Musings on Imagination

“Conversation about the weather is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” --Oscar Wilde


It was also said about the filmmaker Akira Kurosawa that he never talked about the weather but simply worked and worked on scripts and ideas for more films. But I believe that all creative individuals are like this because I am also like this. I do not like to focus on the mundane details of life. Of course, the weather can be interesting, but I am sure Wilde is talking about your run-of-the-mill meteorologist report which is dull and only for practical value. I believe in talking about imaginative ideas which will entertain my ideas for novels and poems. Imagination is important in order to avoid the mundane and for those who do not have so much hope in their lives because now they can imagine something better for themselves instead of the depressing ideas that filled their mind.


However, this entertains a romantic notion which I am not too fond of, and I do not believe in: that we can imagine things and they will be better. Sometimes things are not so simple.

Answer to Nicole's Post

We have been recently talking about the concept of Beauty and the concept of Creativity. What do you think the relationship is between the two? Are creative things beautiful? Do we recognize true creativity through beauty? Or does creatvity perhaps need traditional concepts of beauty in order to be able to create something worthy of being labled "beautiful"?


Not all creative objects are beautiful but a lot of the time, they can have aesthetic qualities which the artist has introduced into the artwork in order for it to appear agreeable. On the turn side, in literature, there are words that sound better and agree in sentence harmony. I do not believe all creative objects need traditional objects of beauty to be considered beautiful because even though a postmodern work of art may not be naturally formed, one can see the beauty of what the artist is trying to convey about the world and art. I find that beautiful and in literature, there are often grim subjects expressed but in a beautiful way which are not so frightening which we turn away to. Art and literature and music has to become a lot more dysfunctional before it will upset us entirely.


And the laws of art will not allow this to happen because everything in art, literature, and music must have some form, even if it is free form, and so total chaos and a mess would not make sense for any art form.

Question 2 on Taylor/Claxton

Comment on the sentence: “One might say the same about knowledge: it must derive from experience in a way which can in principle be reproduced by others. Imagination is a private thing, the leap of a single brain from established fact to exciting novelty.”

In the beginning sentence, Taylor is comparing knowledge to the language example of how language is public not private and knowledge may be the same way. However, not everyone has access to knowledge, or, if they do, they do not utilize it very effectively. For example, many towns have public libraries but very few people use them or buy books because of how materialistic America is become. Imagination is the private one but I think that imagination can be shared through language. One can share imagination through a novel, a poem, a song, a painting and in that way, the imagination becomes public.

However, it is nice to think of imagination as "all to ourselves" which it is if we do not share it or only share certain features of it by its leaking through what we create in artwork or literature. On the turn side, imagination can still use experience if one is to imagine greater. One must experience more things in life in order to imagine more just as one must experience more in order to have a vaster knowledge. And the experience that comes with knowledge is a kind of laid back experience which seeps into the imagination while with the knowledge, we must think and remember. I think that is why imagination receives all this discredit. 

Question 1 on Taylor/Claxton

Comment on the “nots” of creativity.

In Professor Guy Claxton's, paper, he talks about the "not" in creativity which have a considerable amount of truth about them. I agree with him when he says that creativity is not always artistic and that human beings use creativity to do everyday tasks. Creativity is not some great quality that only artists are capable--every human being can be creative and that is how it should be in the real world. In a comic "not,", Claxton says that one does not have to dress a certain way in order to be creative. I believe that this is very closely applicable to those who dress in Bohemian art towns, such as North Adams, especially young adults. Young adults feel that by dressing in different fashions and wearing attention-catching outfits that they are becoming more artistic. This is not the case, as Claxton says, and he adds later on that creativity is not wacky and creativity can be writing poems about nature which is perfectly artistic. One does not have to be creating some dysfunctional artwork or piece of writing which does not even function because it is so wacky and strange.

One of the more interesting statements he makes is that "dancers think hard, just as much as scientists need to dream." So often the sciences are separated from the arts and I find that to be rather unfortunate because the sciences have a very good place among the arts, albeit some opinions of modern day scientists do not belong in the artworld, but all other disciplines have something to offer the art world and creativity which is how it should be.

Musings on Art and Beauty

"It is art that makes life, makes interest, makes importance . . . and I know of no substitute whatever for the force and beauty of its process." Henry James


Henry James, here, is saying that art has no substitute in making life beautiful, interesting, or important and that life is inherently beautiful. But going off his quote, is it possible for human beings to lead ugly lives or do we all lead some beautiful life in one way or another? Are all our lives somehow beautiful? The convict and the artist live a beautiful life together? That seems like a quite unruly statement to make, however, I think one can see beauty in many things such as films like It's a Beautiful Life and American Beauty tend to show us.


Moreover, art does equate with life because we began as creative beings and those who try to suppress the artistic, creative impulses of human beings is doing humanity a disservice. I think it is important for everyone to be creative and artistic on different levels, because not everyone wants to be an artist or a writer and that is acceptable, but everyone should be creative for humanity's continuation as a successful species. And the artists bring the greatest beauties to humanity, without which we would never be able to redeem ourselves from sharp blankets of pain and despondency we feel.

Musings on Beauty

"A great artist must be shaken by the naked truths that will not be comforted. This divine discontent, this disequilibrium, this state of inner tension is the source of artistic energy." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


In this eloquent quote, Goethe remarks how the artist can never truly be comforted, but I find it interesting that Nehamas says the artist lives in beauty. Isn't the beauty then comforting for the artist? Or is there no comfort until the artist dies like Vincent van Gogh or Emily Dickinson? Goethe calls the discontentment divine which is very curious because one does not often think of such a thing or a disequilibrium as divine, but all these negative passions serve for the artist's creative energy, as Goethe says.

Nehamas Question 2

What does Nehamas mean by stating “It is possible that spending a life, or part of a life, in the pursuit of beauty—even if only to find it, not to produce it—gives that life a beauty of its own?”

In this eloquent statement, Nehamas brings forth the idea that pursuing a life of beauty is so rewarding and that such a life is truthfully beautiful. I completely believe this statement to have great truth and that those who simply seek beauty are just as beautiful as those who create beauty. Although, those who create beauty lead some interesting, usually turbulent lives but they die the most beautiful of deaths. On Emily Dickinson's deathbed, she said as her dying words: "the fog is lifting" which is most interesting because she had a very painful life full of beautiful poetry. It is comforting knowing that she died a beautiful death and was finally at peace. 

Nehamas Question 1

What does Nehamas mean by saying “Bloom talks of reading “deeply”: I distrust that word, with its suggestion that there is a rock-bottom. Think instead of reading, or looking, or listening, as a broadening of vision. The better you come to know something you love in itself, the better you understand how it differs from everything else, how it does something that has never been done before?”

Here, Nehamas means that, in analysis, one should not be looking for one specific part, otherwise known as the bottom, in a work of art but rather understanding all aspects. Thinking about all the aspects of a work of art in different perspectives and different philosophies gains a broader image of the work of art instead of just finding the "bottom" of it. For example, looking at Vincent van Gogh's Starry Night, one sees a starry night with Cyprus trees, and one may not even know they are Cyprus trees. But if one looks deeper, analyzes more, one will discover more about the art and form one's own opinion about which, with support from others' opinions, can be a completely valid opinion.

Also, if one is a writer or artist, one simply must understand a work "does something that has never been done before," as Nehamas eloquently argues. One cannot write or paint anything better than what one knows and knowing a work of art or literature will expand one's creative mind unthinkably so that one can do something even more innovative than the last innovator.

"To say that a work of art is good, but incomprehensible to the majority of men, is the same as saying of some kind of food that it is very good but that most people can't eat it." --Leo Tolstoy


Leo Tolstoy is eloquently stating here that a work of art should be shared with the world, especially if the work of art in question is of substantive goodness and greatness. I believe that Tolstoy has a wonderful point: no work of art should be hidden from the world and it should be shown the way the artist intended it to be. However, the Nazis burned and destroyed so many beautiful works of art which humanity will never be able to see, some works by artists as famous as Rafael. Also, the Nazis had the Degenerate Art exhibit which did not show Jewish art the way the artists had intended it to be shown, there was a horrible bias laid upon it of hate and disdain.


Moreover, art should be able and has the ability to be comprehended by any human being alive in the world who feels and sees as a human being does, even the insane and the lonely. 

Musings on Noel Carrol

Although I think that Carrol has a very good and thorough philosophy and theory about identifying art, I believe that one must use subjective sense in order to identify good art and then find support through different theories and thinkers. Carrol's theory of the narrative approach I find very useful for verifying something as art in the sense that the contemporary piece of art, for me, it is mostly literature, in question borrows elements from past stylistic eras. These elements serve as evidence for an artist being well-versed in the past and the execution in the art form serves as a demonstration which is, more or less, subjective. However, the whole process of judging an artist's execution in an art form cannot be solely subjective, one must base it on facts and evidence and I think comparing a contemporary piece of art to a classic is how that is best achieved without subjective opinion. However, a subjective undertone can still be understood by which classic one chooses to compare the contemporary art piece in question to.

Question 2 on Carrol

What would a perfect artworld look like? Are all art pieces accepted or is the “failed art” simply cast aside and the more prestigious art is let in?

A perfect artworld, as I have talked about in previous posts is, of course, subjective. I believe the artworld should include all things art, literature, music, dance, etc., the failed and the successful. This war with the successful and failed art is something I feel necessary in the artworld, as well, as those artists and appreciators who do not understand the difference and find all art good as opposed to those who know good art from bad art. That constant war there helps create a balance and continuity for successful art. Every piece of art should be in the artworld because it is called the "artworld" hence and because the bad art serves as fuel for the successful artists to be even better.

Question 1 on Carrol

What are the main fallacies of the narrative approach? How could they be solved with further application of theory or amendment?

The main fallacies of the narrative approach are that everyone must agree upon a starting point for the narrative to begin, unless it is to be the first art object ever created ever time the narrative approach is going to be utilized. But starting in the Renaissance period as everything being defined as bona fide art, then it is relatively easy to use the narrative approach. However, many other fallacies arise after that, like the piece of art in question being relative enough to a Renaissance piece which complete undermines the narrative approach which says the art in question must be compared to the most recent art movement in history. And each art movement which is not considered authentic and artistic enough must be proved next to the last one, so on and so forth.

With the application of theory, provided that certain individuals do not completely deny theory or the application of it, one can see the depth in art. However, "depth" implies that art and the meaning of it has a bottom which is not true. But then the vicious cycle of art having endless meaning with different ideas applied to it comes along. Theory must be applied only when necessary and cannot be overbearing. For example, Pablo Picasso wrote a manifesto about why he used cubism and provided evidence. This is also an important aspect for defining postmodernist art which relies solely on theory with the minor visual aspects. The problem therein lies in the application of too much theory which afflicts much of the postmodern artworld of today.

Musings on Dickie

I believe that Dickie makes a valid idea conception by proposing that the artworld should only allow certain people into it because no everyone is an artist or a creative person (even though human beings are inherently creative). And Dickie also relates an inner circle of the artworld which is more selective and I think it is in this place where the sincerity lies. Even though Robert Louis Stevenson completed Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde in approximately six days, he would still be in that inner circle because of his sincerity to his art. He was most definitely passionate about his art form. As said in class, content is not relative to form in this sense. If the art form is completely sincere, it does not matter how little time or how long it takes.

However, many people of the post-modern age get grouped into this inner circle, I think, without justification. One simply has to be an artist and one is sincere. But the artworld and art and literature do not work that way in general. One cannot simply be an artist and be included in the sincere vision of the artworld. I think combining Leo Tolstoy's theory with Dickie's makes for a very good philosophy about who is an artist and what is art.

Dickie Question 2

What is the artworld for Dickie? Is there any way we can officially define the artworld or is everybody in artworld? Is the invention of the artworld too critical and centralized on certain people who claim to be artistic?

The artworld for Dickie, though poorly and loosely defined, is the worldly group of all artists, but Dickie also says that there are inner groups in the artworld. Regardless, the artworld is all creative people in the world, including engineers and building people. However, by human nature we are all creative, constructing (sometimes destructive) individuals and should all be included in the artworld's circle. So, who then is excluded from the artworld?

There is, I believe, some elite group in the artworld, or out of the artworld (critics perhaps?), who decide who is an artist and who is not. However, this is completely unreliable and is the major flaw in Dickie's plan for the world. How do we decide? Any which way we decide will have judgment and bias layered on top of it. Therefore, I think one of the best ways to avoid this is to invoke Leo Tolstoy's philosophy of the artist's sincerity and determine the artist by sincerity. Of course, this determination of sincerity would have to be done on a person-to-person basis and would take a long time but would establish who is in the inner circle of the artworld, the outer circle, and not at all in the artworld.

Dickie Question 1

Think of modern and post-modern artists who have had their artistic artwork theories vindicated and authenticated by “professionals” in the inner of the artworld. Are they correct, are the critics’ opinions biased in the vindication of the theory, or is this way of art completely irrational?

Again, we have Dickie's circularity where he does not provide substantional information for an argument like this. However, stepping away from Dickie, one can look at the artworld today and see the flaws and perhaps compose a better definition of who should be let into the artworld. Though this sounds pretentious, I think people should still be able to create art but there are some people who are too ignorant, inexperienced, or insincere to be placed in the art world or be accepted as "worthy artists." Ironically, such a statement sounds insincere and judgmental but looking at the art of many people in the post-modern artworld, I feel it is a worthwhile statement. Many people in the post-modern artworld regarded as professionals lack that sincerity and intense study of art.

All art and literature is built upon what was prior to it and I believe that many artists in the post-modern artworld fail to see that. However, I could be very wrong and they could have studied art for a very long time and I could be the one who is being most insincere. The fault here is that the viewer of art would need to talk with the artist instead of seeing the sincerity in his or her work. I think this kind of paradigm counters what previously happened in viewing art. For example, viewers could see the sincerity in art and literature without having to speak with the artist. In other words of a cliche: "the art spoke for itself."

Answer to Nicole's Question

On page 431 in our book, Dickie claims that institutional formality and rules for art “would threaten the freshness and exuberance of art.” In what ways would rules and formalities do this? In what ways could these things promote and sharpen creativity? Is it possible to conceive of art without a certain set of rules and expectations?
Artists and writers already have rules, in fact, certain modern artists have written manifestos specifically detailing their rules, though maybe not so formal and pretentious, they are still rules. There are rules and structures for poetry and novels which do not threaten the freshness of art because they are altered by everyone new author who adopts a new hybrid methodology for literature and poetry. Moreover, in art, there is methodology of art and the form that goes on in the brushstrokes, as well as the theory which has permeated modern and post-modern art. I personally believe that such methodology and rules (which can be broken) are vitally important. 


However, I do not think it is beneficial to conceive art without a certain set of rules or expectations because there has to be a basis on which art is made. Therefore, there is a necessity for rules but one should be allowed to break the rules in order to serve one's own methodology.