OBAMA INAUGURATION PHOTOSYNTH:
-view here... you might have to download some plugins to make it work
-more on how photosynth works
REMINDER:
-Course Reader (yellow textbook) pgs. 9-28 for Monday... don't fall behind
-Answer the review question you selected
-Finish targeted peer edit by Sunday night at 9pm. (EEE Dropbox-> Working Draft #4-> Shared Student Files)
REMINDER:
-Final draft #4 is due Tuesday at 3pm to Turnitin.com,including acknowledgments and reflections
TARGETED PEER EDIT INSTRUCTIONS:
1) Read the essay all the way through.
2) Underline the three strongest sentences with a straight line.
3) Underline the three weakest sentences with a squiggly line.
4) If any references to ethos, logos, or pathos are used, do you feel that they contribute to the essay, or would it be better off without them?
5) Are the terms "aesthetics" and "art" used properly? If not, give suggestions for revision.
6) Are plurals and possessives used properly? If not, give suggestions for revision.
7) Give a revision suggestion for each sentence involving a primary quotation (i.e. quotation from the play). By suggestion, I mean actually rewrite the sentence, using the techniques from the handout I gave you.
8) Which of the three tasks (formal, historical, revisionary) is best developed in this draft? Which of the three tasks is least developed?
9) For the least developed, try to paraphrase your partner's main point in that section (or what you think is the writer's main point) in 1-2 sentences.
10) Special request (partner's choice)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
review question:
ReplyDeleteWhat is Shakespeare's true intent for writing A Midsummer Nights Dream.
I think we discussed this in class. Shakespeare wants to make money, convey his aesthetic views, and to make sure his play does not offend. He means to entertain people no matter what social class they belong to.
Not sure how long the answer was supposed to be...
Review Question:
ReplyDeleteDid Shakespeare mean for his work to be studied in the way many high school/college students and scholars do today?
No. He didn't mean his work to be published. He wrote these plays solely to be performed in front of the Aristocracy and later the common people. I don't think he would have even thought that his plays would remain popular so much longer even after his death.
Question:
ReplyDeleteHow do Plato and Shakespeare’s aesthetic views differ?
Plato and Shakespeare views of aesthetics differ almost entirely. Plato believes aesthetics is an agent of the imagination at its worst because it leads people astray from reality. Plato’s intent is to work forward to the true reality, but aesthetics will distract from those goals. As far as aesthetics go, Plato only approves of music because he sees it as a branch of mathematics. He strongly condemns most forms of artwork.
Shakespeare, conversely, has chosen a profession in aesthetics. His legacy is in his writings. Shakespeare loves his lifestyle and is convinced it is a legitimate way to live because he caters to people’s needs of being entertained (much like Theseus who caters to Greek tradition and politics). Shakespeare would hold it is a didactic work form, much like teachers, and therefore artists in their own way are very similar to philosophers.
Question:
ReplyDeleteIs there a right or wrong answer about Shakespeare's theory of aesthetics?
In regards to the essay, as long as you have sufficient support from any of his plays to hold your theory of his theory, you might come close to what his could be. No one knows for certain what Shakespeare's aesthetic views are.
Another Question:
Why do we have a different essay prompt than the other HumCore section students?
Dr. Winter explained in class that he found problems with the original prompt, so he came up with the one we have now.
QUESTION:
ReplyDeleteSo DOES art need to be technical in order for it to be art?
In my opinion, there is no right or wrong answer for art. Different people define art in different reasons. Those who tend to think and work practically will see art as technical, but others may look at art in a completely different perspective.
Review Question:
ReplyDeleteHow does Shakespeare's theory of aesthetics differ from Aristotle's theory of aesthetics?
During his lifetime, Shakespeare worked as a playwright and produced, as best as he could, plays that appealed to all masses. He believes that any kind of aesthetics must involve prior knowledge in the technicalities required to produce that particular thing. Also, it is important to be able to make a work of aesthetics appealing. In contrast, Aristotle believes that anything could really be considered art; it depends solely on the individual and what is right for them. Aesthetics should involve seeking pleasure in a thing itself, rather than looking for other reasons. It is important that in aesthetics, a thing is created using and portraying Aristotle's excellences and practicing habit while producing it.
Review Question: What is Shakespeare's theory on art?
ReplyDeleteIn my paper I emphasize Shakespeare's theory of aesthetics to be similar to Aristotle's ethics of moderation. Shakespeare incorporates parts of his theory into his characters, who have extreme versions of it. I believe Shakespeare's theory lies somewhere in between these extremes. Bottom the weaver's view of aesthetics is that it can produce real effects in the audience, so he makes any adjustments he can to make sure his play does not offend. He adds a prologue to assure his audience that what they are about to see is not reality. He does not believe that the audience has the ability to distinguish between fiction and reality. Theseus, on the other hand, believes art to be simply pure entertainment. It should not affect the audience in any way, because nothing in art is real. Shakespeare's theory of aesthetics, I believe, lies between these two extremes. He thinks art should produce effects within the audience, but that they should be able to make the distinction between fiction and reality. This is shown, not just in A Midsummer Night's Dream, but in his other productions as well; he always tries to incorporate a message in his plays that forces his audience to think. He truly exemplifies the meaning of aesthetics as the "philosophy of art," because like Aristotle, the key focus in his theory is that of thought. For example, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, his theme of imagination vs. reality forces the audience to think about that distinction.
Can animals have a theory of aesthetics?
ReplyDelete-I cannot reach into the minds of animals, so I am not sure how impressive their appreciation for art is. However, when I read the question and pondered it for awhile, I thought of animals with intricate color schemes that are intended to warn off predators. In this regard, color is taken into consideration and can make animals act accordingly (predators see bright colors and decide not to interfere). Also, I know that zebras have very specific stripes so their offspring can recognize their mothers. Here, composition is being recognized by animals as to not confuse parents from one another. Just a few examples that came to mind.
Question: Is intelligence required to produce art?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Intelligence is needed to some extent to produce art. No matter what answer you have for this question though, it can always be contradicted.
For example, if I say that intelligence IS needed to produce art, a real life story can prove me wrong:
There was a painting done by a famous artist, and it appeared to be a purple blob. A little boy in kindergarten also painted a purple blob. Without knowing who the artists of these two paintings were, other artists studied these two paintings and came to an agreement that the blob drawn by the kindergartener was better.
The little kindergartener had never had any type of painting lesson, and the other artist had been painting and studying art for most of his life.
It all depends on the perception of the person/people. In my opinion, purple blobs are not art, and I believe that intelligence is needed to create a fine piece of art.
Question: How would a modern Alberti figure think about ancient architecture in terms of aesthetics?
ReplyDeleteI don’t think we can say anything very conclusive about what Alberti would have said about architecture in general because we only read On Painting, which had very little to say about the subject. Not only that, because architecture is 3-dimensional whereas painting is 2-dimensional, it’s hard to apply Alberti’s principles of painting to architecture. Perspective is no longer necessary, structural soundness now has to be considered, functionality probably has precedence over artistic quality, and a plethora of other differences makes transferring Alberti’s ideas incredibly difficult. Also, we have no way of knowing what a “modern” Alberti would say about art, because his views would be influenced by technology and other art movements and the like. His ideas might have changed after seeing 3D animation, photography or digital painting. Even just innovations in painting, such as airbrushing, might have changed his views on how paintings should be made and what makes one painting better than another. Furthermore, I’m not really sure what “ancient architecture” is. There were many different forms of architecture that came before Alberti, and they were not necessarily similar enough to be grouped together into one whole.
That being said, Alberti seems to argue in On Painting, that art has value in that it gives pleasure, and in some cases inspiration, to its audience. Along those lines, if the ancient architecture in question also gave pleasure to its viewers, he would probably consider it art. Furthermore, Alberti believes that art can be fulfilling in and of itself; he says that painting should not be done for fortune and fame but for self-actualization and contentment. In that case, architecture might not be considered art because it is sometimes made more for functionality than for artistic expression. In such cases, the architect probably worries more about the utilitarian aspects of his work than a painter would, unless of course, he is constructing some kind of a religious building or something to that effect. On the whole, I think Alberti would consider some types of ancient architecture art (pyramids, ziggurats, temples, palaces, etc.) and others not art, or at the very least, not good art (everyday buildings, houses, schools, towers, walls, etc.).
Thanks for writing the questions first. I should have said, but good thing you guys have common sense.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's motives?: Nicholas is right that it is more accurate to speak of a number of overlapping motives, though certainly the specifics of each and the ways in which they overlap are quite complicated (and debatable, given that most of what we know about W.S. comes indirectly from his plays)
Did Shakespeare Mean to be Mr. Official textbook guy?: Ankita is right to point out that his plays were a pretty "low" form of popular art, albeit striving with some merit towards elevating that form... but it's funny how things change over time... she's also right to say they weren't designed to be read, but rather performed... I take issue with "later" though... public and private performances of his various plays were going on simultaneously... it doesn't always go in two phases or in the same order... sometimes private, sometimes public is the shortest answer
Question: What is Shakespeare's view on aesthetics?
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is impossible to really verify what Shakespeare's view of aesthetics really was, we can take a guess based on what he has revealed to us through his works. In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare gives a sense of pride to his own work as a play write as he conveys the group of manual laborers and their pitiful attempts to present a real work of art through theater. This view is demonstrated by Philostrate, who reports to Theseus that the play is of no artistic merit, being performed by this certain class of men (men of little intellect and understanding of art). However, through the character Bottom the Weaver, Shakespeare does bring up the aesthetic view that art can produce real effects to the audience, as Bottom requests for a prologue to assure the crowd that the lion and suicide are fiction. This attempt from the higher and more intellectual social class seems unnecessary, for they view art as purely entertainment, with no real effects. Yet, it is the lower social class (such as Bottom) who are considered as those who would believe art to produce real and "offensive" effects. Thus, I conclude that Shakespeare's view on aesthetics is as Aristotle's view on ethics is--it is a balance between two extremes. The extreme that art produces real effects to the audience, and the other that art is purely a form of entertainment, and nothing more. Shakespeare falls in between these, as art is relative to the viewer.
Shakespeare's aesthetics?: S. might defend his work as didactic... that would be an Aristotlean defense... but then again he might not... see Puck's speech at the end of the play... certainly there were more didactic playwrights at the time, Ben Jonson in particular... and what, exactly, is the didactic lesson of Hamlet? King Lear? Certainly not a simple one, I guess.
ReplyDeleteWhy the prompt is different?: This is sufficiently buried here so as to escape notice... I try to be a little careful because this website is being viewed on occasion by my present and future employers... the minor problem with the prompt is that it was boring and overly restrictive, like some of the other prompts... the major problem was that it asked you to consider rhetoric, the practical art of persuasive speaking, through the case of a set of fictional characters, most of whom did not speak with identifiable rhetorical objectives, with the exception of a couple of speeches which Lupton herself already thoroughly analyzed... I mean that just sounds crazy, and mean to make you write it... I could be wrong... I'm curious how the other sections went
Long story short, if a person with a Ph.D. in English (me) has no idea how he would write the paper, it seems unfair to ask you to do it... my prompt, on the other hand, is extremely difficult, and requires a lot of exploration and guidance, but I think it gets you somewhere and doesn't leave you short of material
ReplyDeleteDoes art need to be technical?: I take issue with Scarlett when she says "there is no right or wrong answer"... that itself is an aesthetic philosophy, one of total relativism... likewise, we might say that "there is no right or wrong answer" when it comes to politics, ethics, or physics... what I would say is that there are competing theories or explanations... it does matter how we choose to define it... this will become more evident in Moeller's unit
Aristotle vs. Shakespeare... Thao raises an interesting point... on the one hand, we could say that Aristotle defines art somewhat narrowly (vehicle for ideas etc. etc.), but she goes on to link it to the concept of telos... then again, the extremely individualistic definition of telos she is giving isn't particularly Aristotlean, but rather modern... Aristotle is more likely to think in terms of classes of people rather than individuals... don't think he believes all that "you are beautiful just being yourself stuff"... I think Schwab may have made some misleading statements in that direction
Gracious of Connie to share her (awesome) thesis from the paper... I often want to do this, but I realize that students sometimes have concerns about the privacy of their ideas, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnimals and aesthetics... we know that some of the more intelligent animals use tools (chimpanzees, dolphins, etc.), and that fits the broadest possible definition of art as making... and we know that these same animals have some kind of facility to recognize and manipulate symbols (sign or picture language)... and animals make sounds, and they certainly judge visual and aurual stimuli as Martha points out (that animals themselves are certain colors, etc. is a natural process and would pertain to the species or genome more than the animal itself)... but if you define art as some form of creating symbolic representation, even hominids supposedly weren't doing that until the neanderthal cave paintings
And as for aesthetics, strictly defined as the theory of art, that would be the same as asking whether animals philosophize... philosophy is thinking about thinking, as my Phil 101 professor would say in college... and so far as we know, animals don't do that
ReplyDeleteIntelligence and art... Alyssa raises the question of "naive" art as a modern art style, where a child's image could be similar to a "real" artist's... which is a good point, but a less extreme version of this argument would ask whether even some "mature" forms of art are produced through intelligence (i.e. reason) or through some sort of trancelike "lunacy" of the kind Theseus describes... it's interesting to read how artists describe there own work; it often differs from the way their critics or interpreters describe it... we might say that artists/musicians/etc. develop a certain technical capacity but then open it to a more intuitive or creative form of production... think of jazz solos, or improvised DJ mixing... I mean clearly this requires tremendous skill, but at the same time we wouldn't necessarily think of the musician as using the intellect or reasoning capacity in the "moment," like, "I am going to shift the melody (or the beat or whatever) in the following way"
Alberti & architecture... if anything, Alberti is using his rules of composition to create the illusion of 3D architecture on a 2D canvas... i.e. I think he very deliberately has this comparison in mind.... and let's not forget that Alberti gives a shout out to Brunelleschi, a renowned architect of the time whom Lupton mentioned... as for more contemporary architecture and the question of utility vs. pleasure, this is something we will explore at the end of the quarter, actually
ReplyDeleteBonus thought on Alberti & Aristotle, carrying over from a previous thread... most of you compared their notion of moderation, but remember, there's also the hylomorphism (embodied spirit, enspirited body, i.e. "anima" = "istoria" and "potentia" = paint, etc.), and the notion of the self-cultivation of virtue/excellence... and the unity of virtue/excellence in an entire life, which is why Alberti says that being a good painter goes together with rhetorical training, good horse-riding, etc.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Does Shakespeare have a defined view about aesthetics, or is it up to the interpretation to each individual reader?
ReplyDeleteThe characters in works of fiction are vehicles that voice the opinion of the author. So it's a matter of the reader to interpret which character(s) voices Shakespeare's opinion about aesthetics. So even though it's not explicitly stated, bits can be pieced together to define Shakespeare's aesthetic view.
Question: Has Shakespeare ever considered his works as art or just work?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I can't answer for Shakespeare himself, I believe that he considered his works as both art and as work. Of course Shakespeare didn't think his works of art were useless and had no meaning behind it, so he would consider them some significant form of art. As for his works being just work that he did, it would make the most sense to say that he wasn't being supported by a parent or anyone, so he needed to make a living off of what he did; it just so happened that what he did for a living was something he was successful at presenting.
p.s.
sorry i posted this so late, I didn't realize we were supposed to post our answer to the blog and not take it to class with us :)
Is anyone ever really wrong about what aesthetics is?
ReplyDeleteNo. these views are simply opinions.
Does it matter if the "artist" actually had a purpose in creating his/her artwork or is art still "art" whether or not it was intended to be so?
ReplyDeleteIn a way it depends what definition of art you are using. But most art
was created with a purpose, from making a public statement to passing away time. Very rarely is art created without a purpose yet if the viewer is able to interpret some meaning or theme within the "art" then it could be considered as art.
p.s. sorry for the late post. i was busy last night and i woke up late this morning.
So I wasn't in class on Friday so Aaron suggested that I take a question from a classmate and say something different about it.
ReplyDeleteI decided to answer Marko Angelo's question: does it matter if the "artist" actually had a purpose in creating his/her artwork or is art still "art" whether or not it was intended to be so?
I feel that something is thought to be art in the eyes of the beholder so to answer you question in a direct fashion, art is still "art" whether or not it was intended to be so. It's like the saying goes, one man's trash can be another man's treasure. For the most part, I agree with Marko when he says if art can be interpreted then it is art.