Emotions lead to no truth in art

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Emotions lead to no truth in art

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

lw22
 
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 06:59 pm
Emotions interfere with perception of art. When a piece of art is viewed by another, emotions cause the viewer to create their own perception/idea about that piece. Since the emotions lead to an individualistic view of the selected piece of art, the actual meaning that the artist wishes to convey in his/her piece of art is lost. The emotions of the viewer has a clouding effect over the ideas that the artisit wished to illustrate.

For instance, in a novel an author can get the reader to "fall in love" with one of their characters. The reader sympasizes with the character because he/she agrees with the character's actions or can relate to the motives behind these actions. The reader can then change based on the fact that they agree with the character, i.e. creating new beliefs based on what the character experienced. The reader becomes the authors version of the character and is influenced by the characters actions. This is getting away from the "truth" of who the reader really is. Since they sympasize with the character, they will tend to agree with all of the characters actions and break away from their own beliefs.

Or a more simple example... in a painting, the artist can portray a negative act in a good manner. When a person looks at the painting, their emotions can overcloud their judgement. They look at the act being portrayed in a good manner and then relate that act as being good or something acceptable to do.
 
finlandssvensk
 
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 04:41 am
@lw22,
lw22 wrote:
/.../ the actual meaning that the artist wishes to convey in his/her piece of art is lost. The emotions of the viewer has a clouding effect over the ideas that the artisit wished to illustrate.

/.../ in a painting, the artist can portray a negative act in a good manner. When a person looks at the painting ... they look at the act being portrayed in a good manner and then relate that act as being good or something acceptable to do.


Isn't this a contradiction? In your first paragraph you said that emotions hinder the viewer from seeing what the artist wanted to show. Then you said that because of emotions a person will see it as the artist wants to show (ex. a negative act as something good) and that isn't good. :confused:
 
Imprismed
 
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 08:06 pm
@lw22,
Off the top 'o my head-

I tend to believe, within the aspect of visual art, emotions felt- if any- are merely being justified by the work which serves as a sort of abstraction of intellect and emotion, an extraction of a whole displayed, though with it's own identity apart from that of the viewer.
The identity that resonates with the viewer is an aspect of the viewer themself, though that identity usually has the context of the artwork, not of that of the viewer, creating a sort of emotional or intellection punchline in the connections created.

..I guess

I doubt any identity of the viewer is altered in the process, or in any immediate sense. I suspect, though, that we all glean our identity from ongoing sensory input with varying levels of relevence to the patterns we think of as ourselves.

Art merely seperates and labels the input as a seperate entity in a framed sort of reference allowing for abstraction and reference and juxtapositions to be enforced by the creator of the artwork.

Okie? Shall we have Milk and Cookies and wine now?
 
Irishcop
 
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 09:12 am
@Imprismed,
I don't think a sympathetic response requires the reader to change their identity. When I read such a piece I am still mindful of my own character, but that doesn't preclude a sympathetic reaction.
Das Boot was one of Ronald Reagan's favorite motion pictures, and he confessed that at points he found himself rooting for the enemy. Does that make him inherently treasonous? No, it simply means he connected in a sympathetic manner to the humanity that was in distress. I think Reagan's patriotism is still above reproach.

As a semi-professional artist, I do try to convey a mood, or ambiances using subject, color, texture, and etc. However, if it isn't the mood I am intending to instill, that's okay. A picture says a thousand words, as long as the gaze is appealing, I couldn't care less which words the viewer sees.
Conversely, if I write prose, I ardently try to convey the mood and mental imagery that I have when I write it. Admittedly that's a wee bit vanity on my behalf, because its a test of composition skills.

How about coffee and cinnamon rolls instead?
 
cherryberry
 
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 02:14 am
@lw22,
Well I think emotions lead to no truth in general Smile

Example from yesterday, I worked on something for the majority of last week, on Monday some things changed and I had to rework the stuff, which bored the hell out of me and I got upset. One of my collueges asked me if everything was alright and if I was ok and because I was so emotional at that point my first though was that I felt her being nosy and not compassionate at all. Just a few minutes later I got more relaxed, and calmer and realized that she just was concerned and wanted to help Smile

Her sction was the same, my perception was different because of my emotions.

Now, as all people are a sum of their experiences which are causing their emotional state, perception is therefore individual cannot be ruled. Regardless how 'clear' an Artist is with his work, he/she will never trigger the same emotions in all people.

Maybe only if every person who looks at the piece is just coming out of a long meditition, has calmed their mind and calmed their emotions. Smile
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 05:17 pm
@cherryberry,
Is it not true that one of the purposes of art is to provoke a response in the viewer? An emotional response followed by catharis for example?

If one of the primary tasks of the artist is to communicate emotion, that emotion becomes the truth in art.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 08:37 pm
@lw22,
Finlandssvensk, I think you may have taken the quote out of context.
The original post was stating that the artist might paint something in one mood, but the mood of the viewer distorts that into something different. Then he goes on to state that an artist might use his tools to portray a negative act as an acceptable one, and the viewer may be swayed by the artist.
It's not contradictory, just worded a bit off...I had to read it a few times myself to figure it out.

I have to agree with Irish on this one though, as a fellow artist. If you haven't read his post, it's worth a read now.
 
elizabeth phil
 
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 12:14 pm
@Aristoddler,
It's an interesting thought...

I am also a striving artist and for me, many times when I create something it's for a more therapeutic end, than for a well, viewing end. Sure I don't mind and often would like for others to see what I've done and get some responses, but more often than not, I do it because I like it, and do not really care about the feelings others have about it. (unless they say I'm a terrible artist, then I throw paint at them Smile ) And I think people understand that idea, most of the time.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 03:08 pm
@lw22,
Yes, it is frustrating when people when people critique the quality and not the message, isn't it?
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 03:40 pm
@Aristoddler,
Smile Could it not be said that emotion/s are their own truth,to what end would another deny the emotions of another individual.It is futile is not? How would emotions deny truth in art,emotions are reactionary in general,you may descern on an intellectual level the truth of a art work, but what makes it meaningful are the emotions generated-------just winging it here folks,:eek: what do you think?
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 05:11 pm
@lw22,
A little bit of truth in both statements, Boagie.
A lot of artists create to generate emotions in others, and a lot create to show their level of intellect instead. Kind of an elitist way of showing off...only the range of people that "get it" are a select few, so I personally don't understand the intellectual side of art, myself. I prefer to accept a wide range of audience, if possible.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 08:44 pm
@lw22,
Emotions are truth, as close to truth as we can manage. We feel we are true, without thinking of the world rationally we think we are true to what we see and know, and this is the great difficulty presented in trying to change a person's mind with rational argument, since truth is not only what they think, but what they are, and what they feel they are, emotionally. No one deliberatly holds on to false ideas like the fears and fantoms of youth, and yet our fears may never leave us, and can be tapped into and manipulated.

People are their emotions, the gut reaction to the world they percieve. But, if you want to see a person angry, point out to them a contradiction in their thoughts, or an inconsistency in their behavior. We are not all deliberate hypocrits, just inadvertent hypocits. But we are true to what we know is true, and we have an emotional attachment to what and who we are without troubling to examine what that might be. I look at myself in balance, good traits compared to bad and find myself good, and true. But what is that other than justification? Still, I feel good about myself because of what I know and where I have come, and if you attack what I hold true, I will not like you.

With all that said, we should all consider how advantaged is the artist compared to the realist because that one, through art, can reach the emotions -which are the person, and fix them directly. All other people trying to communicate with reason are at a disadvantage that makes the chances of changing any one or any behavior remote.
 
elizabeth phil
 
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 11:37 am
@Fido,
Fido, I really like what you have to say about the subject.

Although, I feel that emotions can lead to... not really lies, but perhaps...untruths. Because emotions are subjective and everyone perceives everything differently, how could they lead to a truth?
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 03:10 pm
@elizabeth phil,
elizabeth wrote:
Fido, I really like what you have to say about the subject.

Although, I feel that emotions can lead to... not really lies, but perhaps...untruths. Because emotions are subjective and everyone perceives everything differently, how could they lead to a truth?


Elizabeth,Smile

I think emotions kind of turn back on themselves,if the outward circumstances do not justify said emotion,emotionally there is something wrong with the outward circumstances,if you know what I mean.To me there is no other way to explain the irrational beliefs of so many people in the face of objective reality.The state one is in while in the embrace of an emotion cannot be denied,fear may be unjustified by a given circumstance,an err of judgement creates just as pure a state of fear as would the presence of a real mortal threat.:eek:
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 05:47 pm
@elizabeth phil,
elizabeth wrote:
Fido, I really like what you have to say about the subject.

Although, I feel that emotions can lead to... not really lies, but perhaps...untruths. Because emotions are subjective and everyone perceives everything differently, how could they lead to a truth?


I will agree, and perhaps you can agree that other peoples emotions seem subjective. Since my emotions are tied directly to the most important thing to me, which is my life, they seem anything but subjective, and I trust other people feel the same. Part of the reason belief holds such sway even at this late day and time is because people feel the truth rather than reason it. If you see some one take a bad fall, and say ouch instinctively because you know their pain, it is not that you could not reason to the same point, of realizing humanity is related as a family, are all living beings who respond to stimuli of pain and pleasure; as the emotions of sympathy and pity tell even the uninformed. And the same is true of the physical world. We do not only know gravity as a measurable and qualcuable fact. We feel it. If the world suddenly became like Charlie Chaplin's airplane, where water ran up, and watches hung up on their fobbs we would know we were being fooled. Emotion is not just objective to me and subjective to you. That seems unreasonable. Each person's emotions are real, and valid, and true. Only perspective changes, and weight. We perhaps, all feel the same in similar circumstances, but similar circumstances can be valued differently depending upon a person history. Thanks for your reply.
 
ltdaleadergt
 
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 09:15 pm
@cherryberry,
Quote:
Well I think emotions lead to no truth in general
This is just a bad way to start your argument. You either can be sure about an issue, or you can't. If you are unsure you need to ask for opinion not to provide reason. If you are providing reason, that means you are giving support or premises to your argument.
My opinion: There is no one way for knowing the truth. In general truth is not obtained by feeling, I agree with that, but there are many cases the truth can be obtained by the emotions. EG: Say you are in Who wants to be a millioner. And than you are asked a question that if you get right, you would win a million dolloar. You do not know that correct answer, and you need to take a guess. You got a feeling/and emotion that a i correct, however you cannot know the truth about the out come. But you take a wild guess and say it is a. Imagine and the answer was not a and it was b. Due to you emotion you just found out the truth about you lossing the money and the correctness of the answer been c. Therefore it can be lead to a general truth.

Such question would have been better under
stood if we discussed issues about what is mind and whether there are such thinks as mind. I recommend that you read the Knowledge or Other minds by Norman Malcolm. It is a nice piece or work

Thanks for the thread


Please don't post in red unless you are staff.
Thank you
~Ari

 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:01 am
@ltdaleadergt,
If you are walking down a side walk on a quiet shady street, lost in thought, and as you reach the end of a hedge if you are suddenly greeted by a vicious snarling dog, snapping and straining at his chain; do you not know truth in that moment? Do your emotions not entirely corespond to the situation?

In the matter of truth, people prefer science. To represent a truth, like the dimensions of a square, words and number work better than emotions, becaue they are more easily communicated. But, if ideas, as the exacting representation of finite objects are possible, then to know those objects on a pre language, emotional plane is also possible. We do not only experience a square as a set of numbers. We also have an emotional reaction to it, that has more meaning than any set of numbers because we are intimately connected to it. We feel it. In looking at a picture of a square, or a square in reality, it is our minds, and not our rational minds which gives a sense of the other side, the weight, and the depth of the object. The rational mind sees only what it sees.

The question of truth is not always truth in regard to what; but is: truth in regard to who. We spend a gread deal of time talking about what was justice, or liberty to people long dead. For these concepts, or any concepts to have meaning they must have meaning to the living. It is the life in contact with life that makes any truth true. Truth is not a concept that will live after people die. Truth is the knowledge that is essential to life, and for that reason truth means, has meaning. The dog scares me and I am scared. Truth, yes; but why anything? There is a lesson in truth that is not in un-truth. With truth I can mark my passage with relevent information. The dog will stick in my mind long after the dimensions of my square have faded, because emotions give weight to experience. The truth in truth is truth because it helps people to survive, and that is its big attraction.
 
elizabeth phil
 
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 09:09 pm
@Fido,
Fido, I think you write your thoughts beautifully. They are easy to follow, persuasive, and I find trouble locating any holes. Smile

In a sense, an emotional truth has more weight than a scientific truth because it acts as a memory marker to our experiences? A fierce dog on the street that could inflict harm causes anger and fear, which I would remember the next time I walked down that street, while a small puppy on chain could easily be forgotten?

But can I ask then, what would be the difference between a universal truth and a subjective truth? Are there truths which are true no matter how other people might feel about them?
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 06:13 pm
@elizabeth phil,
elizabeth wrote:
Fido, I think you write your thoughts beautifully. They are easy to follow, persuasive, and I find trouble locating any holes. Smile

In a sense, an emotional truth has more weight than a scientific truth because it acts as a memory marker to our experiences? A fierce dog on the street that could inflict harm causes anger and fear, which I would remember the next time I walked down that street, while a small puppy on chain could easily be forgotten?

But can I ask then, what would be the difference between a universal truth and a subjective truth? Are there truths which are true no matter how other people might feel about them?


What is the difference between reality and truth! Reality is constantly changing, but always remain reality. Truth is a representation of reality that will always only be true within a narrowly subjective context. If we believed truth changed it would not be truth, yet it changes from person to person, and in time. And truth is a form of relationship. If we can trust the people we are dealing with to tell the truth they become real to us, and this becoming or being real is an essential part of all relationships. So, truth is a measure of all relationships, and since we engage in relationships to be recognized as real, and to realize each other, and to secure our reality the more truth we know the better our relationships are really.

If there were no people there would be no truth. But truth seems different for each of us. Is it? We all have different lives, and different pasts so that some things, even as the sun which may be said to shine universally the same for each of us is perceived differently in time, and place, from each to each. It is to each of us our sun, and the sun. More importantly, it is our life, our common life we are working out. We have the same life our parents gave to us, and their parents gave to them. All we have is time. If there were one universal truth, it would be our subjective lives, or our objective time. Since we have so little time to make ourselves real, and to pass our lives and our sense of truth to others, we should be clear and honest about it. As the philosopher Dylan has the thief reply to Jesus: Let us not talk falsely now; the hour is growing late.

Are there truths that are true no matter? No. What is true is true because of a general agreement as to feeling. You can calculate the truth to a high degree. If you wanted to shoot a missile to a distant star, you might calculate all the variables to a fine degree. In the end the goal must be adjusted for, and since we are living beings, and not guided missiles we can adjust ourselves to a new vision of truth quite easily. Only when we frame truth so it is invariable do we become false in regard to it. It is better for ideals like the truth to be weak and for humanity to be strong than for ideals to be immortal and have humanity dis-eased by them. Who is the truth for? Do we serve its needs, or does it serve ours?
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 06:29 am
@elizabeth phil,
elizabeth wrote:
It's an interesting thought...

I am also a striving artist and for me, many times when I create something it's for a more therapeutic end, than for a well, viewing end. Sure I don't mind and often would like for others to see what I've done and get some responses, but more often than not, I do it because I like it, and do not really care about the feelings others have about it. (unless they say I'm a terrible artist, then I throw paint at them Smile ) And I think people understand that idea, most of the time.


I would not confess except under torture to being an artist. Sure, self expression and getting the inside out is necessary and therapeutic; but if that is what you are trying to do for money, which is the true test of skill, value, and public acceptance; why not just lay down and play dead. I would prefer us to be as people in a former time; and instead of individuals being rarely artists, for all to be artists even if few were remarkable. Nothing so well reveals the leisure of time which primitives endured than that virtually every object they used was touched by art. If they did not do it quickly and naturally they did it constantly. The problem with art made for money is this: It is inevitably reactionary. To get to the fickle and frantic masses, it must first be gotten by the rich who capitalize everything. But, who buys with the wealth of reaction the art of revolution? It is like Davids work clothed in the classical even in the midst of revolution because those who were funding the revolution already had their eyes cast into the past looking at a former age of glory. Do you see what their money bought? The Arc de Triumph, and the Tomb of Napoleon built to celebrate the deaths of hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants of Europe. If you want your art to sell only use the primary colors: Red, white, blue and green.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Emotions lead to no truth in art
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 07:17:05