Analysis Of What Art Unveils By Alva Noe

The human experience is based primarily on the senses and the expression thereof, resulting in beautiful works of art, architecture, literature, film and other media for which human beings can boast their accomplishments, knowledge, and feelings about a specific event or in general. Art such as sculpture, painting, and drawing has long since been praised as the ultimate mirror into the soul, conveying multiple messages that no mere words can express realistically, but this is all too confining and stifling for the field as a whole. Art is the creation of anything that reaches beyond mere speech whether it be in song, pictures, film or other media .In Alva Noe’s New York Times philosophical post, “What Art Unveils”, she generically explains

Art has undoubtedly advanced, evolving from mere paintings on cave walls to becoming masterpieces of the technological age, encompassing everything from the written word to computer-generated images and productions. Nonetheless, essentially, art has become a defining marker of humans as a species, distinguishing it from the other animals. Noe insists that human beings are designers by nature (2015), giving too much credit to the species and essentially ignoring the social interactions that make such design proper and necessary. Whereas it is true that some inventions and arts created are the result of brilliance, the fact of the matter is that art is a response and a mirror. It is more so than a spontaneous collection of intellectual property that takes on the form of several types of media. The definition of intellectual property in itself is debatable yet vital to understanding the function and impact of art in itself. Intellectual property takes on many forms, such as thought, the spoken word, and in some cases, even action but despite the differences in such embodying what a

All the same, by bringing attention to the different measures of success, she does grant art its own realm just as technology should have as well. Art, she states, does disrupt plain looking and it does so on purpose so as to disclose just what plain looking conceals, but this is used as a measure of its impact and its success. Noe addresses the success of a piece of art as mere products of technology, of making activities, rather than spontaneous creations or ideas that have been catered to and nurtured. To Noe, artists make stuff not because the stuff they make is special in itself, but because making stuff is special for society as a whole (2015), with only the latter being the case because to say this is to strip art of its original intent and its own individuality and make it more of a product of social interaction, which is not the case. Noe is skeptical of the psychological approach to explaining art because it is too individualist and too concerned alone with what goes on in the head to comprehend the way social activities of making and doing contribute in this way to making the human experience (Noe, 2015). Yet she compares it to technology later and seems to do away with this reasoning. Yes, art is the product of both the mind and social influences, as