5.0 (SL) Reflection paper.docx

Nancun Yu

PR. Kyle Grady

PHIL 330: Aesthetics

13^th, Nov, 2014

5.0 (SL) Reflection paper.docx

As I was describing in previous reflections, I was originally thinking that (1). Every existed subject must have a reason declared before it's been created. Otherwise the thing should not and will not be created. (2). Follow by 1, the artist is the essential “cause” of artwork, that artist generate the idea into an artwork. However, that believe was moderately changed throughout the semester. During the early semester when I first read the concept of beauty as a “taste”, the concept that process, identify artistic merit is subjective had weaken the role of the artist. As if the sense of beauty can only be generated by subjective judgment, the role of the artist becomes less important, because all the person receives from the artwork is from their own subjective interpretation.

Accordingly, I start the process to distinguish the role artist from (1). The artist is the cause of artist and they declare the essential meaning carried by their own work. To (2). Artist is still the cause of artwork, however, even though they have the preferential right to define the meaning of their own work, each individual also have the right to self-interpret.

             In different than Carroll’s claim we read this chapter. Carroll has claimed that all artwork has a determined meaning. It also means the role of artist contains the process that generates meaning into artwork. However, I could not find out Carroll’s example about literature is a sound argument towards artworks as a whole. Granted Carroll’s claim on the determinate meaning of language. But I would rather admit the determinate meaning of language only as if it is the language. On the other hand, even though the nature of language meant to be determinate, to be clear in meaning, it is still the fact that everybody learned the language differently and carries their own interpretation of the words.

            Furthermore, even if we assume each word of language have a determinate meaning. The language combined with words might not be determinate on meaning. As it involve with the sentence structure and work order. The example about myself, what happens when I am reading a novel (if it is not that abstract) is I end up imaging the theme presented by the artist (writer) in words. To be honest, I’m certain that my imagination must be slightly different than the theme in the author's mind. The point here I tried to say is that even if we assume words and sentence is very determinate, the work done by words usually does not contain all the information to paint the theme accurately. And we called “wordy” if the artist (writer in this particular example) tried to fulfil all the information by words.

            Moreover, I also disagree with considering the technique used in produce painting/ film work works similarly like language. (What I meant the technique in the previous sentence in example are color selection, lighting, and space placing, etc.) From my perspective, in spite of the fact different technique carries different information, clearly it has more ambiguity than language. And since even the language (in aim for determinate meaning) have issues with specific meaning in considering subjective interpretation. The use of techniques to produce of artwork certainly does not have a determinate meaning rather than have a suggest direction onto the individual’s subjective interpret the process.

            With previous intension, we must accept the fact that artist as the producer of artworks certainly has a power to define his own work, but it is very limited since the viewer of the work also has its own freedom to freely interpret (misunderstand) the meaning of the work.

            In Kant’s perspective of artistic genius, what I found out most efficient to answer the question what role does the artist play in shaping the meaning of the artwork. The role of “genius” is to find out a way, turning an existed rule in nature into freedom of art. The genius does not have the duty to explain how his painting, on the other hand, the reasons itself at that certain moment should be unexplainable. Thus, I reached my conclusion that the role of the artist should purely done in himself. They might construct certain suggested direction for individual interpretation. But they do not necessarily take the role of accurate (classify) the meaning of the work. Since the nature of art itself is unexplainable and contain the freedom by allowing subjective interpretation.