The Quality of the Observer

In class we discussed the state of the observer as whether or not they are able to decide what is good art. Some of the examples given were the chemically impaired, the very young, and the in-love. I brought up a few examples of chemically impaired artists whom we consider great, and the hypothetical of a young person who knows a lot about art. This was countered by saying that while there are anecdotal instances of these exceptions to the rules, generally people who fall into these categories are not qualified to determine good art.
Is this fair? Where do we draw the line between someone who is too intoxicated to appreciate art? If we are basing on definition of art on what is popularly accepted aren't we committing a logical fallacy? I believe that we are cutting out huge portions of the art/observer community by excluding people deemed too young, too old, too drunk, too high or simply too stressed out to truly appreciate art.
What do you think? Is there really a group of people who are qualified to judge all art?

Old Dead White Men

A comment was made in class today that I outwardly ignored for the sake of continuing the conversation, however now that I have a moment to collect my thoughts I would like to address it.
The statement was was something to the effect of that the philosophers in our book have increasing irrelevance to contemporary art because they are "Old dead white men."
Being one, I find it offensive that we can use "white men" as an epithet now that goes largely ignored in class.

I wasn't aware that race and gender affected the validity of your arguments. If this is true than the entirety of my blog may be ignored, as I identify as both Caucasian and male.

If you have continued to read past that line then you are at least open to the idea that all humans are equal and have the potential for valid, relevant philosophical thought.
The mark of a good philosopher is someone who, while possessing many of the intellectual virtues, postulates ideas that are far-reaching and timeless. While we may disagree with Plato, Bell, Tolstoy etc. in some aspects, we should acknowledge that they gave us ideas that were attempts to define art that have been used for the basis of aesthetic philosophy for centuries. To dismiss them all because our ideas of art are evolving is ignorant. Just because cubism is recognized as an art form, does that mean that Tolstoy's theories are automatically outdated and irrelevant?
Because film now exists does that mean that Hume's theories cannot be applied to it?
Does CGI negate the intellect of Freud's desirous theory?
Please forgive the combative nature of this post.
Question: Do you believe that any of these philosophers (Weitz excluded)are still relevant to the discussion of art?

Mixers, Remixers and the like.

When an artist creates music it is their own. They have taken a series of sounds and arranged them in such a way that they find meaningful. In principle this is an idea that most of us can agree with. But then what happens when we introduce the idea of the remixer or the mixer into the world. These are people who take parts of already established music and combine them in a new fashion to produce a song.
I believe that these men and women are in their own rights artists. And just like artists they have varying degrees to the quality of their music. There is a large percentage of these mixers who do very little to change a song, in this case I say that they are still artists. However, they are artists that I feel don't produce very good art.

Do you believe that there is a certain point at which a song becomes a new song? If so is it possible to located this point?

Observers as Participants in Art

This was not brought up in class, it's just something that I've been mulling over for the past few days after a conversation I had with my housemates.

Andrew: So he says that there's no difference between going to a concert and listening to a record with extremely high quality headphones.
Ed: That's ridiculous. He really said that?
Andrew: Yeah, and I told him, 'There are so many sensory experiences that you don't get with just listening to the music. There's the band's presence and the lights...
Ed: Not to mention the crowd.
Andrew: Right, wait. What do you mean?
Ed: The crowd, it feeds off of the energy of the band and the band feeds of the energy of the crowd. The quality of the crowd and totally change the concert experience.
Andrew: So, by that logic they are contributors to the performance.
Ed: How do you figure?
Andrew: Well, let's suppose that the individual performance is its own work of art. Completely unique from every other performance.
Ed: Okay
Andrew: And the performance is made up of several elements that alter its quality.
Ed: Which are sound quality, visuals, energy of the band, and energy of the audience.
Andrew: And by this logic the audience would be as much a part of the artwork as the music.
Ed: I don't know about as much as...
Andrew: Okay, then they are a substantial part of the performance, the artwork.
Ed: So you're not trying to say that audience members are artists?
Andrew: No, just that they are a contributing factor to the the artwork, as much as the venue or the particular quality of the band's enthusiasm.
Ed: Alright, I'll give you that.

Question: How important to a performance do you think the energy of the crowd is?

Also any critiques you have for the dialogue will be appreciated, I'm planning on sending an expanded version of it to Thesis XII. The new version will include a new character that will function as a foil to my assertion that "the individual performance is its own work of art. Completely unique from every other performance."

Response to Aurora's "Dreams and Symbolism"

I'd say that you would probably not have interpreted the paintings in the same way as if you'd had the dreams. Dreams are deeply personal things, created by you for only you to be able to view. The emotion attached to them makes them feel much more targeted than other mediums.
You may be able to see what an artist intended to convey by a painting, but you'll most likely never be able to experience his or her creative process. That is a personal experience that happened once to them. Just like your dream.
I believe that Freud meant that art comes from our own subconscious desires. That creating the art is what expresses them, not viewing it.

Do you believe that expression of a dream in an art form is (by Freud's theory) closer to revealing your true desires than by making art by conscious deliberation?