past paper, JUN 2011

Assess the claim that all knowledge and ideas derive from sense experiences. (30 marks)

plan:

paragraph 1:

• tabula rasa (locke)- agrees with claim- attacks innate claim (children + idiots), nothing the mind knows from birth
• counter-argument: children + idiots don't know to use reason 
• locke: not reason, but concepts that are needed e.g. EQUALITY needs to be known to do 2+2=4

John Locke, an empiricist, would agree with the claim that all knowledge and ideas derive from sense experience - his argument is that the mind is a 'tabula rasa', meaning it is 'empty' from birth (a blank slate), this means that sense experience is necessary to obtain knowledge. To support his argument, he argues that the opposite statement - that knowledge and ideas are innate - is false. He questioned that if we had innate ideas from birth, then there would be ideas that every single person would know, (even children and 'idiots') which, he argued, there are not, therefore ideas cannot be innate.

(CONTINUE WHEN HAVE POSTER AVAILABLE)

past paper, June 2013, reason and experience

Illustrating your answer, explain the difference between deductive and inductive arguments. (15 marks)

Induction and deduction are types of reasoning that we use to gain knowledge. A deductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion logically follows the premises. They generally follow the structure: If A, and B, therefore C. A deductive argument is absolutely certain, as long as the premises are true. An example of a deductive argument is the following: Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.

We can contrast this argument with the following: It rained today, and it rained yesterday, and it rained every day before, therefore it will rain tomorrow. This is an inductive argument, meaning that the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises. Hume wrote that induction is probability-based reasoning, founded on our experience. The example above concludes from our previous experience of rain falling that it will likely to rain tomorrow as well. Induction cannot be certain, as no matter how sure I am that it will rain tomorrow it is possible that I will be proved wrong. Even if the probability of the conclusion being false is extremely minute, such as the sun rising tomorrow, it is still not certain to be true.

Descartes believed that we use a thing called 'rational intuition' - he believed this allows us to determine truth just by thinking about the premises of an argument, which is how we know the difference between inductive and deductive arguments when presented with them.

criticisms of formalism

Outline two objections to the claim that significant form is the value of art.

Firstly, Bell's description of significant form and aesthetic emotion is unclear, and thus flawed. He describes significant form as being lines, shapes and colours of certain relation, however, this is basically what form is anyway, therefore making it a meaningless account. He also states that significant form is detected by aesthetic emotion, however, the definition of aesthetic emotion is a reaction to significant form, therefore making his definition circular, and thus vague and meaningless. However, Bell could reply in defence of this flawed explanation by saying that we can only identify the value of an artwork through intuition/feeling, therefore significant form can only be understood through experience for it to be valued, thus explaining why his explanation is vague.

Secondly, it could be argued that Bell's account of formalism is actually a part of expressionism - he states that what makes significant form significant is the expression of the artist's emotions in response to their glimpse of the pure forms of reality, therefore value of form depends on the value of the emotions express, rather than being valuable in its own right. Thus, Bell is describing expressionism (valuing art through the expression of the artist), rather than formalism (valuing art because of its formal properties).

Furthermore, Bell argued that art which doesn't produce 'aesthetic emotion' isn't art at all - they are either descriptive or exist to cause emotions directly (not through significant form). This is flawed as it means he rejects a great deal of art as of secondary value. Therefore, it could be argued that formalism isn't an account of what we value about art, but rather, what formalists say that we should value.

Assess the claim that we value art because it produces an aesthetic enjoyment of form.

The claim that we value art solely because it produces an aesthetic enjoyment of form, firstly, fails to recognise the place that art has in life. Formalism is focused on the form of art alone, a completely unique aesthetic response that cannot be felt elsewhere, and ignores the role of representation. This account of why we value art appears to detach the role art plays in many areas of life, and for many reasons - such as, the importance of context and what the artist is expressing; the importance of the lives of artists and how it affects their work (e.g. cultural and historical context); how art can contribute to self-understanding and illuminate our experience of life in general; it ignores commissioned artworks, such as private portraits and statues. Furthermore, Tolstoy argued that art creates a bond between the artist and the audience, which is ignored by formalists. 

Because of this, formalists reject a huge amount of art, simply because, according to them, it is too tied to life through representation and emotion; this doesn't seem like a complete account of why we value art, thus formalism is flawed.

(development)

Compare and contrast the claims that good art portrays authentically and that it expresses a vision.

The argument that good art portrays authentically is based on an artist's aim to represent reality in the most accurate way possible - it is believed that human beings have a drive to represent the world and a desire to see these representations, thus making it the reason why we value art.

Another theory of why we value about art doesn't depend on the artist's accuracy in their representation of reality, but how the art represents something about reality, if it conveys some kind of 'knowledge' or 'truth'. For example, Picasso's 'Guernica' shows us the horror/brutality of war, thus the audience comes away with this message of the artist's vision.

The link between the two is that representation is relevant/important, however, the latter view states that the accuracy of the representation isn't why we value art, but rather the way the artist uses representation to convey their vision and to express a deeper sense of reality is what makes us value art.

Explain and illustrate the view that good art reveals truths.

Firstly, a particular way that art may express 'truth' is through paying attention to the ordinary - artist's can show how unique and individual objects that we may take for granted are. For example, Van Gogh's 'Chair' is a painting of an everyday object, but which expresses that everything is precisely itself and nothing else, and is to be value for its unique existence.

Furthermore, another example where art may express truth is in novels - a good novel portray's different points of views of different characters, which may help the reader understand how others think and feel, for example, portraying something in a sympathetic light may help the reader understand the world in a different way, thus contributing to the readers self-understanding. Also, a novel may describe universal human experience, for example, growing up, which may also help readers understand themselves.

Lastly, art can reveal truths through portraying idealisations, for example, Palma Vecchio's 'A Blonde Woman' is an expression of the ideal of woman, or of the ideal of 'woman' (as he imagines it); many renaissance artist's tried to represent what is ideal. In focusing on idealisation in art, it can tell us about the object idealised as well as about ourselves and human judgement.

Assess the claim that we value art because it informs us.

Firstly, it could be argued that we do not value art because it informs us because not all art expresses a vision/'truth' - for example, music does not tend to express a vision, but simply expresses emotion. Art that's made just to be enjoyed, for example, pleasant, entertaining music and artefacts (such as rugs and vases) does not express anything, therefore going against the view that we value art because it informs us.

Secondly, it could be argued that focusing just on how we are informed when it comes to art is too intellectual; if this were the case then art would always need to be analysed to be valued or appreciated, but it is obvious that we can simply look at a painting a feel an emotional reaction without having to analyse it. However, it could also be argued that the artist's vision is also valuable for its expressive, emotional qualities, not just the 'truth' it reveals.

Furthermore, most of the time the vision an artist is trying to convey is simply there to be contemplated and enjoyed - there isn't always a message to be taken away from a piece of art, therefore the point of art isn't always to inform us about anything at all.

Lastly, a focus on the information an artist is trying to convey to us isn't what is unique about art - a theological essay can express a religious view, but this doesn't make it art and isn't valued as art. Therefore, rather than being about information, it is the expressive qualities (how the vision is expressed and the emotional qualities of the vision) that we value in art, furthermore, the vision must move us, and it is being moved that contributes to our placing value on art.


Outline the idea of 'free play' of imagination and understanding.

Kant's theory of sense experience states that experiences needs to organised by concepts to be intelligible (otherwise experience would remain a meaningless, confused 'buzz'). He believed that our most basic concepts, known as 'categories', enable us to experience objects. He called the production and application of concepts the 'understanding', and the organisation of stimuli the 'imagination'. In normal perception, the 'understanding' dominates, therefore the organisation of stimuli are constrained by the concepts we apply (for example, walking through a forest: we see trees, then their branches moving gently in the wind). However, if we free imagination up from applying the concept of 'tree', we can see the tree as a person, with its branches as arms, thus giving the imagination a degree of 'free play' (though still guided by the shapes of the trees).

Kant argues that something like this happens in aesthetic response - because he said that we are 'disinterested' in art, we can ignore the question of what something 'really' is i.e. there's no need to constrain our experience by particular concepts. Thus, 'imagination' has free play in how it organises what we see, and our 'understanding' has free play in creating new concepts. He argued that good art enables this ability - it stimulates us to free our imagination and understanding, and to therefore simply enjoy making representations.


Explain Kant's account of the relation between form and aesthetic pleasure.

Kant believed that our response to form (the relation between non-aesthetic features) of an art-piece is what enables us to gain aesthetic pleasure - seeing the beauty of an artwork can't be produced simply from the 'matter' of representations (in vision, colours, in hearing, sounds). For example, colours on their own in a sketch add to part of the 'charm', but they aren't what makes the sketch beautiful, or really worth looking at.

It could be argued that this view of why we value art has the upper-hand over expressionism, as it justifies aesthetic judgements as objective - it manages to draw on disinterested nature of the aesthetic attitude and structure of the mind. In being objective, it claims that objective judgements rely on nothing in particular in the self (no experience or interest is necessary). Thus, Kant claims that everyone who responds to art in the right way (disinterested and noticing form) should make the same aesthetic judgement.


Explain Bell's theory of significant form.

Bell went beyond Kant's idea of form, as he believed that everything has some form or other, therefore the term isn't separated for cases in art; he believed the term 'significant form' to be more appropriate. He believed that only art could have significant form (thus differentiating it), also specifically that good art must have significant form. He argued that representation is irrelevant in art, except for representation of three-dimensional space, otherwise no knowledge of life or emotions are needed.

The theory of significant form states that a person can only know significant form through 'aesthetic emotion' - Bell believed that at artist looks at the world with no concern for association or function of things, and that they are only interested in the pure form of things (thus, they see the world as it really is); this produces an emotion in the artist of which is expressed through significant form of their artwork. The viewers of this art can then experience aesthetic emotion through the expression of the artist's emotion.

It is argued that Bell's theory is very similar to expressionism, however, Bell argued that we should not look for expression or emotion in art, but should focus on significant form; only then will aesthetic emotion be felt.

Explain the claim that an artwork is a clarification of emotion.

Collingwood, a philosopher, believed that art is a clarification of emotion, rather than an outpour of emotion or attempt to deliberately arouse emotion. He claimed that artists aren't fully aware of the emotion they are trying to express until the artwork is complete - although they may have certain conscious 'intentions', unconscious psychological states, emotions, visions and experience of the world play a larger role. This means that artists may be surprised by their finished product, but still feel that they have expressed something. Furthermore, this means, according to Collingwood, that the audience needs to use their imagination to recreate this emotion for themselves.

Collingwood created the term 'art proper' which was to be distinguished from art that expresses emotion for any purpose or entertainment. So, the term should be separated from art as entertainment, whereby the purpose is to arouse and evoke particular emotions to the audience (i.e. there is a clear purpose for expression) - for example, the clear purpose of horror films is for the audience to feel (enjoyable) terrified. Furthermore, 'art proper' is different from art as 'magic' whereby the purpose is to arouse and direct particular emotions, for example, patriotism or, in religious art, a devotion to God.


Explain and illustrate two objections to the view that we value art because it expresses and arouses emotion.

Firstly, it could be argued that we don't value art because it expresses and arouses emotion because not all art expresses emotion - for example, some conceptual art pieces express ideas, not emotions; many artefacts, such as rugs and vases, are beautiful, but don't express feelings; 'nice' music is pleasant to hear, but expresses nothing in particular. Therefore, because art expresses and arouses emotion cannot be the reason why we value art, because this claim ignores many artworks which are clearly enjoyed, but don't express anything in particular. However, Collingwood would argue that the aforementioned artworks are not 'art proper', so should be separated; however, to say that art which is not expressive is not art at all seems like an incomplete and too simplistic of a statement.

Secondly, something that is emotionally expressive is not necessarily art, for example, saying 'I love you'; therefore there must be something else that we value about art to differentiate it from things that are simply emotionally expressive. However, again, Collingwood would argue that this isn't 'art proper' as its purpose is to directly arouse emotion, thus differentiating it from art. However, it could be argued that many religious art pieces which people clearly value, such as Bellini's 'The Dead Christ' was painted to arouse religious experience and emotions, thus going against Collingwood's idea of 'art proper' as not having the purpose of directly arousing emotion. Therefore, not answering what differentiates art from other expressions of emotion.

III. we value art because of its expressive quality

1. EMOTION IN ART: GOOD ART IS MOVING OR CAPTURES A MOOD OR FEELING

Outline and illustrate the view that art expresses emotion.

Representationalism and formalism is flawed as it fails to acknowledge the psychological dimension of art i.e. that it expresses emotion - firstly, it is argued that even in the most abstract of works the artist is trying express themselves, particularly their emotions (not always directly, but in some way). For example, Piet Mondrian's 'Composition C (No. III)' in which he claimed he was trying to express the spiritual sublime - thus supporting the view that art expresses emotion. 

Secondly, we, as an audience, are emotionally moved in response to art - just as art can express a number of different feelings, so it can evoke different feelings. It could be said, then, that there is a special aesthetic way of experiencing emotions; one that takes into account the 'disinterested' nature of aesthetic response (as Kant argued), e.g. maybe we feel them 'in imagination'. For instance, Wordsworth described poetry as 'emotion recollected in tranquility'.

A strength of this theory, firstly, is that it is more accurate that pieces of art express emotion, rather than represent emotion - emotions can be represented, but there is a difference between the emotion being represented in a painting and the emotion expressed by a painting. For example, Jan Steen's 'The Effects of Intemperance' - the scene shows drunken merriment, but the painting as a whole is more of a warning to the negative effects of over-consumption of alcohol. Thus, we are interested in the emotions expressed by the work as a whole when valuing art. [AO2/3]

However, representation isn't irrelevant - there is a close connection between what is represented, how it is represented and the feelings that are being expressed. Grunewald's 'The Crucifixion' expresses horror and pathos with his combination of the tortured body of Christ and his use of colour (sickly greens and yellows). Therefore, what is being represented still contributes to what a piece is trying to express, making it an important element.

Furthermore, non-representational art can equally express or evoke feelings, for example, through its form. For example, in music, we find rhymes, pace and key give us emotional responses - a piece of music with a fast, lively pace in a major key can evoke optimism and joy, whereas a piece with a slow pace in a minor key can evoke sadness. In Mark Rothko's 'Red on Maroon' his use of form can also evoke emotional responses; the sharp edges, the lack of saturation, the smears in the red can feel unsettling, yet noticing how the red rectangle sinks gently into the darker background can feel comforting. Therefore, even non-representational pieces of art can express feelings, thus supporting the overall view.

Our understanding of what an artist is expressing can be increased, also, by looking at the context in which the work was created - (the artists personal life, the tradition that they worked in, the broader cultural context etc). We can deepen our responses to art by trying to see a piece as the audience at the time it was created would. 

Leo Tolstoy defended a version of this theory of why we value art: he believed that art connects the audience to the artist through the artists use of expression '[the artist] hands onto other feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them'; the audience is captivated by the emotions the artist is expressing and so experiences the emotions themselves. Therefore, he believed, that art is valued because it connects humans together and creates bonds with each other on a psychological level. Furthermore, it could be said that a bond is also created between people in the audience as well as they are sharing the same psychological state, thus explaining what we value about art.

The Value of Art

Outline and illustrate two reasons to think good art should portray authentically.

Humans have had a desire to represent the world and see these representations dating back to 30,000 years ago (for example, the caves of Lascaux) to this day (e.g. people putting up photographs on websites). Humans praise art for the which it portrays authentically - we praise it for the way it captures scenes, represents people and is true to life. It is argued that, if a painting claims to represent an object and we cannot see that object, then the painting has failed as a painting. Therefore, the ability to portray objects or situations authentically/genuinely is one we value. This is backed up by the fact that most artists spend years developing and perfecting their techniques to gain the ability to portray their works authentically. It also explains why certain real events, such as the Holocaust, or objects such as mutilated bodies by torture, can seem off-limits to art; this is because the horror, terror and wrongness of an event or object stops it becoming art, as it can seem tasteless and disrespectful.

[NOT FINISHED?]