe inspiring, but it was tiny and the room was huge and there were so many people moving around that it made the picture seem even smaller due to all the masses pressing down on it. I knew that it should invoke a feeling on me, but all it really did was make me wonder when I could leave the suffocating room and why it was so important to art’s history. The expectations of the artworks are in a sense created by hyperrealism. I had seen the Mona Lisa so much that I expected it to perfect and it was not. I have even experienced being blown away and completely taken off guard; it was when I visited the Statue of David. Every time I had seen a picture of it, it seemed small and there was a leaf on him. So, when I did see it in person I was frozen in my spot. The statue was huge. It was about 20 ft tall and just overpowered you from the sheer size of it. It was monumental and taller than I ever expected it to be. There was also the fact that there was no leaf. That just made me blush. I believe that if you see a copy of an artwork too many times, then the original is no longer interesting and if you hardly see the copies, then the original will take your breath away. 

Three Questions:

Is there another way that art communicates with us other than the two theories she mentioned?

Do people, who come from different cultures, share the same appreciation for a single piece of art?

Seeing as abstract expressionism is the perfect example for the expression theory, what would be the perfect example for the cognitive theory?

Is it better to see a copy and have so many expectations put on the original or to never see the copy and hope to see the original one day and have it be breath taking?

In Chapter six, Freeland leads us to consider forms of art interpretation, and begins to answer some of the questions that our class was perplexed by last week in regards to “liking” or “disliking” a particular piece of work.  She mentions that critics approach art through several different perspectives and in turn, different pieces of the work’s effect speak to each individual who views it.  As humans, we seem to be more satisfied by a work of art when we can explain why it speaks to us, or when we can explain the meaning behind the creation of the piece.  The first type of interpretation Freeland develops is Expression theory, focusing on Tolstoy’s theory that the artist needs to pass on a particular emotion that she might be feeling.  At the same time, I agree with Tolstoy’s critics who say that an artist most likely does not feel the same emotion for the weeks or months on end while he is working on his artwork, so the “expressiveness,” Freeland writes, “is in the work, not the artist.“  The emotional interpretation of art allows us to recognize, according to Suzanne Langer, that much of our sentiment about it cannot be described by familiar notions or phrases.  There is something that speaks to us – this aura, maybe, that we have discussed in class.  I like the line at the bottom of page 161, were Freeland draws upon a quote from the poet Coleridge to demonstrate how when we “follow the artist’s efforts, we recreate the process of self-discovery, so we too become artists…”  The notion of self-discovery ties into the delineation of Foucault’s theory as well.  At the end of the day, it may be best to not get stuck on what the artist wants or intends to be viewed in her work.  Foucault mentions that viewers can get “locked” into trying to interpret an artwork in the “correct” way, as opposed to allowing their own interpretations to make the piece of work meaningful to them.  Yes, it is important to consider the artist’s intent, but it is ultimately all the pieces, histories, emotions of the work that should formulate an interpretive response by the viewer.

The example of cognitive interpretation that Freeland gives with Dewey parallels to the sentiment we get from the expression theory she mentioned earlier.  We discussed this quote in class, but I really relate to Dewey’s quote about how to “know” art: “The medium of expression in art is neither objective nor subjective.  It is the matter of a new experience in which subjective and objective have so cooperated that neither has any longer an existence by itself.”  We come to “know” art through the way we are involved in the work.  In a way, art becomes a language through which we converse with ourselves, allowing the pieces of an artwork to assemble in our minds in order to allow a dialogue of consideration about it.  Freeland does not believe that there can be a “true” account of cognitive interpretation, but she does agree that art is a cognitive process from both sides.  It allows us to think for ourselves and consider the thoughts of others in the “open” environment of our minds.

Chapter seven begins with the discussion of more modern forms of art, primary those that have been circulated to the “masses.”  We spoke about Walter Benjamin’s idea that the “loss of aura was not a bad thing” because the “aura” in a particular piece of work separates it from the viewer, makes it – in a way – inaccessible and inhuman.  Photography, according to Benjamin is much more democratic.  More people can access the stages of its production; more people can own a copy of a photograph in their home.  He mentions that the more modern works encourage the viewer to look at them critically, as opposed to the Picasso that may discourage the viewer from analyzing any interpretation of it because the artwork is “above” the viewer and the viewer is not sophisticated enough to understand it.  However, there is now a different relationship between society and the notion of “cultural capital.”  If works of art are accessible for viewership on the world-wide-web, why do so many people still travel the world to merely catch a glimpse of an original Monet or the Mona Lisa?  Yes, the pilgrimage is made, but we spoke in class about how our expectations can be disappointed depending on what images of the sought-out artwork had been spewed at us before our viewing.   McLuhan’s new theory that the content does not matter as much as the type of media that is used definitely speaks to the culture of the 21st century.  I would argue that the general society has become impatient toward some forms of art because they are not displayed in the highly technological media that we are used to.  We may not be able to figure out what that classical piece of artwork is saying to us, but Disneyland and MTV allow us to view images all the time without ever really having to think about them.  In trying to be democratic, we may be running ourselves into a dangerously homogenized world of “accepted” artwork.  Perhaps it is the “hyperreal, from Baudrillard’s postmodern ideas, that disassociates individuals from the critical analysis of art, the dialogue of interpretation with artwork.  Baudrillard mentions that “the simulation of live TV…is too intimate.”  He believes that we have come to think we “know” [art] – representations of our world – and don’t bother to really consider them much. anymore.  Although the new media of Internet and television montage disconnects us as a world society from both “reality” and the desire to speak with a piece of art, I believe that there is room for improvement; there are many ways in which we can tweak the presentation of web-based, quick-media art that can utilize the advantages of democratic art.

Questions for discussion:

1. In respect to Foucault’s concern that we, as viewers, can be distracted with what the artist intends us to see (the author function), what do you do to allow an artwork speak to you in your interpretation of it?  In other words, what approach of interpretation do you take when looking at an artwork?

2. In what ways do you think the loss of “aura” can be damaging to society’s consideration of art?

3. McLuhan and Freeland’s thought that new media “promote[s] connectedness and new international community” speaks to some of the examples of art we see on television and in society today.  In what specific ways have you noticed the advantages of working with new media, compared to “classical” artwork?

Chapter six deals with interpretation. As we all know a work can be interpreted in many ways, and Freeland covers two theories about how a work should be interpreted. Expression theory proposes that a work exists to express emotion. However, as Freeland demonstrates, there are many critiques of this theory. It seems too simplistic. Art can express ideas as well as emotion, and Suzanne Langer astutely points out that an idea and an emotion are not too dissimilar. A piece can often be the artist working through a emotion, attempting to understand it, not merely an artist having an emotion and subsequently laying it down. Cognitive theory, or pragmatism, states that art has a job to do. Art gives knowledge to help us understand and manipulate the world around us–it “enables people to….grapple with reality.” Freeland leans on the side of cognitive theory, but also hints that valuable interpretation cannot simply come from one school of though. Chapter seven looks to the new forms and mediums in which artwork and human connections are taking place in. It outline the predictions and reactions of three men Benjamin, McLuhan and Baudrillard. The ideas of these men have points on both the positive and negative sides of these new venues. Among the positive predictions are the democratisation of art and the loss of the “aura,” the expansion into a “global village,” and the amount of control that new users have over the Internet. Baudrillard has a predominantly negative view of the new media, suggesting that we could all loose ourselves in the quagmire of it all.

I enjoyed this reading more than I thought I would, and even more so after the second reading. Langers idea that emotions or feelings and ideas can be nearly one and the same–along with the quote that was read in class–really did lead me to new trains of thought. The idea of pragmatism was especially interesting for me. The picture I brought in for my “dislike” was what could be considered “Modern Art”–very abstract and odd–but looking at it from a pragmatic point of view did slightly change my perspective. I still dislike it aesthetically, but asking why someone made it, and why others think it is deserving of a place in a museum, did help me “grapple with my reality.” This alone proves that it has some worth.

Three Questions. Okay.

1. Could being exposed to greater amounts of artwork that you don’t like make you grow as a person more than surrounding yourself with pieces you do like?

2. Does the meaning that is grounded in zeitgeist (as suggested by Foucault) stop us from ever being able to truly comprehend a piece from a time period different than our own?

3. Has the “transparency of evil” that Baudrillard speaks of already run its course?

P.S. I am still interested in the Sept 12 trip, my Email is just being a bit odd at the moment.

After reading Cynthia Freeland’s thoughts and commentary in But is it Art?, I certainly have a few ideas of my own that I would never have even processed before coming across this selection. I do not proclaim myself to be an expert in art by any means, yet these passages allowed me to view art in several different lights as well as analyze a few of the theories underlying how people interpret art.

To begin with, I felt Chapter 6 was mainly driven by a focus on two principle theories of art: the expression theory and the cognitive theory. The expression theory conveys that art communicates something to the observer within the realm of feeling and emotions. Contrastingly, the cognitive theory relates that art communicates and provides the observer with knowledge that they did not previously have. Before reading these definitions and the examples that followed them, I imagined art as conveying a message or a theme – that message being anything from a widely accepted or contradictory idea to a personal belief that is different for each observer. However, afterwards I was presented with new thoughts to contemplate such as the idea that the expressive nature of the piece comes more from the work of art itself than from the artist. This relates back to the idea that the message is held within the medium, and that despite what the artist might have envisioned for their piece, the interpretation from an outside observer may be entirely different. I also found Freeland’s commentary intriguing regarding the idea that the emotion of an artwork can sometimes develop after the piece has been finished. That is, the artist may not know the message he is convening until after the work is completed. In my opinion, this is probably the way most art is created. When you begin anything, a project, an essay, a painting, or a movie, one’s initial vision may transform itself unknowingly until the creator views the final work as a whole; only then can the true emotion of the artwork be identified.

I felt that the focus of Chapter 7 related more to the value of “good” art as we had previously discussed last week. Although there is no right or wrong definition for “good” art, Freeland discusses the beliefs and ideas of Walter Benjamin, McLuhan, and Jean Baudriallard. Benjamin related the idea of an aura about pieces of “high” art that actually results in negative consequences. He insinuated that when the aura of artwork is banished, art can be more democratic and more accessible for people to interpret and produce on their own. In a sense, it allows almost anyone to create their own type of art as opposed to limiting the creation of art to only a select few. This more democratic art form is expressed in his opinion through movies and newer forms of technology which, even though they are considered “mass” or “low” art, hold positive attributes. I particularly thought McLuhan’s belief that media would help restore right-brain functioning as previously suppressed through the act of literacy to be fascinating. This leads one to the intertwinement of images and texts that cannot be escaped in our modern world. The internet, for example, is nothing but a mixture of text and images. While McLuhan studied television in particular, which is basically lacking in text, it is interesting to consider what his views of the internet would be today based upon his previous theory. I feel that, like Benjamin, McLuhan believed that technology led towards a more positive and utopist society for art to flourish in innovate ways. Finally, Baudrillard, also called the “high priest of postmodernism,” theorized about computers and tended to lean towards a negative view of society resulting from the advancement of modern technology and its connection to art. Baudrillard essentially separated the world into a dichotomy: the real and the hyperreal. He considered the hyperreal to be something fake, artificial, and masking the real truth. These phony simulations of the real world, such as Disneyland and high fashion, were only copies of the real thing which solely provide a sense of falsity and disappointment once the real event, location, or artwork is encountered. While it can be good to occasionally escape from reality, it is in fact something that can never be abandoned. It seems that elements of the hyperreal are becoming more and more apparent as technology expands, yet one cannot forget to take from art an emotional response or some newly claimed knowledge in order to stretch our current state of mind and continuously grow.

After reexamining the three paintings I had chosen for last week’s assignment, I noticed that several elements from the reading could be applied to it. For one, “The Last Supper” absolutely conveys an aura in person, however it is probable that the countless times the painting has been reproduced takes away from its original “wow factor”. I observed how the hyperreal could be applied to the Kinkade painting, as it portrays an idealistic setting for the holiday season that is essentially almost impossible to recreate in real life. There may be instances or a few cherished memories of such special times, but it is certainly not the majority or the norm. Finally, “The Scream”, although the piece of art I chose as my dislike, does communicate through expressionism. This painting conveys emotions of distraught, agony, and despair that although I may not be able to sympathize on such an extreme level, I can certainly empathize.

Food for Thought:

1. How does one successfully remove the “aura” from art to make it more democratic without losing its meaning?
2. How does the relationship between the structure of a piece of art and the actual content of the piece affect our interpretation of it?
3. Does art necessarily need to be classified as “high” or “mass” and how does that classification influence one’s appreciation of that piece of art?

“But is it Art?” Chapter 6 Critical Response

                In Chapter Six of “But is it Art,” Freeland laborates on two main theories of art interpretation: expression theory and cognitive theory. Expression theory, supported by Leo Tolstoy and Sigmund Freud, argues that art communicates emotions. Meanwhile, cognitive theory argues that art helps provide knowledge, serving a pragmatic purpose.

                Having described the main theories of interpretation in Chapter Six, Freeland uses Chapter Seven to expound on the impact of new technologies on the use and interpretation of art. Contrasting the utopic views of Marshall McLuhan and Walter Benjamin with the dystopic views of Jean Baudrillard, Freeland provides diverse views on the consequences of technology. In addition to exploring the concepts of the “democratization of art” provided by technology and the “aura” that can be lost in reproduction, Freedman offers criticism of her own. For example, whereas McLuhan believed that “new technologies promote democracy and enhance human perception,” Freeland favors Bill Viola’s belief that technology’s ability to enhance the perceptions of human beings is not inherent in the technology itself but in how it is used.

                In reading these chapters from “But is it Art,” I recalled the discussions we had in class about our favorite pieces of artwork and what contributed to our positive responses to them. In discussing expression theory and cognitive theory, Freeland points out that art can convey more than just emotions and that while a work can provide knowledge, not all art is pragmatic. I feel that in our discussions, we came to the same conclusion—that “good” art is neither purely emotional, nor purely intellectual. While emotions can contribute to a work’s positive impact on a person, ideas and the intellectual aspects of a work may be equally important in determining a person’s reaction to a piece of art.

                Three questions I had that I feel we touched on in our class discussion are:

1)      What is hyper-real and what does our attraction to hyper-real situations say about our society in general?

2)      Does the internet facilitate the creation of a “global village” or a world of isolated individuals, viewing and experiencing new forms of art without interacting?

3)        Clearly photography and film present amazing possibilities for innovative art. Do you think that these capacities are being taken for granted in our society? (Remember Freeland’s criticism of MTV’s mono-cultural spreads, etc.)