Response to Kim Pincus' blog:

How do you feel about art as a form of competition?

Art can be taken as both competitive and not competitive. Depending on your personality and how you take things as, that is what art is to you. Throughout my life, I liked to create art out of fun and talent. I drew whenever I wanted and whatever I wanted. That continued up until high school where I found out that what I wanted to do in the future is make art. I wanted to go to an art college and become a well known artist or have a job that I will enjoy, having to do with my interests. But to do that, I had compete with other students. I had to set up a portfolio of the best pieces of art I have created, present them to the college admissions and have them compare my art to other peoples' art to see how serious I am and decide whether or not I am accepted to this private college or not. I actually did well and was accepted right on the spot. Only issue was that this college was very expensive and was very serious and competitive with their art. Personally, I'm not a competitive person at all. So what I think art should be is just creativity you can create freely and out of lesiure.
In today's society, art has become extremely competitive because of the scarceness of job opportunities and the fact that we are competing with other people who want the same thing. 

I resist defining art because…

    All I know about art is that it consists of different categories, painting, sculpture, music, performing, acting, dancing, drawing, singing, etc… Many philosophers have spent years trying to find a definition of what art is. Plato has defined art as a goal of imitating the everyday reality. But then there is John Dewey, who believes that art is everything, and David Hume, who believes that art is based on one’s opinion and taste and that only qualified people can judge what art is. Art is undefinable. No matter what, there is an exception for something to be considered a piece of art, therefore, is the reason why the definition changes every time. Not only that, everyone has a different definition for art. For example, Arthur Danto believes that art can only be distinguished by people who are dedicated to art and are a part of the art world.

Art Philosophers Summaries:

Throughout the semester, I've had trouble trying to differentiate between all of the Philosophers we have studied. To help me, I pretty much made a list and summarized some of the art philosophers as best as possible.


Plato- He believed that the goal of art is to imitate the everyday reality.


Aristotle- Art is a way of representing. (He referred most of his ideas to poetry) "emphasis on the possible"


David Hume- Art is based on one's taste. Only qualified people can judge what art is.


Tolstoy- "Through the use of such devices as color, sound and movement, art communicates to its audience a feeling or emotion that the artist has previously experienced." He raises the question of "What is Art?" and in his definition, he says that art is communication, pleasure, statement and activity.


Freud- Art is expressing feelings, thoughts, emotions and dreams that aren't acceptable to society, yet making it pleasurable for viewers to see.


Collingwood- He believes that it is good to express your feelings and that you have to use your imagination in order to create art.


John Dewey- "art should not be conceived as a radically distinct aspect of human life."
"art results when the desire to create an object whose perceptible properties will yield immediate satisfaction controls the process of its production."


Martin Heidegger- Defines art as truth




John Dewey- People tend to ignore nature and not consider it as art (aesthetic emotion/satisfaction). The whole point of science is art.

Defining an Artist; A Partial Response to Sean's blog:

As a little kid, everyone knew me for my talent of drawing. They called me an artist. But the thing is, I never really thought I was one. I thought you had to be very good in whatever media you are good at and have a lot of money. Apparently, this is a bad assumption to make. Anyone can be an artist according to what George Dickie says. But is that true?


As of today, I don't consider myself an artist, though I accept the title as the artist of my pieces of work. The thing is that I can create art and make beautiful pieces of work but I feel I have to be very dedicated and put a lot of effort into it. I just make art and sometimes hardly put any effort into it at all.
Compare this to Leonardo Da Vinci and his art work. He actually put his all into his art work, making experiments and creating beautiful artwork that no one can ever duplicate using the exact tools he used in his paintings.


If a little kid can qualify as an artist, wouldn't that be degrading to the art world? After all, a little kid can't become a doctor until he/she gets a PhD. Isn't there some sort of level a child must reach to be considered an artist? If there is, how would the people know?

Response to Kurt's Blog:

Do you believe video games deserve the title of "Art"?


I believe that video games are considered art. The designer of the video game has to create designs for the characters, setting, theme, background, etc. The fact that this form of art is animated and that you can make these characters or things move and make them achieve goals (such as collecting coins in the old game, Mario). These extra things pretty much means that these artists went overboard to the point that people can control it and can change the whole story-line of the piece of art.


Try comparing a painting of car like this:

And compare it to a video game that has a bunch of cars like these that you can race and move around, seeing it from all different angles, such as the one video game that is found in almost every arcade:
Fast and Furious.


Video games include computer graphic art, so therefore, it is.