Check out some similar questions!

tutuvag · Mar 16, 2007, 11:31 AM

Why does Scruton think that photography is not a representational art? Also does anyone have any ideas about whether he is right or not?

keenu · Mar 27, 2007, 04:52 PM

Art is an expression of creative consciousness. It can be in any form or shape. No matter. Art is in the eye of the beholder so who is to judge?

chrismanley · Jul 14, 2011, 04:20 AM

Firstly, it is useful to work out what Scruton understands by 'representational art'. To recognise something as representational art, for Scruton, we have to take an interest towards it as the expression/communication of a thought about the subject depicted. So for example when I see a painting of Rembrandts mother, whilst I see forms that constitute the artist's mother I recognise that what grabs me is not the woman in the picture but the way she is depicted. It is Rembrandts intention for us to see his mother in this way; even if she looked like the way Rembrandt painted her we do not fool ourselves by thinking that the daubs of paint are caused by a mechanical relationship between light, the subject and the canvas. In Karsh's photograph of Churchill, however, Scruton says that we cannot take an interest in photograph that is not an interest towards Churchill. Karsh doesn't make Churchill look the way he does in the photograph, because that is actually Churchill, as he appeared when the photograph was taken. So there is difference between a photograph and a painting for Scruton, insofar as representational art is concerned. Is he right? No. Why? Because Scruton is attempting to find the painter in photography. Instead of arguing against him, why not look at the difference between the two and ask; well then, how has the camera changed the way the artist is able to think about her subject. Hope this clears the debris a bit.

chrismanley · Jul 14, 2011, 04:33 AM

Interesting response Keenu, but I think it is dangerous - for art - to make these kinds of statements about art - and often creates an unnecessary fog around the understanding and enjoyment of artworks. Put another way, when you find a painting, photograph, piece of music, etc. beautiful are you not making a judgement about its value? I don't think making judgements means anything negative, neither do they relate to the individual; insofar as even 'the eye of the beholder' can be effected by their surroundings. I really hope you do not think I just trying to be picky, but I have always fought against the idea that people are put off art because it can mean 'anything'. Artworks are for me, are beautiful because they communicate to us things about the world in ways that we do not always see ordinarily. In that respect I am interested in your idea about a 'creative consciousness'.

keenu · Jul 14, 2011, 06:05 AM

Dangerous? For art? What can be dangerous for art? It is we who decide what IS art...

chrismanley · Jul 14, 2011, 06:52 AM

Thanks for you reply Keenu. Perhaps I wasn't clear what I mean by 'dangerous'. What I think was dangerous in your original response, is present in a lot of writing about art. When a discussion starts to think about/defend what art can or cannot be it ceases talking about art altogether - see Im doing it now! So this is what I can see, in your discussion, that is dangerous for art. Its not uncommon though. Type in Scruton on beauty into YouTube and you will find the man keep up this kind of dangerous discussion for a whole hour. I think discussion of art is often far more revealing when it is actively engaged with works of art. You may be right that when you say that neither you nor I are well placed to say what is, or is not art but I also think that it doesn't make for a very interesting discussion about art, seeing as it leaves out the main ingredient.

keenu · Jul 14, 2011, 07:14 PM

I don't understand. You say that I say "neither you nor I are well-placed to say what is and what isn't art". I didn't say that. I said the opposite of that. Art is what speaks to the soul. For example the mona lisa is defined as art but it does not speak to me. I would still call it art, but my appreciation of it is what counts. If I take a leaf that I find beautiful and frame it on the wall the looking at it gives me something, some kind of satisfaction, if it speaks to me then I would call it a beautiful work of art. Art speaks to our subconscious, it triggers associations and that is why it moves us. I think maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Our creative consciousness needs to express itself by whatever means possible to it.

chrismanley · Jul 15, 2011, 07:14 AM

You're right, I did misread that part of your response and I am sorry for my fools rush in stance. It looks like we agree on the more substantial points: I, like you think that artworks can be beautiful, awful, terrifying, soul stirring and many other things - and all at once.

TUT317 · Jul 16, 2011, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by keenu

I don't understand. You say that I say "neither you nor I are well-placed to say what is and what isn't art". I didn't say that. I said the opposite of that. Art is what speaks to the soul. For example the mona lisa is defined as art but it does not speak to me. I would still call it art, but my appreciation of it is what counts. If I take a leaf that I find beautiful and frame it on the wall the looking at it gives me something, some kind of satisfaction, if it speaks to me then I would call it a beautiful work of art. Art speaks to our subconscious, it triggers associations and that is why it moves us. I think maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Our creative consciousness needs to express itself by whatever means possible to it.

Hi Guys,

Just to keep the discussion going in relation to 'creative consciousness'.

Chris you say,"It is Rembrandt's intention for us to see his mother in that way; even if she looked the way Rembrandt painted her we do not fool ourselves by thinking that the daubs of paint are caused by A MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP between light the subject and the canvas"
( my emphasis)

I think it is reasonable to assume that if you took photographs of houses and I took a photographs of houses using the same camera we would get what might be termed a series of objective photographs. To add further to this 'objectivity' it may be possible to build a mobile machine/robot for the purpose of photographing houses. In other words, one photograph of a house is as good as another regardless who or what takes it.

This seems like a good argument for physicalism. That is, we can reduce consciousness to physical explanations and provide an objective account. Computer chips and neurons basically serve the same function in this example.

The objection to this is that subjective experiences are special cases and consciousness is something that exists over and above the physical. Naturally, some people would disagree with this account and claim that one day machines will become conscious. Is a reductionist account of consciousness satisfactory? Does it make any sense to ask what my inward experiences are really like, as opposed to how they seem to me?

If a were an artist I would disagree with the physicalist account. I cannot know what it is like to be Rembrandt any more than I can know what it is like to be a cow, horse, dog or bat. Rembrandt can to some extent 'communicate' what it is like to experience his mother by way of a painting. A photograph would be unsatisfactory in this respect.

What we end up with in a painting is the artists subjective experiences combined with my subjective experiences. Hence some type of appreciation ( or lack of it) on my part.

Just 'out of left field'

Elephants can and do paint pictures. Apparently people in the past have bought these paintings. Probably the motivation for an elephant picking up a brush and marking a canvas is a reward (peanuts). Artists paint for many reasons; rewards being a possibility.

What, if anything is this elephant communicating to us? He is hungry? He enjoys the activity? He does it to please his owner? I don't think we can classify this animal's efforts in terms of mechanical or robotic response. To what extent do we have an affinity with this animal when we buy his 'art'? Can we get some insight into, what is it like to be an elephant? To what extend to animals such as elephants have creative consciousness?

Tut

chrismanley · Jul 17, 2011, 03:52 AM

Hello Tut,
Thanks again you have given us all lot to chew on there. Firstly, as per it seems I have not been explicit in my use of language. When I said that I think Rembrandt intends for us to see his mother in a certain way I am not merely using the verb (to see) in terms of its perceptual meaning. I should in hindsight have said "see" in quotes marks or in italics. This is because I think that what Rembrandt intends we do not necessarily attribute to visual. Scruton says something interesting about this when he talks about the semantics of painting; he mentions the way in which colour, brushstroke gives depth to meaning - I think intention is also found in these kinds of techniques. Van Gogh is a pretty striking example in this respect, especially in his 'Night Cafe' painting; look at the brush stroke and balance of colour, the painting seems to wobble!

Anyway back to the rest of it. I am pretty unhappy with realism/analytic philosophy insofar as I think philosophy that looks to 'prove' concepts requires an overly extended run in semantics - which inevitably leads to a classificatory nightmare. I think maybe in this respect we share some similiarites(?). With this in mind I have some questions about your examples. I'll take your use of 'objectivity' to refer to mechanical causality - please correct me if I am mistaken. The claim, however, that this kind of relationship between image and subject means that you and I would take a photograph that was similar - insofar as they told us the same things about that house - I find difficult to stomach. Even if we were in some parallel universe and took the photograph from the same spot I cannot see how both images would be the same. For the simple reason that my knowledge and interest in composition, cameras, films is inevitably unique from yours. Snyder and Allen wrote a lovely essay called 'Photography, Vision and Representation' in which Snyder points out that we would see as a camera does if we saw things in "f.16 at 1/8 of a second on Kodak Tri-x on Ilford multigrade fibre based paper" (or words to those effect).

I also have a difficult time seeing how, if Rembrandt had a camera his photographs would be any less subjective, in terms of that medium allowing us to see his intentions. Granted they would be different and we would not see the subject as an 'interpretation' but then why must we think that intention requires interpretation? Richard Billingham is a good example here. In making 'Rays a Laugh' Billingham has given us an explosive and candid view of his family life. Billingham originally took these photographs to be used as a study for his paintings but some gallery type on walking around the studio at his university saw that he had a much better eye as a photographer.

Im not sure what, if anything at all, seeing a painting made by an elephant can tell us about art. Maybe like you say, it can assure us that elephants do really like peanuts. Certainly I am sure that slapping a price tag on a painting made by Nelly the elephant tells us nothing about the value of an artwork. I think Keenu made this point very well in an earlier post when she commented that putting a leaf in a frame has for her more value as a beautiful object than the price tag on da Vinci's Mona Lisa (although isn't it supposed to be priceless!)

At any rate, speculative thinking about machines and consciousness seems to be very important to metaphysicians and philosophers of logic and I am quite happy to leave it to them; since it disallows that one twist in the tail that for me artworks give us by their very nature... surprise!