Raponsyl Bucol - GEC 106 (Art Appreciation ) – Final Exam

May 11, 2024

3. No matter how subjective and/or cultural a response one may have towards an Art
or a Creation, according to Immanuel Kant, our notions of beauty and aesthetics are
based on a subjective response, but are so much part of our culture that they can be
considered universally valid. He claims there is a general consensus about the things
that are considered beautiful, and those that are considered ugly. Do you agree with
this notion? Why? (If agree, follow up: What do you think is the general consensus?
What are the universal standards of beauty and aesthetics?) (If disagree, follow up:
What should be the standard, then?

ANSWER:

Kant's take on how our cultural background shapes our view of beauty is
really interesting. I'm mostly on board with what he's saying. It makes sense that our
surroundings and upbringing would influence what we find beautiful. But it's not as
simple as everyone agreeing on what's pretty and what's not.

Our cultural norms, history, and even what we see in the media all play a big
role in shaping our idea of beauty. For example, things like symmetry and balance
tend to be appreciated in lots of different cultures, showing there's some common
ground. But it's not just about what we're taught to find beautiful. It's also about
who holds the power in society. Feminist critics, for instance, point out how beauty
standards can be influenced by things like gender, race, and class. So, what one
group finds beautiful might not be the same for someone else.

Then you've got postmodernist thinkers who say there's no one-size-fits-all

definition of beauty. They argue that it's all subjective, depending on our own
experiences and interpretations. And with the world getting smaller thanks to
technology, we're exposed to all sorts of different ideas about beauty. This makes
things even more complicated because it challenges what we might have thought
was universally true about beauty.

So, in a nutshell, Kant's idea gives us a lot to chew on. By looking at beauty
through different lenses—like cultural, feminist, and postmodernist perspectives—
we can see how complex it really is. Instead of trying to pin down one universal
standard of beauty, maybe it's better to appreciate the diversity of opinions and
experiences out there. That's what makes art and creativity so fascinating!

9. Let's say you planned to be in an art exhibit. You walked in this vast room and
found yourself standing on the corner with an empty space. You stood idly by, and
then decided to leave that corner to finally examine the beautiful artwork inside the
room. Minutes pass by and you notice a crowd flocking in towards the empty corner
you once stood by. You check it as well, out of curiosity. When you stood along with
the crowd, you also looked upon where they had their gaze. You stared at this
familiar handkerchief on the floor. And then you realized, this was no "familiar"
handkerchief -- this was yours. And it just fell when you were there. And people
actually thought this was part of the exhibit when it wasn't. You hear the crowd
going "wow" and giving expressions of astonishment and wonder. Would you
consider yourself an artist, given that people appreciated what you had done on the
exhibit, even though it was accidental? Or would you say that an artist would
require intention and motivation to be an artist? What is an Artist, then? How do
you know a person is an Artist?

ANSWER:

Traditionally, we think of artists as these intentional, super creative folks who

plan out their masterpieces. But this situation challenges that idea. Maybe being an
artist isn't just about planning and intention. Maybe it's more about the impact your
creations have on people.

So, instead of sticking to the old definition of an artist, we could look at it

differently. Maybe an artist is just someone who expresses themselves creatively,
whether they meant to or not. And if their work moves people and gets them
thinking, well, that's what really matters.

In the end, it's not just about creating art; it's about how it makes people feel
and think. And if my accidental handkerchief exhibit did that, then maybe I am
more of an artist than I thought.
BONUS QUESTION

1. There is this story of one statue of a majestic cat put on a pedestal in front of a
university. As years have passed, authorities have placed a golden chain around its
neck to secure it to the podium, to keep it from being toyed around by students.
Eventually, this was coined as “the chained cat” by the students who came to
appreciate the statue, even when the sculptor who had created this cat did not
intend to have this chain part of his artwork. Now the question is: how is the
artwork supposed to be appreciated? With or without the chain? But that leaves us
to answer another question: is it up to the perception of the audience? Or the
intention of the artist? Is this the part where you consider the approach “The author
is dead”?

ANSWER:

In the story of the "chained cat" statue, we're faced with questions about how
art should be appreciated: with or without the chain? Should it be based on the
audience's perception or the artist's intention? This dilemma ties into the concept of
"The author is dead," which suggests that the audience's interpretation holds more
weight than the creator's intent.

Some argue that knowing the historical context of the statue makes the
theoretical question irrelevant, while others believe that newer generations, unaware
of the history, should view it from their perspective. Ultimately, the answer remains
elusive, awaiting further exploration. In the realm of art appreciation, understanding
context is key. Art isn't just about the physical object; it's about the environment,
history, and culture surrounding it. Appreciating art involves grasping its context to
fully understand its meaning and impact.

However, there's a tension between appreciating art through its context and
liberating it from that context. While one perspective emphasizes understanding, the
other allows for personal interpretation free from historical constraints. Both
viewpoints have validity, highlighting the complexity of art appreciation. At the
heart of it, the audience determines the value of art. Whether it's viewed within its
historical context or interpreted through personal lenses, art's meaning and
significance are subjective. And in a globalized world, where cultural hegemony
threatens local perspectives, it's essential to navigate these dynamics with awareness
and critical reflection.
 In conclusion, the appreciation of art is a multifaceted journey shaped by
historical, cultural, and individual factors. It challenges us to consider not only what
art is but also how we engage with it, fostering a dialogue between tradition and
innovation, context and interpretation.
 REFERENCES

Kant, Immanuel. "Critique of Judgment." Translated by J.H. Bernard, Hafner

Publishing Co., 1951.

https://monoskop.org/images/7/77/Kant_Immanuel_Critique_of_Judgment_1987.pdf

Dissanayake, Ellen. "What Is Art For?" University of Washington Press, 1988.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-98692-000

Danto, Arthur C. "The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art." Open

Court, 2003. https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/The_Abuse_of_Beauty.html?

id=hUFMv8LxuVUC&redir_esc=y