Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
Summary – Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
The second chapter of Ferrara’s book, titled “Should the method define the tasks?”, makes interesting points and comparisons. However, there are a bunch of instances of redundancy and unnecessary reiteration and clarification, which to a certain extent seems to be the status quo of the writing style. This assignment focuses mainly on the first half of the chapter.
The main point is as follows: any method of analysis aims to result in a specific answer or set of findings based on the topic. Unsurprisingly, the tasks required to complete the analysis are structured to facilitate getting that specific answer. Ferrara eludes to the fact that one who completes an analysis in this fashion does not engage in “pure listening”, and, depending on how you look at it, does or does not include “prejudice”, to use Hans-Georg Gadamer’s terms.
Next, Ferrara distinguishes between art objects and aesthetic objects. He creates a scenario of a millionaire who purchases a Rembrandt as a financial investment and has no real interest in the artistic value. He gets an expensive alarm system to protect the painting but aside from that it just sits in the room. In this case, it would simply be an art object because it is indeed that by classification. If a visitor were to come into the room and acknowledge the painting for its artistic qualities and artistic value (as opposed to monetary value), only then would it be considered an aesthetic object. Though the painting (as well as any other object in question) can be correctly identified as both, it is the viewer’s perception that determines the classification.
Lastly, there is “isness.” Ferrara uses the example of a modern-day person analyzing the music of Mozart; he would not be able to comment on the music from a Baroque/Renaissance perspective or from that of a man from the 23rd century because he is neither of those. Therefore, the analysis will inevitably will be subject to current historical context as opposed to the context of the period in which it was written. Though it is an interesting and elaborate point, it is merely a reiteration of the “prejudice” that is previously mentioned.
Reaction - Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
As I wrote the bit about “the viewer’s perception determining the classification of an art object vs. an aesthetic object”, the first thing that came to mind for my personal reaction was a quote from Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” I can’t apply the quote to its fullest extent (or else I could argue that nothing we say in class or nothing Dr. Ferrara argues is good or bad!) but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate – so what if the millionaire bought the Rembrandt because of the monetary value? In the overall scheme of things, didn’t he do a good thing by paying some person or institution millions of dollars for it? At least he is smart enough to recognize that the painting is worth that amount, regardless of whether or not he is able to (or cares to) notice the artistic qualities and value.
Now that the RembRANT (get it? rant?) is over, I did want to acknowledge Ferrara’s main point. I realize the underlying theme. The typical method of analysis is geared towards a certain answer and the tasks are as well…so what does that mean? It means that there is a type of analysis that strives for findings based on various topics but not one specific or correct answer – the “Eclectic Analysis.”
The second chapter of Ferrara’s book, titled “Should the method define the tasks?”, makes interesting points and comparisons. However, there are a bunch of instances of redundancy and unnecessary reiteration and clarification, which to a certain extent seems to be the status quo of the writing style. This assignment focuses mainly on the first half of the chapter.
The main point is as follows: any method of analysis aims to result in a specific answer or set of findings based on the topic. Unsurprisingly, the tasks required to complete the analysis are structured to facilitate getting that specific answer. Ferrara eludes to the fact that one who completes an analysis in this fashion does not engage in “pure listening”, and, depending on how you look at it, does or does not include “prejudice”, to use Hans-Georg Gadamer’s terms.
Next, Ferrara distinguishes between art objects and aesthetic objects. He creates a scenario of a millionaire who purchases a Rembrandt as a financial investment and has no real interest in the artistic value. He gets an expensive alarm system to protect the painting but aside from that it just sits in the room. In this case, it would simply be an art object because it is indeed that by classification. If a visitor were to come into the room and acknowledge the painting for its artistic qualities and artistic value (as opposed to monetary value), only then would it be considered an aesthetic object. Though the painting (as well as any other object in question) can be correctly identified as both, it is the viewer’s perception that determines the classification.
Lastly, there is “isness.” Ferrara uses the example of a modern-day person analyzing the music of Mozart; he would not be able to comment on the music from a Baroque/Renaissance perspective or from that of a man from the 23rd century because he is neither of those. Therefore, the analysis will inevitably will be subject to current historical context as opposed to the context of the period in which it was written. Though it is an interesting and elaborate point, it is merely a reiteration of the “prejudice” that is previously mentioned.
Reaction - Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
As I wrote the bit about “the viewer’s perception determining the classification of an art object vs. an aesthetic object”, the first thing that came to mind for my personal reaction was a quote from Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” I can’t apply the quote to its fullest extent (or else I could argue that nothing we say in class or nothing Dr. Ferrara argues is good or bad!) but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate – so what if the millionaire bought the Rembrandt because of the monetary value? In the overall scheme of things, didn’t he do a good thing by paying some person or institution millions of dollars for it? At least he is smart enough to recognize that the painting is worth that amount, regardless of whether or not he is able to (or cares to) notice the artistic qualities and value.
Now that the RembRANT (get it? rant?) is over, I did want to acknowledge Ferrara’s main point. I realize the underlying theme. The typical method of analysis is geared towards a certain answer and the tasks are as well…so what does that mean? It means that there is a type of analysis that strives for findings based on various topics but not one specific or correct answer – the “Eclectic Analysis.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)