Cross-cultural Perceptions

Considering the lack of a universal, or even a clear definition of "art" in any culture makes it likely that there has to be an endless variety of different or competing conceptions of it. Although it is in our culture as American's to determine individualism, and therefore would make sense for American's to insist these differences, there is a universal trend as to what tends to be aesthetically pleasing, and what is not. But this is not a constant truth. Different cultures will conceptualize art differently based on differences in lifestyles, values, access to materials, and historic context. These differences create some distinctions as to what is and is not art based on cultural perception.
For example, what one culture creates as necessity, may be seen by another as having artistic intent. An example would be Egyptian hieroglyphics which to foreigners often look like intricate designs and symbols up for aesthetic contemplation where as ancient Egyptians may have looked at them as commonly as you read this sentence. At the same time, our perception of a urinal in an exhibition being art because it is "out of context" may seem obscure to someone from a third world country who has never seen indoor plumbing and therefore cannot see the difference between the Fountain exhibit and the actual restroom down the hall.
In this way, perceptions of art are dependent upon underlying factors both culturally and individually. There seems to be a basic cross-cultural understanding which humans share which allows us to generally recognize art, however it is not constant. Differences in culture can play a large role in this recognition.

Question:

Does the lack of a universal definition of art allow for art to be subjective? In other words, can something be art to me, but not to someone else?

Response to Tania

What do adults gain from art?

As such a general question I could easily say that depending on their perspective, people could gain everything as much as nothing from art, but I feel like that is a cop-out. I should first note that the best definition I can come up with to describe art in a general sense (not specific to any one form) would be that it is the result of a humans attempt to document expression or emotion. If this is true then I think that adults use art just as children, as an outlet. I wouldn't however go as far to describe art as being necessarily an outlet which is socially acceptable. Although this is true in many cases where various art forms are widely praised and generally any artistic initiative is seen as positive but there are many pieces of art which are said to be obscene or morally wrong such as back in October 2007 Costa Rican artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas supposedly captured a stray dog and chained it in a gallery without food and water with a sign on the back wall made of dog biscuits stating “Eres Lo Que Lees” (”You Are What You Read”).

This is an interesting case in art for two reasons. First, there was a huge backlash when word of this art project was released and thousands of people who heard about the story through primarily internet sources, they began flooding facebook groups and blogs with petitions to stop the exhibition. Like we see in this case, people do not see all art as being worth the symbolism which the artist is trying to express. Second, after the initial buzz of this exhibition, skeptics began to search for the story's origins and were not able to find a clear source. It is still debated as to whether or not the exhibition ever actually took place. This shows the ease at which people can sometimes be swayed by art just as easily as mass media.

With this being said, I would say that the creation of art would likely have positive effects on the artist (creator/performer/etc) for it's creative outlet qualities. As far as the effect art has on the experiencer, I would have to say that getting a glimpse of another's point of view, no matter how you interpret it, will more often than not benefit you rather than have adverse effects.

Question:

What do you think about the influence that mass media has on some art (such as 'mainstream' genres)?

What factor do you think differentiates "pornography" and "erotica?"

I think that the main difference between pornography and erotica is that generally, pornography has the primary purpose of causing sexual arousal where erotica tends to primarily function first as art or literature which falls into a genre of sexual themes or qualities. Although there could be pornography out there that has artistic qualities, pornography speaks to the primary intent of the piece to cause the audience to become sexually aroused. Erotica may also cause the audience to become sexually aroused but I think this correlates more to the fact that erotica contains sexual themes and qualities.

I equate it with someone taking photographs to document a party in comparison to someone who considers themselves a photographer. Where pornography has the clear intent of documenting a moment for the sake of sexual arousal, erotica focuses more on motive, scene-setting, and developing a mood to evoke sexual contemplation which sometimes comes with arousal.

I don't think that there can be a clear distinction between erotica and pornography because it is dependent on what the audience is getting out of the content. What is pornography to one person could be considered erotica to another and vice versa.

Question:
With this being said about erotica and pornography, do you think the lack of motive in pornography is grounds to consider it not as art?

Response to Betsy's question on morality

Do you think most people's decisions are based in their morality?

I would have to say yes, I do think that most people make decisions based on their personal morality. What I can't say, is how exactly this morality is formed on a person to person basis. Possibly there could be a mixture of biology and environmental factors. This question also reminds me of the chicken and the egg dilemma. There has been much dispute whether or not violent (or immoral) pornography causes violence in people. I would think that this is not the case but rather that people who are violent (or socially considered immoral beliefs) are more likely to view violent pornography.
People are tied heavily to their moral beliefs, we can see it in politics. Although politics are designed to make decisions on behalf of the people as a whole, politicians are constantly basing decisions off of their personal morals. People cannot help but base decisions on morality, it is the core of our conscience. Of course not all decisions are based on morality, it is all within context, but I think that through the arts people put their morality to the test consistently to prepare for real-life decision making.

Question:

What do you make of violent role-play pornography and erotica where the participants are not actually being harmed but violent scenarios are depicted through fantasy? Is this harmful to human development?

real horror show

Carroll suggests that people's fascination with horror does not come from our obsession with tragic events but rather the way in which these events are worked into a plot. I would like to think this is true in some aspects for example, I might go to a Quentin Tarantino film because I enjoy his ability to thrill me with plot twists and his outlandish camera work, despite the fact that his films are extremely violent and often notably filled with gore. Humans enjoy participating in their "mental game" which involves submerging ourselves into fictional situations which force us to consider our own morals and question ourselves. Audiences often find themselves thinking "would I have done that?" or "I would have gotten away differently" in a way similar to how other art forms help us to do the same. Villains in horror represent those things that we hate, find socially unacceptable and often, some form of the "seven deadly sins" which we are told not to overindulge in or we will turn out like these villains. The psychological game of learning about this villain as it impacts our life, struggling with it, finally confronting the villain (i.e. our own conflicts), and finding a way to defeat it is symbolic of our everyday struggles and problem solving conflicts. People can find an outlet for these struggles in horror, it has the attractive element of indulging in these horrific, sometimes animalistic situations which we are deprived of in everyday life.

But what is it about this specific genre that draws people in? What is the psychological explanation for the recent popularity of "slasher" films which lack plot development (excluding the "low-cost" element which explains reality TV shows, etc)?

Response to Ed

Might video games be considered potential works of art?

I would argue that yes, video games can indeed be considered works of art. It seems that although video games may not be an ideal form of art, they follow the criteria which were set in previous chapters which we have read. Video games are interactive art, which allows the gamer (for their benefit or not) to become consumed in a fictional situation where they actually have a level of control over the storyline. When playing a video game, gamers often are completely submerged in the fictional story. Game systems like Wii even allow the gamer to move their body in realistic movements to control games. Unlike film or photography, video games do not require that the themes or characters in the game actually exist. Which for Scruton, this makes a big difference. Video games also take a certain amount of artistic ability to create. The creation of complex games may take an extensive amount of time and requires attention to detail. The artist creating the game represents some sort of intent through their work which may be interpreted by the gamer. My only resistance here is the capacity for a video game to move someone. I have to think that video games do posses this characteristic for the simple fact that when I was younger I was afraid of playing "zombie" themed games and would nearly toss the controller when it got too intense. We could also argue that video games have caused some people to "copycat" in real life, extensive studies show that violence in video games can be translated into violence in life. This statistic is debatable for me. I am not entirely sure if people are more violent as a result of video games, or just if violent people play violent games?

Although I would not necessarily claim that video games are a "major" art form, I feel that the amount of artistic ability involved in creating a game, and the emotions and reasons for playing them correlate to the criteria we have discussed which constitutes a work of art.


With game systems like Wii which force the gamer to actively participate (let's say, bowling for example), when this much physical effort is needed to play a game, what is it that prevents the gamer from going out and actually participating in real-life situations (i.e. actually going bowling)?

The previous blog on "suspension of reality" got me thinking about Tania's take on Aristotle's theory discussing the potential effects of exposure to virtual traumatic fiction. As adults we engage in mental games, often through participation in the arts, to cope with the reality of understanding the actual world which is arguably not established during early childhood. Aristotle claims that contemplation of these fictional situations can be healthy in the way that it helps prepare or "cleanse" us for future situations in the real world. My question is about what happens when people start engaging in these fictional situations to the point that we begin seeing life as an imitation of art rather than art as an imitation of life? Turn the TV to any "reality television" show and you will see anything but. What you will see is people then imitating and getting ideas from these shows and using them in actual life which can be harmful. It is important to note that beneficial lessons can also be taken from the arts, but I must highlight that I am speaking to the quantity in which we absorb fictional material not to the material itself. I feel that by consuming large amounts of fiction in the way that (for example) American culture does, we go into a sort of overload where we become neurotic in preparing ourselves for obscure situations to the point where we are forgetting to live in the present. Going back to a blog I posted on Alan Watts, author of The Wisdom of Insecurity he equates this theory to trying to think about reading this sentence as you concentrate on reading it. You will find that you cannot do both at once, if we engage in these metal games to the point that we lose complete awareness of what real life is, it could have negative effects.

What is your take on this?