Winter 2023 Issue

JOURNAL

VISUAL • LITERARY

WINTER 2023

EDITOR’S LETTER

In the Eye of the Beholder

At the end of discussions about subjective topics, a participant may often proclaim that “there is no right answer” before storming off and abandoning the conversation entirely. For a moment, this excuse seems to check out. If no one can prove that their view is correct or even preferable, then why bother considering differing perspectives? And yet, these “questions without answers” merit consideration regardless of their subjectivity. They may not point to universal truths, but the personal characteristics they reveal are just as intriguing. After all, subjective means less “without answer,” and more that the answer depends on the subject. Nothing illustrates this subjectivity quite like art. The individualized nature of aesthetics, self-expression, and symbolism lies at the heart of creating and consuming artworks; the field is indeed devoid of “right answers.” Far from obviating artistic considerations, subjectivity enables art to reveal internal values and characteristics. It shows us who we are. This year’s theme explores a profoundly subjective question echoing in the minds of artists and connoisseurs alike: “What is Art?” Compiling artworks across a diverse range of mediums alongside philosophical musings on the question itself, the Jesuit Journal seeks to provide its readers with evidence and counterpoints, piquing their curiosity as they consider their own definitions of art.

Dominic Chacko, Editor

JESUIT JOURNAL

Artistic Editor

Content Editor

Moderator

Dominic Chacko ’23

Luke Lastelick ’25

Ian Berry ’07

Lawrence Jin

Jagger Shushi

Class of 2023

Second Place

Jackson Sanford Third Place

Class of 2025

Jackson Sanford ’25 demonstrates his photographer’s eye for composition, bringing to life the colossal verticality of the New York cityscape (left). The second photograph (right) Sanford took in Dallas last year as Mr. Williams’ summer art class explored Dallas. This shot renders an urban discovery with vivid clarity; the framewithin-a-frame and the photographer’s manipulation of the camera’s focus creates the sense of the city’s vibrant color, waiting to be discovered.

Casimir Kenjarski ’24 (IG: @fangsandgames) Honorable Mention

Josue Guardiola ’25

PHILOSOPHY

The Challenge of Defining Art

Quinton Moats ’24

Ibegan research for this paper intending to find a singular definition for the art concept. However, despite reading through the definitions of countless philosophers, entertaining the ideas of people on internet forums, and asking the opinions of many people (friends, family, and those that I randomly encountered), I was unable to find a single definition of art that I could fully accept. It seemed that for each plausible definition, I found several criticisms which refuted their claim. Similarly, it was not hard to produce various edge cases that each particular definition couldn’t account for. In this paper, I will define edge cases as ARTWORKS that are considered ART by modern institutions (ie. institutionalism),

which can be used to disprove definitions of art due to how they push the boundaries of what can be considered art. Consider the following definition of music (D), where D is a “vocal or instrumental sounds combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.” I can use John Cage’s orchestral composition 4’33” as an edge case which would combat D. John Cage’s piece, written for any instrument or combination of instruments, consists of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of complete silence. The score is simply three movements of rest separated by three tacets. Though Cage’s composition does not produce sound (it is only 4’33” seconds of silence), it still produces an aesthetic experience that Cage and I both consider to be music and ART. While I would not consider 4 minutes and 33 seconds of ordinary silence to be art, I do consider Cage’s work as ART. This edge case forces me to move on from this definition, as I believe that a definition of ART should account for all possible ARTWORKS. I believe that modern philosophy surrounding ART definitions

has found itself in a stalemate, after having read countless rejections and refutations of definition upon definition. So, it will not be my goal in this paper to propose a single definition of ART, but rather argue that abandoning concept monism and accepting responsible art pluralism can save the ART Concept (ie. the search for a definition of ART).

First, I will present various monistic definitions of art that I came across throughout my research, which I disagree with based on either their fallacies or their inability to account for various works which I believe to be ART. Then, I will present the concept of art pluralism, which I believe could contribute to ending the stalemate produced by art monism.

The Definition Project

I will take the task of defining art to be finding a verbal definition of the art concept, which does not merely describe the usage of the word “art” in a particular language (ie. a dictionary definition), but

Wil Carroll ’24 (IG: @w.carroll20) Honorable Mention

rather, a definition which captures the conditions which are necessary for one to categorize any objects as either ART or not ART. Further, I take the project to involve finding or creating a definition that describes both the real and nominal traits of ART. Real traits can be described as those characteristics that are insensible, while nominal traits can be described as capturing those characteristics that are sensible. For example, water can be defined as “H20” or “a colorless and odorless substance found all over the earth.” While both are definitions of water, the former describes water’s real traits while the latter describes its “nominal” traits. Finally, I take the current definitional project to (explicitly or implicitly) involve finding a single definition of ART, which accounts for all ARTWORKS (including edge cases).

Concept Monism

I will take Concept Monism to be the proposition that there is exactly one definition of Art. This definition

is expected to account for all possible applications. I believe that many, if not all of the definitions of ART that I have come across in my research attempt are (intentionally or unintentionally) monistic definitions. For example, Tolstoy in his “What is Art?” (1816) argues that ART is an expression of human emotion that conveys this experience in such a way that it can be shared. The structure of “What is Art?” implies that Tolstoy utilizes a monistic definition of ART, as he essentially presents his definition of ART and then attempts to refute a series of others.

Essentialism, Anti-Essentialism, and Non-Definitionalism

I will divide various ART definitions that I have come across into three categories: Essentialist, NonEssentialist, and Non-Definitionalist. Essentialist definitions are static, bounded, and unchanging. An essentialist definition does not change based on individual or cultural perspective, nor does it change over time. On the other hand, anti-essentialist definitions are changeable and often blurry. The meaning of these non-essentialist definitions change based on individual or cultural perspective, and over time. Finally, non-definitionalists argue that there is no true definition of art, (typically) either relying upon prototypal theories or (in more extreme cases) claiming that ART has no possible definition. In the

Josh Lyons

following three sections, I will summarize some of the most prominent and thought-provoking monistic definitions that I have come across, and then offer my own arguments or common arguments against them. I will not attempt to either fully prove or refute any of these definitions. Understand that my summaries of both the definitions and arguments against them are oversimplifications, which I make to both (a) ensure that this essay is not hundreds of pages long, and (b) simplify the concepts so that they are easier to understand. While I will only be able to cover a few of these concepts, I hope that the reader will consider the other concepts that they read about in other entries along with them.

Essentialist Definitions

I will begin with one of the most common essentialist definitions that I have heard, mostly from nonphilosophers: the proposition that ART is whatever one finds beautiful. While this definition can seem attractive at first, it only shifts the definitional project from “What is Art” to “What is Beauty,” an equally complex topic. Furthermore, many things can be beautiful that I would not consider to be ART. Imagine a tree that you found in a forest. If you consider that tree to be beautiful, is that tree ART? I would argue that the tree is not ART, as I believe that ART needs to be created (a belief which many whom I spoke to/

’23

read agree with). I suppose that if we were to assume that a divine creator made the tree, then it could be considered the ART of that divine creator. Outside of this scenario, the problem with this definition is that it allows for ART to be anything, assuming that anything can be found beautiful. Furthermore, another issue arises when we consider Picture of Dorian Gray, Ivan Albright’s macabre depiction of a classic horror story. The painting is far from what I think many would consider “beautiful,” yet I believe that it is most definitely an ARTWORK. Albright’s portrait of a bloody man whose body seems to be slowly consumed by a horrific parasite is housed in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, so it must be ART, right?

Institutionalism (Non-Essentialist Definition)

This leads me to the next definition I will be examining: Institutionalism. I would classify this definition as non-essentialist, as it is a definition that changes with time and culture. The most famous institutionalist philosopher was probably George

Dickie (1974). His view in Art and the Aesthetic is essentially that an ARTWORK is an ARTWORK if a group of experts from the art world (ie. an institution) agree that it is ART. Common objections to this definition question the group of experts. Who can be considered to have the authority to be considered an expert in the art world? How many of these experts must agree that an object is ART? Consider that a person produces a poem in their diary which will only ever be seen by them. If that person cannot be considered an expert, can that poem be considered ART under institutionalism? While the argument can be made that a singular person can still be considered their own institution, I still find the “group” concept of institutionalism too vague. An additional argument against institutionalism is that prominent institutions have dismissed ARTWORKS as non-ART that are now considered (by modern institutions) to be ART. Take the example of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe (1963), a work by Edward Manet which was rejected by the conservative French Academy (the authority of French fine art in the 19th century) for its sexually explicit

Nicholas Westerheide ’24

Alejandro Lizardi ’23

subject matter: a naked woman eating breakfast with two fully clothed men. The painting’s more free brush strokes also went against traditional classical painting standards of the time. Though Manet’s painting was rejected by an institution of his time, it is now considered one of the painter’s greatest masterpieces, and even a catalyst for the modern art movement. One final objection to institutionalism: if any group agrees, they must be agreeing based upon some criteria. Imagine a group of experts (or any group of people) who are presented with a survey that they are to complete independently. The survey would contain various objects, which they would be required to sort as either ART or non-ART. I would argue that, barring a few disagreements upon edge cases, the people surveyed would have very similar responses to each other. I take this to mean that those surveyed are not selecting randomly, but instead using some sort of common criteria to determine what is and isn’t ART.

Non-Definitionalism

Finally, I will present Weitz’s non-definitionalist art concept, which stems from Wittgenstein’s family resemblance. Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian 20th-century philosopher who was famous for his theory concerning games. In summary, his theory was that “games” have no common element which unifies them, but that we still understand a game to be a game based on some ineffable criteria. Consider all of the different types of games that exist: tennis, chess, football, solitaire (etc.) All of these games are remarkably different: some have rules, and some don’t; some are competitive, and some aren’t. Wittgenstein argued that instead of one common feature uniting these games, they were connected by a complex and ineffable network of connections. However, the important thing to Wittgenstein was that one innately understands what a game is, without being aware of these connections. Many of the traditional forms of Art seem to share this sort of disconnection. For example, consider how different dance, film, and painting are. What do all three of these arts really have in common? These arts seem to be only loosely connected to each other. American Philosopher Morris Weitz (1916-1981) noticed the similarities between games and ART, so he argued for an open concept of ART, essentially arguing that those things considered ARTWORKS were too complexly connected to define and that there was no singular concept that unified them (similar to Wittgenstein’s theory of games). Hence, Art is essentially undefinable.

Saving the Search for the Art Concept

I will admit that I planned on ending this essay with Weitz, as I was unable to find a definition that I felt couldn’t be easily dismissed by an edge case. Yet, I still found myself dissatisfied with Weitz’s definition, as it felt like a non-definition; which essentially states that what is ART is ART, and that what isn’t ART isn’t ART. In this definition, cultures naturally internalize the complex matrix which defines ART. Yet, I feel that these non-definitionalist accounts are dissatisfying, and I still contend that (at a minimum) ART must be created (a point which Weitz’s definition fails to account for). It was frustrating how close many real definitions that I found came to defining ART, only to fall short to some sort of edge case or refutation. Many modern aesthetic philosophers whose work I read seem to share similar frustrations with the Art concept. I was beginning to consider that Weitz was correct, that there truly was no concept that unified all of ART. I simply couldn’t find a single concept that applied to all instances of ART. Luckily, I came across a proposition, Art Pluralism, which I feel brilliantly revitalizes the search for a real definition of ART.

Species Concept Pluralism

In their paper Art Concept Pluralism, P. D. Magnus and Christy Mag Uidhir draw on Species Concept Pluralism, a concept found in the philosophy of Biology. Species Concept Pluralism essentially holds that multiple definitions of SPECIES can be correct, and applied to different use cases. Rather than expecting one particular concept to exhaust all applications, Species Concept Pluralism allows for different SPECIES concepts to be applied to different situations. In the philosophy of biology, this is seen in the SPECIES concepts. Magnus and Uidhir present three concepts:

(1)PHENETIC SPECIES, which divides species based on their exhibited characteristics, but overlooks the history of descent (ie. the evolution of the species).

(2)BIOLOGICAL SPECIES, which “distinguishes species as a reproductively-isolated, interbreeding group,” but fails to account for asexual organisms (an edge case of biology).

(3)PHYLOGENETIC SPECIES, which distinguishes species as a group of common descent that is subject to evolution, a definition that depends on evolutionary details (like institutionalism relies upon an ART Concept).

Though I only gave one of the many objections for each concept, each concept seems to be at least partially valid. When used together, I argue that these three concepts better define the SPECIES concept than they would on their own. Each concept has its strengths and weaknesses, and each concept can be useful in defining SPECIES. It is important to note that pluralism does not mean embracing every species concept that exists. Rather, pluralism is selecting concepts that work well together to collectively account for more edge cases when used together. Magnus and Uidhir attest that biologists often use these pluralist concepts subconsciously in their work, without the need to mention which specific concept they are referring to. This Pluralist definition allows us to end the search for one concept which applies to every conceivable case, and instead offers imperfect definitions with their own merits.

Art Pluralism

I agree with Magnus and Uidhir’s assertion that utilizing a pluralist framework to continue to pursue a definition of ART will revitalize the definitional project. Art Pluralism, if utilized responsibly, should take the pressure off of philosophers to find or create one perfect definition of ART, which is practical, without fallacies, and applies to every conceivable edge case. I stress responsibly, because I understand that a pluralist definition could easily become bloated,

include definitions that contradict themselves and become too broad to be usable. However, recognizing the relative success of Species Concept Pluralism, I do think that a real definition of ART could conceivably emerge within the framework of a pluralist concept.

Conclusion

I set out to write a paper that found the one true definition of ART. Throughout my research, I became more and more discouraged by the enormous amount of definitions that failed to accomplish such a task. While I have not provided a real definition of ART in this paper, I feel that I have discovered a framework with which I can begin to attempt to piece a pluralist definition together, ending my futile search for one true ART concept. Perhaps I will spend my whole life attempting to answer the question of what ART is, as many of the philosophers I read about did. I hope that this paper will inspire its readers to attempt to find their own (hopefully pluralist) definitions of ART, as I found the search for a definition to be rewarding in its own right. For this reason, I believe that even if Weitz is correct in his theory that creating a definition of ART is impossible, we should still search for a definition, and take solace in the fact that pluralism allows for the definitions which we use to be imperfect.

Alejandro Lizardi ’23

Art often begins with a moment of inspiration. A moment when the artist, ever attentive, sees something—as if for the first time. The painting of Kenneth Nazareth ’23 (left) illustrates that the artist’s vision can transmute even the seemingly mundane.

“Perhaps I will spend my whole life attempting to answer the question of what ART is.”

Aiden Emmerton ’24

Making Sense of Art

Ryan Beaudoin ’23

Art typically manifests itself through a variety of common forms. First, there are the musical arts. These consist largely of harmonic and melodious movements that catch the ears and make them dance with delight. Another form is that of the visual arts such as seen through paintings. The strokes of paintbrushes define the most intricate of faces and scenes. Even abstract art excites our eyes as our brains enjoy interpreting the image, an interpretation that often varies greatly from person to person.

Even from these three conventional examples, the intricacies of the different art forms become greatly apparent. One type of art is defined by structure and elegance such as a classical music piece or the Mona Lisa. However, there is also a disruptive art, one that pulls on the strings of one’s attention and creates chaos. This is seen through freeform artworks like those of Pollock’s paintings or jazz music.

Despite this disparity, there exists a similarity between the forms so great and so moving: an elation of the senses. When reduced to its most rudimentary state, the senses exist not in the ears, eyes, fingertips, or nose. Rather, the brain processes all of these simulations and harmonizes them. It

is a truly remarkable process by which the nervous system connects these disparate processes almost instantaneously. Thus, art is that which irks the brain and forces it to wonder, to dream, or to look on in awe. A beautiful voice attracts the attention of the ears who then summon a melodic rhythm internally within the brain in a way that satisfies one’s desire to listen in key. This rhythm differentiates the voice from a sea of chatter as it hits these internal chords. These activations of the brain, usually unexplored, summon feelings of nostalgia, longing, despair, and a variety of other emotions. Art has an amazing ability to capture emotions within memories. A replay of a song may evoke a nostalgic longing from a time past in which the song was played regularly. A song played at a landmark event in your life may similarly transport you back into your former self’s intense joy or sorrow.

The arts also have the ability to summon emotion anew within one’s self. The seemingly simple manipulation of color in a painting or a note played in the minor key versus in the major key in a new song can be the difference between being overcome with sorrow or joy, anger or fervor, and so on despite an initial apathy to the piece at hand.

Though as simple as it may seem, these connections are truly inexplicable when critically thought about. It is fairly simple to point out what is art and to give examples of these things that toy with our emotions, but it is far more difficult to explain something else: why is art? Why does orange make us feel warm, but blue gives us chills? Why does a minor note make us feel sad, but a major note happy? These factors may be the result of some evolutionary development or simply exist as beautiful eccentricities to life added by a divine creator. We may never truly understand the cause of art, but with blissful ignorance, we may listen to our happy music, watch our terrifying horror movies, and look in awe at The Starry Night.

“Art is that which irks the brain and forces it to wonder, to dream, or to look on in awe.”

Dillan Lohr ’23

Beau BureauMitchell ’25 (right, and opposite page) takes inspiration from the automobile.

Both drawings speak to BureauMitchell’s impressive use of perspective and line to create a specific visual effect, whether speed or stasis.

“This may seem indefinite and subjective, but so are human emotions.”

Art as Empathy

John Dryden ’23

When I first listened to the musical Hamilton in 2016, fresh into my 6th grade year with my new ‘Beats by Dre’ headphones, I, for the first time in my life, understood the power of art, not just to convey stories or ideas, but emotions. As I sat crosslegged in my room, listening to Phillip Hamilton sing to his mother on his deathbed, I cried; I cried because, more than just understanding his mother’s anguish, I felt it. I believe the purest definition of art is any creation that facilitates empathy and fosters a sharing of the human experience.

Art is a tricky word to define. The Mona Lisa is art, but so is a child’s drawing. A building’s geometric and intentional design can be art, but so can a seemingly random display of colors in abstract configurations (I’m looking at you, Pollock). The question is why. Why are these vastly different expressions of skill and beauty all considered art? It is because all of

them, from the mother’s refrigerator to the Louvre, attempt to encapsulate the artist’s emotion and allow the viewer to experience it. The child’s drawing may be simple and easy to emulate, but its portrayal of the child’s feelings, whether that be through a stick figure drawing or a smiling sun, conveys the purity and innocence of a child’s mind and gives us an insight into his or her perspective of the world. That being said, some art seems better than others, but this is not defined by the technical skill required; the value of art is not set by what the artist gives, but by what the patron takes away. Someone could perceive more emotional weight and personal meaning in a simple song created by an amateur guitarist than the most beautifully drawn rendition of yet another bowl of fruit on a table. Conversely, someone else may find that bowl of fruit to be a beautiful expression of the eternal interconnectivity between man and nature…or something pretentious like that. And these two competing perspectives are equally correct. This may seem indefinite and subjective, but so are human emotions. Our life experiences are personal and varied, and art encapsulates this.

PHILOSOPHY

Creative Convergence

Omar

Ameeting point, an insight, an uniting factor, that is what art represents. Art actualizes the point at which imagination and reality come together. In art the human imagination, inspired by items of our physical reality, comes to life through a projection, whether it be song, picture, painting, or writing. Artist mimic the creation of God, taking from their own experience of the world of surrounding creation, using their world of imagination, immersing themselves in the two worlds, and creating something new, something of their own. Our own conscience, another gift from God, takes inspiration from the world, the nature and the humanity which consume us, the world we have taken part in shaping. Burgeoning with ideas and overwhelmed by details, both big picture and little, the artistic intellect runs rampant, clawing to find a way of expression to represent the movement of the mind. From this influx of thought and inspiration, the artist births a creation, a physical reality, a reality influenced by other realities and imaginations. And so through art, the audience experiences, hears, sees, feels, and/or reads a representation of the artist’s own thought and experience. And sometimes observers draw their own inspiration from the unifying character of the artwork, which impels dreams to create their own realities and imaginations, and so the cycle of art endures.

From culinary artist Colten Phillips ’23 (opposite): Roasted chicken stuffed with garlic, fresh thyme, and lemon. Beneath the chicken lies a mixture of fennel, Vidalia onions (known for their sweetness), and carrots, veggies cooked in butter and the chicken’s juices. Prior to roasting, the chicken was “dry-brined” overnight (rubbed with salt inside and out); this process tenderizes the meat, heightens its innate flavors, and gives the chicken a crispier skin. The chef roasted the chicken at 425 degrees for an hour and a half, basting it every 15 minutes with an herb butter that incorporated fresh thyme, rosemary, and oregano from his own garden.

Nicholas Archer ’23

Lara ’24

PHILOSOPHY

Art Doesn’t Have to Have Meaning

Brandon Gibson ’24

In September 1940, a young french boy named Marcel Ravidat was walking his dog, Robot, in the French countryside when his dog crawled down a hole. Robot eventually emerged from the hole but the next day Ravidat and some friends went back to the hole to explore it. After some exploring and digging, they discovered an ancient cave covered with paintings of horses, bison, as well as the extinct wooly rhinoceros. These vividly detailed paintings covered the walls with bright red, yellow, and black. The Lascaux Cave paintings would eventually be determined to be over 17,000 years old, making it the 50th oldest recorded artwork done by humans. Art has evolved and changed since then, with different styles growing in and out of fashion, but the purpose of art is still the same. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle saw art as a way to copy the truth, as man from nature seeks to find a universal truth through finding the gaps in our knowledge. As Aristotle wrote, “‘The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Though, this constant struggle to get to the truth, according to Plato, is impossible to achieve, giving art no intrinsic value or purpose. While this is one possible definition, it lacks some of the depth behind why art was done, and what makes the hand paintings so interesting. Leonardo da Vinci takes the meaning and purpose of art in a different direction. He thinks that art is nothing more than a form of expression. It is a depiction of emotions and a story from the point of view of the painter, saying that “art is the Queen of all sciences communicating knowledge to all generations of the world.” But this definition, too, fails to create a cohesive understanding of what art can be, as it limits art’s interpretation to one definitive given from the artist. Using this logic, there should be no reason to keep pieces of art with anonymous artists like Banksy; nevertheless, people can still enjoy the artwork that they make without knowing what the meaning is.

While philosophers and artists disagree about what art is, and why it matters, the one thing that is true is that art is able to transcend time and culture. As seen through the cave painting in the Lascaux cave according to the 17th century philosopher Nietzsche,

“Art is essentially the affirmation, the blessing, and the deification of existence,” and this is seen through the Art found in the Lascaux Cave. Along with the many different types of animals depicted in the Cave, It also has hundreds of reverse hand prints, overlapping each other in a chaotic nature. These hands differ in size and position, something you might overlook on this is, the number of fingers. Some of the handprints are missing a finger, most likely due to frostbite, and yet they still made a mark.

While the people who have made this art have moved on, the feelings and stories that they produced have stayed with us. The stories of what animals were recorded, their four fingered lives. Art intrinsically tells a story, from the physical tangible artwork which is produced, to the method of production, and from the artist’s perspective.

The next time you are looking dumbfoundedly at a work of art, and you get confused about its meaning, don’t worry, art doesn’t have to have meaning, and there is no “wrong” way to interpret art.

In the landscape by Jarrod Choate ’23 (opposite), different hues of red suggest distance and depth. The same lines used to create shadows appear in his planetary sketch (above).

PHILOSOPHY

Sweetness Needs Tasting

Nick Morris ’23

The universe is seething with undeniable beauty, but that beauty is devoid of soul and emotion. While the hexagon on Saturn is astounding, it is merely the amalgamation of the laws of physics falling into a predetermined synthesis of particles. Without an observer, even its existence is contestable. However, through humans, the virtual aspects of reality, like love and hatred, are channeled into reality. But in isolation, humans are rampant manifestations of the metaphysical and the conduits of their expression. Moreover, the separation of the universe and humanity results in nothing. There is no art without a creature to observe and recognize the beauty inherent to the universe, and there is no art without a canvas of expression for the human experience. But through humanity, the wonders of a sunset blend with the fiery feeling of love through the words of poetry. From its smile to its tears, art is the reflective emotion of the universe expressed through humanity.

As the many works belonging to the Jesuit Dallas Museum adorn the walls of campus, so the drawings of Matthew Toker ’24 (left) have appeared on many classroom whiteboards since his freshman year. One might say spawned, given their often grotesque aspect, their spontaneous creation, and their creator’s seemingly limitless, “seething” imagination (to borrow a word from Morris above). For Toker, any white space is an opportunity to add something new. What is impressive about this landscape is that for all its many bizarre denizens, it does not appear crowded. The viewer who pauses to look more closely finds plenty of surprises to enjoy.

To Make a Mountain out of a Mole-hill

Evan Velasquez ’24

“Blast it, Hera, slow down!” The bulky man bellowed, the heavy, worn rucksack in desperate need of retirement, slung across his shoulder, clanging, and jostling as he crashed through the forest’s thick foliage; a small convoy of similarly dressed explorers, servants, and cartographers following in his path-clearing wake.

“How about you hurry up? It’s an entirely new species, Doran!” Hera shouted back as she lept from tree branch to tree branch, occasionally falling to the damp forest floor to more efficiently pursue her reptilian target.

The target in question, a short-tailed, yellow-eyed lizard, raced through the valley, kicking up withered leaves and breaking off old bark as it scurried to safety, its eager, middle-aged, blond assailant closing in as it escaped the forest’s edge.

“Ha! Got it.”

Hera grinned, sitting triumphantly upon a muddy mound with the indignant lizard squirming in her left glove.

“Yeah, and you practically-” Doran stopped, smelling the air as the rest of the expedition broke through the forest’s edge, jogging weakly into the dry mud fields adorning the rugged sides of the Agnost valley.

“C’mon, admit it. You’re having fu-”

“No, no. Stop. Do you smell that?”

The pungent musk of rotten eggs permeated the air around them, causing a weak-stomached servant to gag as he breathed in heavily.

“Sulfur?”

Suddenly, the ground began to rumble and shake underneath their feet, the abrupt commotion sending waves of birds, small wyverns, and bats into the air in a cacophonous cluster that blotted out the sun.

“Get down from there!”

“I was already doing that!” Hera retorted, leaping down from the mound as the small lizard broke from her grip, escaping into the forest underbrush.

“Hey, wait! Oh God–”

Risen from what must have been a deep slumber, the great mound crumbled away to reveal the thick, rocky hide of what appeared to be a Snap-Jawed dragon; sheets of crumbling mud falling in dense

cascades as the beast’s great wings unfolded, sending clouds of pulverized dust into the air as it pushed itself onto its thick stumpy legs.

“Back in the forest!” The bald man shouted as he turned, ushering the convoy into the woods as the dragon’s three eyes cracked open, falling upon the small expedition team as Doran directed his people into safety, like a mother hen herding her chicks.

In a snapping motion, a line of flat ground burst upwards as the Dragon’s crushing, spike-ended tail broke free into the air, slamming back down into the ground, as its wings rose high overhead, eclipsing the sun.

The expedition team felt more than heard the apex predator’s roar, as they fled into the trees. A chorus of small animals racing past them as once again the thick stench of sulfur pushed through the air.

“Hit the ground!” Hera roared, as suddenly, what appeared to be a second sun lit above the forest.

Sweltering heat washed over the adventurers as ravenous flames blasted through the overhead canopy, incinerating fauna and flora alike as the inferno set down upon the trees, reducing them to smoldering sticks as the group quickly scrambled up from the flames permeating the ground.

Every member’s thin outer-shell cloak had been reduced to burning ribbons by the time the second sun had set, revealing the glowing silver cover below that had spared them from an early and painful death.

“Keep to the ground!” Doran yelled as a cartographer’s young apprentice glanced up to see the Snap-Jawed’s tail swinging towards him at whiplike speeds.

The young boy winced as he was thrown through the air, slamming into the side of a tree before falling back to the ground.

“Dammit, when a dragon breathes fire at you, you stay down and act dead.” The bald man whispered to the apprentice, his large body the only thing that had protected the boy from certain death, and his heavy backpack the only thing that lessened the crushing blow of impact.

The two heard and felt the dragon continue

Jagger Shushi ’23 (opposite page) demonstrates a talent for composition and style. Form mirrors content here, the blend of angles and curves suggesting a figure both bold and graceful, sensual and abrasive, a persona that exudes “cool.” That the edge of the frame obscures the figure’s face only amplifies this effect.

its attack upon those who had trespassed into its territory, the deafening sounds of tree trunks splintering and the ear-splitting screams of the beast saturating the region for what felt like an eternity.

Suddenly, the beast let out a ground-shaking shriek, and once more esurient flames washed over the area, Doran and many others’ silver cloaks almost blinding bright as they attempted to absorb the strangling heat. Luckily, as the man surely thought that Agnost would be the place he would soon rest for eternity, the firestorm ended.

What remained of expedition team Camelot heard as the beast took off from the ground, roaring and breathing flames as it set off after whatever had evoked its wretched fury.

Even after it had left, Doran stayed on the ground, having been through enough already to not try his luck. After around three minutes of staying so, he lifted his head, rolling over into a sitting position in the smoldering remains of what had been this section of the forest.

“Boy, help me up, will you? I think I broke a few ribs after hitting that tree.”

“Yes sir, right away.”

The boy was in shock, Doran had seen it enough times to be able to characterize it on the spot. “Well, it’s better than freaking out,” Doran thought to himself as the thin apprentice pulled him up to his feet.

“How many did we have before? Twenty? Twentyfive?” Doran scanned the ground counting all the silver lumps and people beginning to rise to their feet in varying stages of wear, “two, four, six, eight…”

An hour later, the ragtag group had set up a temporary base of operations.

Seven were unaccounted for, including Hera. As to the other eighteen, five were dead, and another was about to die, the last twelve dressed their wounds and erected improvised burial sites.

Everyone was in some degree of shock, manifested most commonly through aimless pacing. For Doran, it manifested through his borderline obsessive collecting of the pots and pans that had been thrown from his backpack.

“Sir? Sir?”

Doran turned to see a rookie adventurer drifting close behind him, she held her left arm close, it having been almost completely charred by the flames in the attack.

“Will we be heading back to shore?”

Doran thought for a moment, peering up at the setting sun as plumes of dark smoke rose over the

northern horizon, “No, no we won’t.”

“Why not?! This expedition is damned to hell already. Staying out here on this–this God-forsaken continent is akin to suicide! We’d be better off cutting our losses and heading back to port Charlie.” An older cartographer said, limping over to the two with a random array of papers cradled in his arms.

“You think I want to stay here? Believe me, if we had a choice we would be heading back to the docks immediately! But we don’t. If you had shed at least a tiny amount of interest in our meetings you would already know that the next arriving ship lands in three months. Along with the cyclone heading in… Going back to port Charlie would be the same if not worse than if we went after that... that demon.” The large man growled, holding the cartographer by the neck of his shirt, Doran’s arm still bleeding from a deep gash caused by the Snap-jaw’s tail.

Letting the man go, Doran sighed as he began to pace around the burned clearing.

“If going back to shore isn’t an option, then what’s your grand plan for surviving the next three months?” The old man spat, handing over his papers to the young apprentice he had brought.

“We head south, to the Ridge-Backed Mountain range.” Doran breathed, turning his eyes southward to the snow-capped peaks in the distance, the moon looming just above the range.

“You’re insane,” A servant groaned from beneath the shade of a twisted tree.

“But Mr. Glade doesn’t that mean…” The adventurer started.

“Yes. We must seek an audience with the king of the Trolls.”

Evan Velasquez ’24 has published several works of fiction in the Journal over the past two years. Passionate about the genres of fantasy and sci-fi, he is a promising storyteller who has a gift for “world-building,” introducing the reader in each story to a new world governed by its own rules, its own magic. Yet in each story Velasquez is able to create believable human characters, and dramatize real human emotions—what any reader of fiction looks for.

Peyton Bristow ’25 (opposite), Sports Editor of the Roundup and a broadcaster for Jesuit athletic events, also lends his visual creativity to spotlight Jesuit athletics with posters like this one. His work reveals that editing and collage are art forms in themselves.

Benjamin

PHILOSOPHY

A critique concerned with the human understanding of Art

Definitions are the very fiber that link our world together, providing the makeup for our reality, as without definitions we would have nothing to be called our own. In his An Essay concerning human understanding, John Locke differentiated the “actual essence” and “nominal essence” of a definition where the nominal essence is the “abstract Idea to which the name is connected” (III.vi.2).1 For instance, the nominal meaning behind the word gold is that complex Idea the word Gold stands for, let it be, for instance, a body yellow, of a certain weight, malleable, fusible, and fixed.”2 In contrast, the real essence of gold is “the constitution of the insensible parts of that Body,

on which those Qualities [mentioned in the nominal essence] and all other Properties of Gold depend” (III.vi.2).3 Thus definitions link together associations behind the physical presence of existing objects and the common human thought. Without definitions, we would have no thoughts linked with another object. However, what happens when we have thoughts so diverse that a proper definition cannot possibly encompass the endless possibilities that this word could have? What if that word is the most common word we use every single day? A word that carries the massive weight of thousands of lives through its ability to gather every possible speck of joy and entertainment from all life forms. This simple three-letter word is “art”.

This variable that fails to elicit a standard image among the people who hear it make it likely for a definition to fail to capture the entirety of the undetermined significance of the word. The Oxford dictionary defines art as “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily;” at first glance this

Arya Panda ’24

Woodward ’25

seems to be a most adequate definition, providing both a nominal definition in the diction of “imagination and a real essence in the form of a physical “ form such as painting or sculpture.”4 Nonetheless upon closer inspection the restrictive diction of “human” becomes an apparent issue. Are we to judge that the beautiful web from which a spider weaves cannot be a form of art, or the carefully crafted ecosystem of life and death animals craft in their pursuit of survival, are also not a distinguished form of art? As such this definition fails to properly take into account the possibility of non-human forms of art. If such a specific definition cannot function as the true definition of art, then the question remains, is the broader definition such as March Chagi’s “Art is the unceasing effort to compete with the beauty of flowers - and never succeeding” sufficient?5 This seems to be a viable option with no specific boundaries allowing for all manners of creation and thoughts to pass through its boundaries. However, it is in this broadness that it fails to establish a functional, nominal, and real essence as a proper definition should. Moreover, the eternal history of art makes it nearly impossible to provide an account for the various instances of changes in what we view as art. For example, our current view of art stems from the older pieces such as paintings from the renaissance, however, since such objects did not exist in those periods how might they have viewed art in that time period?

Through my experiences art truly cannot be defined with a normative approach butshould be viewed through the lens of a progressing institution, ever changing and shifting. Modern technology and forms of media such as video games and movies have been likened to the greatest literature of the past. To exclude the future of the medium and past in ultimately any definition of art has to square with the following uncontroversial facts:

1. An act of obtainable beauty “deliberately endowed by their creators with a substantial degree of aesthetic attraction”, frequently far beyond that of ordinary daily items, initially arose hundreds of thousands of years ago and exists in almost every known human society.

2. Moreover because of the large time period of the notion of art it is neither totally opaque nor transparent, such an entity is only partially understandable to people.

3. The progressive nature art makes it an ineffable institution unable to be summed up into one lengthy sentence.

However, does this make any attempt to define this nebulous term futile? In my humble belief, it instead intensifies the possibility surrounding the word. Engaging in the interminable search for the

Ian Vicens ’25

Winn Moore ’25

perfect definition of art, though isn’t attainable, nevertheless showcases the endless possibilities that art can produce. This belief is best displayed in John Dewey’s critique of art as “the most effective mode of communication in which the actual work of art is what the product does with and in experience.”6 This falls under the criteria set by John Locke supplying a nominal reality through art’s function as a “mode of communication” while also providing the real essence through a reality in which art takes form in a “product.” The vague diction here serves as a testament to the definition’s ability to incorporate even the most uncommon representations of art. In the same vein, Wimsatt and Beardsley’s criticism that art is an “intentional fallacy” where art exists “ on a plane” separate from human understanding. (IV.v.3).7 This critique, rather than defining art as a whole, instead offers up art as a term that is the inherent problem in trying to determine what art comes from flawed methodology. In my belief, the standardization of art through a definition sets limits on what could be rationally called art and contrasts with the very nature of art. As stated by even the most standard definition of art in the Oxford Dictionary, art is entirely concerned with humanity’s ability to conjure up that which does

not exist or in one word: imagination. As discussed earlier, the definition provides both a nominal and real essence both of these characters set limits on both the realm of ideas and the realm of tangible. Whereas imagination offsets the creation of the realm of ideas in its entirety. Therefore these two ideas are mutually exclusive as placing limits not only on the tangible but also on the ever-expansive realm of ideas that would entirely destroy the concept of imagination. What if scientists were to declare the infinite universe to be finite when in fact it will continue to grow from its already unmeasurable size? This would not only be an untrue statement but limit the potential for life and resources we would miss out on. Likewise, the everprogressing insulation of art cannot be determined or standardized into one definition . However, what if there exists a permutation so that both of these terms may live in a harmonious relationship? While we may philosophize and argue over a complex definition of art that would account for the entirety of what we believe on, what will be the simple answer? Art is whatever we believe the word to be. While it may seem like a cop-out it is in fact the only productive definition to move forward. It established both a nominal and real essence through the eyes of the

Three Faces (Triptych)

These drawings by Christopher Geisler ’23, three strange portraits, use the technique of juxtaposition to produce a specific effect. The viewer is left to wonder about the relationship between the three faces. Do they represent different emotional states? Different stages of a transformation?

viewer. For example, one person might ascertain art to be a painting and that is its nominal reality and the real essence would be a famous painting like the Mona Lisa. In this way, it satisfies the requirements for being art while also not restricting the expression of art. While some may argue that this may be an unproductive way of defining art, it is actually in fact the most fruitful way to determine the true essence of art. Due to the unique nature of art, many definitions struggle to account for the fact that the same aesthetic terms are routinely applied to artworks, natural objects, humans, and abstract making them all viable candidates for art. As such whatever we apply for to be aesthetically pleasing can be considered art making it so that we push the boundaries of what is art. If we were to instead place limits on art by providing a standard definition like the ones proposed above there would be new art innovation. With the definition of art comes the theme of what can be considered art and what could not. While it may produce splendid depictions of what already exists there would be no new pioneers ready to challenge this notion of art. As a result, the word art would lose its ability to progress rendering it a finished product, depriving art of the once magic-filled imagination that we associate with it. As such in order

for there to be a proper understanding of art, there must be a nonstandard definition to which every individual can relate. In conclusion despite the various attempts at a complex definition of art, ultimately the most simple definition of art encapsulates its very essence.

References

1. Locke, J. (1689) An Essay concerning Human Understanding, edited by P. H. Nidditch, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Fowler, Henry W. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Clarendon, 1949.

5. Chagall, Marc, Rosemary Jackson, Elisabeth Lemke, and Thomas David. What Color Is Paradise? New York: Prestel Verlag, 2000.

6. Dewey, J. Art as Experience. CAPRICORN 1958, 1960.

7. Wimsatt, W. K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. The Intentional Fallacy. Sewanee, TN: University of the South, 1946.

Art is Art PHILOSOPHY

Levy Mendoza ’25

“Art is a way of recognizing oneself, which is why it will always be modern.”

-Louise Bourgeois, French-American artist

Art is a form of expression that conveys thoughts and emotions, displaying the results of that artist’s experience of the world which could lead to many interpretations from individuals that stray from the artist’s intent. But those interpretations are neither right nor wrong; instead, they reveal individuals’ own views of the world.

Before I dive into this journey of finding the meaning of art, we need to consider the question “what would we consider as art?” When you first hear the term “art,” most people would think of paintings, sculptures, or drawings, but art is so much more than that. If we take the definition of art from The Britannica Dictionary, it’s anything that is created by our imagination that expresses our feelings. Therefore music, photography, even literature would

fall into this category, as many composers write music as a way to express their feelings and authors who publish books are inspired by their experiences. With considering what things fall under art, we discover that there are limitless possibilities for it.

The definition of art is simple: a form of expression that conveys thoughts and emotions. Many artists take inspiration from the world around them, their experiences influencing their creativity. Art requires the individual to use imagination and express how they feel. For example, an artist could paint something that is chaotic that displays the beauty of the world. Another example could be from music, a composer conveying something grand. Art displays the unique worldview from each one of us.

Art is not rigid from only one interpretation. While the art’s purpose is to illustrate the artist’s intentions, artists should allow the viewers to interpret their own ways too. Art allows people without the experience in designing art to question the artist’s interpretation and to understand the meaning. Viewing art, people can see and learn about different perspectives from different times and places. This definition reveals

Charlie Schwartz ’24

that art gives us the ability to express our thoughts without directly stating them, in order to understand and begin to question the world around us.

Today, art is a necessity as it helps us understand one another. If art never existed, then the world would be black-and-white. Living without art would be monotonous; people would speak with one tone, express no emotion, and avoid the call to be unique. The characteristic that makes art unique is the variety of creativity that stems from the minds of people from all over the world. While also providing creativity, art also gives us the ability to understand a person’s point of view and express our emotions about it. We need art not because of the entertainment, but because it is the inspiration to change oneself.

Earlier, I stated that art displays the artist’s thoughts and feelings from their experiences of the world, but many interpretations from those who view it reveal their own view of the world. Should this be the definitive meaning of art? Of course not! This is my interpretation of what art is, but it could be different for many others. If this essay was applied through my definition, then this essay would be considered a piece of art. Although some may disagree with my definition, I welcome it, because that is the greatest thing about art: it allows us to express our emotions beyond the grounds of speaking and achieve the impossible.

Ismael Hussain ’26

JOURNAL JESUIT

Jesuit College Preparatory School 12345 Inwood Road Dallas, TX 75244

Submissions: iberry@jesuitcp.org