Author Archives: Ahmed Ashraf

Posts by Ahmed Ashraf

Comments by Ahmed Ashraf

"In "Aesthetic Concepts," Frank Sibley discusses two of the different kinds of reactions to arts, and the way one expresses those reaction. One is the physical observation of the art and one expresses this by describing certain parts of the piece of art. The second one with which Sibley most deals is the emotional response and aesthetic judgement of the art. Sibley recognizes that this response "requires the exercise of taste, perceptiveness, or sensitivity, of aesthetic discrimination or appreciation," and is expressed through aesthetic terms like unified, balanced, integrated, lifeless, serene, somber, dynamic, powerful, vivid, delicate, moving, trite, sentimental, tragic, “telling contrast,” “sets up a tension,” etc. Some of these terms have metaphorical reference while the most used ones do not have any metaphorical reference. Either aesthetic description (describing the reaction) is their primary use or have no "non-aesthetic" purpose. Author also states that a level of sensitivity is is required to apply these terms. This sensitivity or taste is "somewhat more rare than certain other human capacities." Many times people with regular senses and intelligence are not able to apply these terms because of the lack of that sensitivity, though everybody has "taste to some degree." Because of this, there are different opinions on the "application of aesthetic terms" which remains largely unresolved. Sometimes, different aesthetic features that do not require taste, are used to justify the application of another aesthetic term. Author mentions the use of "pastel shades and curving lines" to justify the application of "delicate" as an example, but understands that it is quite hard to know "what non-aesthetic features makes something delicate (But a good critic will point out something that most of us think is the right explanation)." Though establishing that no non-aesthetic feature can be considered "sufficient conditions for applying aesthetic terms," author concludes that aesthetic qualities and use of aesthetic terms ultimately depend upon non-aesthetic features which share various relationships with the qualities. Sometimes a group of supporting features combined can be considered "sufficient" to apply a aesthetic term. Aesthetic concepts, on the other hand, are not as condition-governed and there is no set of feature would "beyond question logically justify" the application of an aesthetic term. Taste concepts are not as condition governed as "defeasible concepts" (no sufficient condition can be stated). "Defeasible concepts" are still condition-governed. Taste concepts are not condition-governed in any way. Applying terms like "intelligent" requires "exercising Judgement" which one have to decide upon positives and negatives. This is not possible with practicing "taste." Thus, someone who knows that he doesn't have aesthetic taste or sensitivity might still be able to, through guessing and understanding of rules, say the right things, but without certainty. A critic, on the other hand, will use reference to aesthetic and non-aesthetic features, metaphors and terms to get the audience to feel how he/she feels. One will eventually be able to recognize and respond to aesthetic qualities by experience and education."
--( posted on Nov 21, 2013, commenting on the post Frank Sibley, “Aesthetic concepts” )
 
"The essay "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" by Linda Nochlin deals with the reasons of the disparity among the number of great male artists and the number of great female artists. Before addressing the reasons, author states that recent feminist activities contributed to emotional liberation, but it needs to focus on basic intellectual and ideological issues, dealing with females, in academics. She also mentions that inclusion of female viewpoint in historical analysis is necessary to not only get "a more adequate and accurate view of historical situations," but also to create a "truly just social order." After that she approaches the question in a very interesting manner. She doesn't try to find problems with either gender as many tend to. As a matter of fact, she addresses two reasons of this character. "women are incapable of greatness" is one of the reason she addresses. Author understands that this reasoning "falsifies the nature of the issue" and she addresses it through a possible reaction of a feminist to this idea. A feminist is highly likely to try to find examples of great, but under-appreciated women artists to counter it. But Nochlin finds the very fact that one has to dig up such examples of female artists to be a re-enforcer of the reasoning. The she deals with another reason that states that women's art have "different kind of greatness" than men's art . She trashes this notion not only because it postulates the existence of a "feminine style" that is different in characteristics and expression, but also because of the vast difference among the styles of female artists. Female artist are more relative to time period than themselves. If such a thing as "feminine style" existed, there would be more similarity as shown in the works of male artists. Then the author presents her reasons for the lack of great female artists. She simply states that "there have been no supremely great women artists." There have been "good and interesting" ones, but not great ones. As much as one might wish, "there are no women equivalents for Michelangelo or Rembrandt, Delacroix or Cezanne, Picasso or Matisse." She writes that he cause of this is the social, institutional and educational structure. Author states that society is oppressive toward certain groups while advantageous to others. In this case, women are the oppressed ones. Society presents enormous obstacles in their way. They are restricted by social rules and bonds. They are given some roles to fulfill in male dominated society. They are not given opportunities beside them. They also have been socially restricted to certain degrees and areas of education. Author writes that the notion that art is an expression of individual experience is misconception. The making of a great piece of art involves "a self-consistent language of form" or " free from, given temporally defined conventions, schemata, or systems of notation." One can be learn this through education, hands on experience with a master and personal experimentation. Since women are denied these chances, it is impossible for them to gain the understanding of intricate "language of art" that is necessary to make a great pieces of art, thereby destroying the chances of creating "great" female artists. Those who are privileged by society try to hold on to them, continuing this practice of depressing women. These are social factors that influences the making of great artists. One might consider that what makes a great artists is the individual's genius level, but it is hardly a viable thing to make this decision upon, considering that one's genius doesn't necessarily translate into greatness. Characteristics supposedly indicating genius of great artists can also be found in others who have seriously failed in life. Moreover, the author implies, the level of genius of certain artist is build upon, by others, their already existing art. These are stories, made up around the artists to, in a sense, justify their work. Overall, the author reaches the conclusion that the making of a great artist is not about the individual, but the opportunities that was available to them. Since women were not provided with the opportunities, there have been a lack of great women artists."
--( posted on Nov 19, 2013, commenting on the post Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” )
 
"In his article, "Understanding Art and Understanding Persons," Frances Berenson discusses "whether it is possible to understand the art of other cultures." He is asking whether a person can have "cross-cultural aesthetic judgement and aesthetic experience" without being involved or growing up in the culture that is foreign to him. He mentions two theories, 1. Relativism and 2. Institutional, that suggests that it is indeed not possible to have such understanding. Rather than fully deconstructing these theories (he just sidetracked them with couple of quotes than in turn can be used to justify those theories), he states why he thinks that such an understanding is possible. One of the reason that he implies that there are somethings that are universal to not only all cultures, but also to all people. Based upon these similarities, one can understand art of other culture to some extent. Now, one can easily understand the foolishness of this notion. There are so many and big differences that finding little similarities are like looking for a needle in haystack. I will give you an example: In American culture, showing your thumb to another person means that you appreciate them or their work, but in the Bengali culture, doing this has the same meaning as the meaning of showing the middle finger in American culture. This ties to the other point, a much more reasonable one, he makes which is that one can always learn about the other culture. I personally relate to it as I have come to learn and understand the meaning of showing thumb in this culture and therefore to appreciate it. But, there arises the other question, isn't learning about a culture, in any way, is being involved with the culture to some degree? Isn't this kind of similar to growing up in that culture? The person who is learning, though a grown up, is a child to the culture learning parts of it much like a baby who was born directly in that culture. Learning about the culture can certainly allow a person to understand the art to the "First Level-identification" mentioned by Berenson. It might also allow some degree of "second level" understanding. But it would be extremely difficult to reach level three with that. However, this does not help Berenson's case in any way. Berenson says that "[Arts] is the expression of beliefs, feelings and emotions of give culture." To understand art in any level, one has to learn about them. By learning about a foreign culture, one is no longer detached from it and is involved with it to some degree. Therefore, he is no longer understanding the art from outside of the culture."
--( posted on Nov 6, 2013, commenting on the post Frances Berenson, “Understanding Art and Understanding Persons” )
 
"This is exactly what I was going for when I posted it. The poet compares freedom to people, things, monuments, events and experiences that are specific to the poet's culture. To understand and appreciate this poem, one not only have to understand what these specific reference are, but also have to understand what these references means specifically to the Bengali culture. One have to understand what these references symbolize and how much and what ways the references are valued in the culture. You are right when you say that the translation lacks the aura. The original sounds so beautiful, at least to me, that it can overwhelm you with different emotions, ranging from love and peace to anger and rage. This also add another requirements to the list: being able to understand the emotions behind these references. This is similar to the "Strong Relativism" theory Berenson mentions. I feel that he couldn't really tackle that theory."
--( posted on Nov 6, 2013, commenting on the post A poem on Freedom )
 
"I agree that these are beautiful. Though it is possible, I think that the wilderness is not necessarily representing hardship. If you had to jump from the top of Empire State Building, that would be hardship too. I t find the reason of wilderness in the origins of these stories. They were created in very old days, much before the establishment of industrial cities. This is the reason they were also set up in "jungle" settings. Which is the reason, to properly represent the story, one must include the wilderness."
--( posted on Nov 4, 2013, commenting on the post Sleeping Beauty illustrations )
 
"In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Walter Benjamin comments on the effect of modernity on art and artistic perception. Human technology and understanding improved with the progress of society. It gave rise to the different types of reproduction of art as well as the perception of art. The reproduction of art played very important roles in human society. Art was always susceptible to reproduction. Though first they were contributor to the improvement of the process of creating art itself, the more mechanical involvement took many things out. The author recognizes that a reproduction of art lacks the originality and authenticity of the original piece. (“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.”) The mere capture of a piece of art by modern day device will deduct the aura of the original in the reproduction. Though it can be considered a form of art by itself and the process reproduction is "more independent of the original than manual reproduction," it is nothing without authenticity of the original and is representative of something new against the original. Though problematic, the reproduction of art can be useful. Forms of reproduction, such as Printing, can allow a piece of art to reach much more audience, though lacking its essence. It can allow the art to be viewed in different places, different ways and from different angles. A photograph of an painting, though lacking originality, can allow the viewer to zoom in or out of the picture and study specific part of the painting. A video of an artistic event can allow the viewer to see it in different pace, focus on specific part and see in different context without being out of context. Through these effects, a reproduction can take the original paintings to new heights, but it will affect the originality of the first piece negatively. Also suggested by the author, though the reproduction of art in the modern age was introduced as a means of capitalist profits, it will end up helping the counter-theories by spreading them in large quantities to versatile people. Though helpful for spreading message and liberating of the limited existence of the original, the reproduction of an art is also totalitarian. It directs the viewer to a specific angle and part of a painting and a story that is preferred by the reproducer. It also creates a devoid from reality. Overall, the author shows that though the mechanical reproduction of art in the modern era can be advantageous in certain occasion, the piece that results from it will never have the same uniqueness and authority as the original piece. The mass reproduction of any art will never replace the metaphysical and aesthetic value of the original. I certainly agree with this conclusion."
--( posted on Oct 28, 2013, commenting on the post Walter Benjamin )
 
"Double Post! My Bad."
--( posted on Oct 28, 2013, commenting on the post The Nose )
 
"Adaptation of Gogol's "The Nose" into an opera by Shostakovich wasn't very appealing to me as a whole work of art. It was much better as a short story. Stretching the story to that extent made it spiritless. I just couldn't wait for it to finish. Except for the occasional funny parts of the story, animation and acting, it made no attempt at actually entertaining the audience. While it is true that Shostakovich had to replace the incredibly funny and witty "narrator" of the story with animation and music, the production didn't add anything to the story in a good a sense. Though the music should have been the main replacement of the narrator of the story, it was either silent and ineffective or sidelined and in some cases, completely covered by the animation in expressing the message of the story. Though I did not like the opera as a whole, I liked various parts of the production. The animation was beautifully done and expressed much more about the intention and message of Gogol and Shostakovich. The use of the color Red in different parts and ways allowed me to understand that Shostakovich has moved the political context from the Czarist bureaucracy to the early Communist period. Gogol was commenting on the problematic and ineffective nature of the big bureaucracy of the Czarist period. He made fun of the bureaucracy through the problems encountered by different bureaucratic characters and the response of the police, people and other bureaucrats to these imaginary problems. The difference and lack of communication between the various levels of the huge bureaucracy was also shown. Shostakovich did a similar thing, only replacing the Czarists with Communists. He portrayed the communist philosophy and government as very big and strong, but ineffective. This is a good move, considering the fact that many in the audience probably had experience of the outline and effect of communism. The communist movement is a much newer part of history compared to the time of the Czars. As it is more relatable for the audience, the message would have a much stronger effect on the audience which was the case for me. It also showed that the same problem can exist in various types of government and some stories are always ready to present these problems to the public. It was one of the things about this opera that I liked."
--( posted on Oct 28, 2013, commenting on the post The Nose )
 
"Adaptation of Gogol's "The Nose" into an opera by Shostakovich wasn't very appealing to me as a whole work of art. It was much better as a short story. Stretching the story to that extent made it spiritless. I just couldn't wait for it to finish. Except for the occasional funny parts of the story, animation and acting, it made no attempt at actually entertaining the audience. While it is true that Shostakovich had to replace the incredibly funny and witty "narrator" of the story with animation and music, the production didn't add anything to the story in a good a sense. Though the music should have been the main replacement of the narrator of the story, it was either silent and ineffective or sidelined and in some cases, completely covered by the animation in expressing the message of the story. Though I did not like the opera as a whole, I liked various parts of the production. The animation was beautifully done and expressed much more about the intention and message of Gogol and Shostakovich. The use of the color Red in different parts and ways allowed me to understand that Shostakovich has moved the political context from the Czarist bureaucracy to the early Communist period. Gogol was commenting on the problematic and ineffective nature of the big bureaucracy of the Czarist period. He made fun of the bureaucracy through the problems encountered by different bureaucratic characters and the response of the police, people and other bureaucrats to these imaginary problems. The difference and lack of communication between the various levels of the huge bureaucracy was also shown. Shostakovich did a similar thing, only replacing the Czarists with Communists. He portrayed the communist philosophy and government as very big and strong, but ineffective. This is a good move, considering the fact that many in the audience probably had experience of the outline and effect of communism. The communist movement is a much newer part of history compared to the time of the Czars. As it is more relatable for the audience, the message would have a much stronger effect on the audience which was the case for me. It also showed that the same problem can exist in various types of government and some stories are always ready to present these problems to the public. It was one of the things about this opera that I liked."
--( posted on Oct 28, 2013, commenting on the post The Nose )
 
"1. I, like Williams, was born and raised in one of the most remote part of a third world country. I can personally relate to most of the cases Williams presented in this piece of writing. I saw and experienced some of the best things in my life when I was in there. I grew up in the freedoms and restrictions, appreciations and disapprovals, recognised form of intellectualism and unrecognised talents, the different descriptions of purpose, love and fear of nature, and a sense of community. All of these contributed to a sense of understanding that may be called culture. With that in my mind, it can be said that culture can develop in not only within the "educated," but also the ordinary masses who may or may not be "educated." This, like Williams' examples, invalidates the theory that culture can only be developed by the educated ones. I don't think education is not an absolute necessity to create, understand and benefit from art. It may add a little bit of more sense to your understanding as well as distract you from that understanding. It may allow you to express what and how you feel from the art, but it may as well as stop you from reaching the highest level of understanding where you can't describe the feelings. So, just because you are educated doesn't mean you will understand art and just because you are not educated doesn't mean you will experience otherwise. Lastly, like Olivia, I couldn't ignore your use of the phrase of "truly enjoying." Is it possible to define that phrase? 2. It would be shameful to conclude that the masses are so ignorant that they cannot develop a highly interesting culture for history holds numerous examples of extraordinary cultures and creation of art by people who can be considered uneducated in today's standard. On the "dying" state of culture, I hold the view that culture is not static. It is an ever changing phenomena which flows with the understanding of the society that nourishes it. 3. There is a saying that education is not a part of life, it is life itself. This may help to define "education" in some sense. Education is the understanding and experience a person gains over his life. Newspapers provide humans with mostly current events which may contribute to the understanding of a time, nation or the world. It is one way of gaining information and experience, but not the only one if you meant it to be by saying "truly the way in which people learn.""
--( posted on Sep 23, 2013, commenting on the post 9/24 – Williams and Cortazar consolidated )