How does previous knowledge of the artist affect the aesthetics of a piece if aesthetics are based on emotional response?

Having information of an artist before looking at one of their pieces, does it hinder or help your aesthetic response? I didn't see the relation between aesthetics and knowledge of the artist until my last post. Before then I saw no relation; if a piece causes an emotional reaction from you or you find its beauty to be like nothing you've ever seen before, what does it matter who the artist is? If you simply go off of what you see, it doesn't make a difference who the artist is, however, knowing who the artist is, or simple facts about the artist, do change your reaction to the piece. Like with Dutton's example in his essay Artistic Crimes about van Meegeren's forgery of Vemeer Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus. Once it was known that the painting was not by Vemeer, the esteem that was placed on it was instantly taken away by the fact that the forger was a lesser known artist. Or was it just the financial value placed on the painting that was taken away? If you look at it from another angle, like in my previous post, if you are looking at a painting of, say a butterfly, until you find out who the artist is or something about them. Based on your knowledge of the artist, your opinion of the painting will change. If the person who painted it is someone famous, your reaction will be different than one you might have if you know the artist to be autistic or impaired in some way. An aesthetic response is not solely based on the beauty of a piece, it is also emotional, and those emotions can be changed with the knowledge, or lack of, you have of the piece. This is why previous knowledge of the artist can affect the emotions of your aesthetic response.

What does a piece of art have to have in order for the audience to have an aesthetic reaction to it and how does that differ in the case of a forgery?

The word aesthetic is defined as concerning beauty, the appreciation of beauty, and able to evoke emotion, so in theory a piece of art must have these criteria to have an aesthetic effect on its audience. So then what about a forgery? If it has meets all of these criteria, does it have an aesthetic effect on the audience? I would say the answer is yes, however, the aesthetic effect of a forgery is very different from that of an original. Aesthetic judgement is often intellectual and interpretive in some small way or another, it isn't all about the beauty of an art piece. Often times meaning and symbols are interlaced into the piece by the viewer, becoming a part of how the piece is judged. Many say that will and desire are not factors in judging aesthetically, yet preference and choice seem to be important to the process. 

When comparing an original to a forgery, if you only look at what is within the four corners of the canvas, then you could assert that a forgery is aesthetically comparable to the original. However, the emotional reaction you have to the original, say the Mona Lisa in Louvre, would be very different from the experience of seeing a copy of it in a book. Often times the 'intellect' part of aesthetics incorporates the artist in part of the judgment, in that your reaction to a painting can be changed simply by knowing whom, or information about the artist of the painting. If you were to look at a painting of a butterfly, for example, and you were told that it was painted by a severely autistic person, your reaction to it would be very different than that of if you were told that the painting was done by the president or a child in a concentration camp or even Monet. In this respect, it is clear that the original is significantly different from the forgery. The forgery lacks the 'moment of genius' that is found in the original. That being said is why a forgery cannot be called aesthetically the same as an original on an emotional or even intellectual level.

Is there more evidence to support Einstein’s soundbite that “imagination is more important than knowledge”or work against it?

After reading Is Imagination More Important that Knowledge by Dr. Kathleen Taylor, where she takes a soundbite from an interview with Einstein in which he says, "I'm enough of an artist to draw freely on my imagination, which I think is more important than knowledge;" and discussing the relationship between knowledge and imagination in class, I have come to wonder about the popular thought on the subject. Do most think imagination is more important or that knowledge is the more necessary of the two. After perusing the depths of the internet, I have come to the conclusion that there is no clear answer in which is more important. It seems that neither imagination nor knowledge is the clear winner in which is more important. A lot of what I read linked knowledge and imagination together; saying that one influences the other like: "knowledge is a prerequisite of imagination, however imagination is a catalyst for greater knowledge," "imagination revolutionizes knowledge," and "knowledge is the foundation of imagination. Imagination is the source of knowledge."
There were many opinions leaning one way or the other as well. In favor of imagination I found: "imagination because it enables the mind to arrange random, scattered bits of knowledge into entirely new forms that in their fresh composition inspire the 'ah-hah's' side-way's glance of inspiration." I also found a link to knowledge that favored imagination, "I say imagination, because if you didn't have imagination, nobody would be different. Nobody would see the world differently, everybody would be the same. Because they don't have imagination, to think differently. To which case, nobody would have true knowledge." In favor of knowledge there were things like, "the fact that we are seeking knowledge clearly shows knowledge is more important. Imagination is just the mean" and also "I think knowledge is more important than imagination. Without knowledge there is nothing to imagine;" both, again, commenting on the link between knowledge and imagination.
In the end, it seems that neither is actually more important than the other, they are equally as important for understanding the world around us. It seems impossible to have one without the other; one to escape and one to rein you back in before you get too carried away.









All quotes are from these two sites
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/is-imagination-really-more-important-than-knowledge-36258.html

http://www.squidoo.com/albert-einstein-quote

Is it possible for a photograph to portray "intentional inexistance?"

"Intentional inexistance" is a term used by Roger Scruton in his essay, "Photography and Representation." In his essay, Scruton states that it is impossible for something that is "inexistance" does not exist. I would have to say that capturing something that is "inexistance" is indeed impossible, however, there are editing programs for photographs that can put in that element of "inexistance." Then again Scruton argues that once a photo has been edited, it becomes a painting; although everyone still calls it a photograph. With slight edits, it is possible to capture lighting in a "non-existant" way; i.e. blue light that would normally be a white shade or grass that sparkles more like glitter than if it was covered in dew. So it is technically impossible to capture something "inexistance" in a raw un-edited photograph, however, with a few edits it can indeed do so and is still considered a photograph.

How do portrait photography and portraiture painting compare in expressing the subject?

Both portrait photography and portraiture painting produce an image of a person, but what is portrayed by the image differs. With the photograph, the image is an exact copy of what the person looked like in that moment when the photo was taken; putting aside all editing possibilities. With a portraiture painting, the image seen is more of an interpretation of the artist's view of the person. In a portrait photo, the emotions on the person's face are exactly that, the emotion on their face. Whereas in a portraiture painting, the emotion conveyed is that of which has been painted by the artist in their interpretation; meaning that many more things about the subject can be learned the more the painting is looked at, than in a photo. There is also a difference in texture, the photo's surface is smooth while the painting's isn't, which adds more visual interest to the painting. In the end, I think that a photograph captures the immediate thoughts of the subject, while the painting captures something within the subject as interpreted by the artist. To express the subject as they are I would say that a photograph is better, but to express the subject in a deeper more thought evoking way, I would say that a painting is better.

How have the values on which music is based changed?

When I say values, I think I mean inspiration and based on this I would most certainly say that the outside influences on the composer or musician have changed. In my opinion, there is no way to say that they haven't changed--society has changed. Music is influenced by the interests of the society around the composer or musician. To appeal to the masses, you have to know what they find appealing. In classical times, society was more conservative, and seemingly less complex; the music was there as art. It was to be listened to in a performance space, as well as background to social gatherings. The music of the time created the complexity to balance out the slightly more simple way of life. Today's music is less complex in arrangement, but the society is more complex, and in many ways less conservative. Music today is still considered an art form, but isn't meant to just be listened to, it engages people; makes people want to dance along in whatever way the music makes them feel. Whereas the dances created for classical music were studied, practiced, and perfected; an art form in themselves to further enhance the art of the music. The subjects that hold the audience have changed, so of course the values and inspiration of the music created for the audience have changed.

How does classical music compare to contemporary music?

Classical music is seen as more complex than contemporary or music. There are rises and falls, melody and harmony, and tone in classical music that isn't always heard in contemporary music. Contemporary music is based on the beat; it seems that if a song today has a great beat, it becomes popular. In the eyes of Roger Scruton, the music of today is lacking in substance, childish, and primitive. When he speaks of the music, he is also talking about the dances that are associated with it. Those he associates with classical music are ballroom dances like, the foxtrot and waltz; both dances taking hours of practice to perfect. Whereas with contemporary music, people move however they want, there is no need for practice or perfection. In Scruton's opinion, the music of today has lost the value of music as an art form, concluding that classical music as a whole is more valuable and complex than the music as a whole of today.

Is a successful performance more important to the audience than an authentic one?

With this I would think that the answer lies in what kind of taste the audience as a whole has for music. I would think that the need for authenticity in a performance is trumped by that of the success of the performance. Whether or not a performance is authentic, if it was not successful, the audience will not like it as much as they would if it had been successful. So the conclusion would be that a successful performance is more important to the audience than being authentic.

Is it possible to have an “authentic” musical performance?

I suppose the answer to this would depend on your definition of authentic. A Google search gives five examples of definitions: 

1. of undisputed origin; genuine

2. made or done in the traditional or original way or in a way that faithfully resembles an original

3. based on facts; accurate or reliable

4. (in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life

5. (of a church mode) compromising the notes lying between the principle note or final and the note an octave higher

So then based on this, the performance should be genuine, traditional, original, and, accurate. If these are the criteria, then I would say that it is possible to come close if you base it on the performance. All of these words could be used to describe a performance, making it authentic by this collaboration of definitions. Using the instruments; how they look, sound, and are played, may give you a different answer. The instruments could look authentic, genuine and, accurate, but may not be made of the same materials as the original and traditional ones. Does that hinder the performance's authenticity? What if they don't sound the same? Then again, I'm sure that if a musician is going for an authentic performance that they would get authentic instruments; ones made of the traditional materials. If the instruments did not sound the same, then I would certainly not call the performance authentic because sound is the most important part of the musical experience. So in my opinion, as long as the performance looks and sounds authentic to the piece that is being played, it could be considered authentic.

Is a Chef an Artist?

Creating the perfect dish is similar to painting a masterpiece. For the painting, the colors of paint would be mixed together until the artist creates the right shade. Similar in food, a chef would blend the spices together to create the perfect taste. In the end both creating a painting and a dish of food would be an experience for those who are to view or consume it, the only difference is that the food can only be experienced in such a way once. The chef's art cannot be preserved in same way that the painter's is, however both are capable of leaving a lasting impression on the mind of the one experiencing it. The placement of the food on the plate for some chefs can take on an artistic arrangement; where each food item or sauce is placed intentionally to create a dish that is not only pleasing to the taste buds, but also to the eye. I would say chefs that take the time to get everything visually and tastefully perfect are indeed artists.

Can Food Cause an Emotional Reaction?

My assumption is that the response most people would give is, no. I mean its only food right? I wouldn't say that food can cause the same type of emotional reaction that a painting or seeing a missed loved one might, but I will say that food can cause an emotional reaction. I have personally seen food bring out emotions. It was a simple BLT sandwich, but it brought out the most complex emotions. He had never had a BLT before, he grew up on microwaveable dinners and fast food. That first bite of BLT; with fresh lettuce, garden fresh tomatoes, and warm sizzling bacon, was very overwhelming for him. His senses were experiencing things they had never experienced before. He set down the sandwich after that bite and started to cry. It was the best thing he had ever eaten. So in my opinion, food can cause an emotional reaction, if it creates a new all around experience.