Theory on the purpose / effect of art

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Theory on the purpose / effect of art

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 9 Jan, 2007 05:21 pm
Hello.

I'd like your opinions on this matter:

http://tubular.net/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=9;t=5534

It's an attempt at an aesthetic theory. It revolves around the music of Mike Oldfield, but it could be applied to any music, methinks.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Tue 9 Jan, 2007 05:55 pm
@Johnny Owl,
My opinion is that he was purposefully elusive and contradictory.
I think he was trying to show off his use of the English language more than anything.
It took me half an hour to read it because I had to go back a dozen times to remind me of what I was reading, because it was so elaborate.

I guess this is one thing I don't have much positive to say about.
I do wonder however, what you got out of it personally.
 
Justin
 
Reply Tue 9 Jan, 2007 10:27 pm
@Johnny Owl,
Welcome Johnny!

Aristoddler, I believe Johnny may be the author and this could be why he asked.

It's simply not very readable. Not that I'm a perfect writer but it was an energy drain so I gave up about 1/2 way through. Everyone has a different way of expressing themselves.

Johnny, what does it mean to you?
 
RemberingIAM
 
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 10:24 am
@Johnny Owl,
Johnny,

Welcome to the Forum.


WTF? 7.8 WTF! 10





I read the whole thing. Excellent!! Wink
 
Johnny Owl
 
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 01:13 pm
@RemberingIAM,
First of all, thanks to everyone for your comments.

I don't know if I was serious or not when I wrote it. The thing I know is that I felt it. So, I had an urge to write it.

It's all about perceptions and feelings, to make a long story short.

Degree of enjoyment of a piece of music = WTF?! Factor / Age

The neutral sensation of strangeness that I experience when I listen to a piece of music for the first time is the WTF?. And I came to realize that, the more a piece of music is different (in a way that I cannot explain objectively, especially if I do it alone), the greater this sensation is. I can't say that the WTF? is objective, alone, but I could say that the WTF? is universally objective:

Quote:

The need for universality of the aesthetic judgement. Simply put, to judge something as beautiful, we need others. We need our judgement to be shared, and we need others' judgements. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: true, but universal beauty isn't so. Put in modern terms, universally beautiful is what a community finds beautiful,


Then, if I subjectively like this piece of music or not, is the WTF!. The WTF! acts as a multiplicator for the WTF? in the formula. The WTF! is my opinion: it is subjective. The WTF?, instead, is universally objective.

In fact, what is the purpose of any work of art? Its purpose is to attract some kind of attention, otherwise it wouldn't have a meaning, would it? Better, we could say that its purpose is to create some kind of shock. This is somewhat connected to the concept of "aura" expressed by Walter Benjamin in his "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". From wikipedia:

Quote:

Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and reverence one presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According to Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in external attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted exhibition, its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus indicative of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious or secular) ritual. With the advent of art's mechanical reproducibility, and the development of forms of art (such as film) in which there is no actual original, the experience of art could be freed from place and ritual and instead brought under the gaze and control of a mass audience, leading to a shattering of the aura. "For the first time in world history," Benjamin wrote, "mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual."


Quote:

5. The definition of the aura as a "unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be" represents nothing but the formulation of the cult value of the work of art in categories of space and time perception. Distance is the opposite of closeness. The essentially distant object is the unapproachable one. Unapproachability is indeed a major quality of the cult image. True to its nature, it remains "distant, however close it may be." The closeness which one may gain from its subject matter does not impair the distance which it retains in its appearance.


The traditional "aura" of a work of art, in the age of mechanical reproduction, is no more: "for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual", he wrote. So, now, it has to be something inherent to the work of art itself, methinks.

Any true work of art is an aesthetic object. "Aesthesis" means "sense perception". The aesthetic object is NOT familiar: it's distant to us. Also, it is NOT a memory. It is something completely new. Since it is new to us, it is strange. And here comes the other part of my wacky theory, which may very well be open to debate: age and bullshit accumulation. I say that WTF?! is inversely proportional to the age: age of a single man, and age of mankind.

Quote:

See, the ancient Greeks still remain an unmatched model of beauty. They could do amazing things because, unlike us, they didn't choke under the pressure of all the bullshit we have accumulated in centuries of history. They were like a child: open to experiment, mad at creativity, with no prejudices whatsoever. We, instead, are cluttered with meaningless noise: our creativity chokes under its burden. In platonic terms: they copied the idea of beauty directly from the immortal idea of beauty, while we copy copies of the idea of beauty (since we have to fit into Genres, classifications, and the like)


One should judge an aesthetic object like a child would do. And "age" may interfere with this. But it is an age of the mind, not of the body. Being very young helps being open-minded, naturally. But one can be old and feel like a young person, if he/she re-learns to judge things like a child would do. Methinks.



Anyway, I resurrected this topic from its grave because I'm going to graduate soon and I wondered if this could be a suitable start for a university dissertation (I'm studying media). So your opinions are very important to me. Peer-review is what I need.

But maybe it's just a wacky theory... too much wine Very Happy
 
urangutan
 
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 07:40 am
@Johnny Owl,
I just read the "WTF?!", part and decided to add what could be something of a quandary, in that I haven't read the entire link.

Mandingo, a compilation of instrumentalists.
Albedo 0.29, by Vangelis.
Fishing Boats At Sunset, Jean Michel Jarre, Concerts in China.
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:14 pm
@Johnny Owl,
Johnny Owl;1955 wrote:
"The need for universality of the aesthetic judgement.

Only among some 'needy' people. There are certainly those who 'require' (externam) validation and verification for everything that they might 'think' and do... It is a very 'insecure world', and some go to any length for that feeling of security.

Quote:
Simply put, to judge something as beautiful, we need others.

Again, only the 'psychologically/emotionally needy' as stated above. Your assumptive 'we' doesn't seem to include me, for instance, so already your 'universal' implication is refuted.

Quote:
We need our judgement to be shared, and we need others' judgements.

What seems to be needed might be mommy and daddy's approval/acceptance. You seem to speak for that particular group, fantasizing (projecting) 'universality', as part of the attempt to fulfil that psychological 'need'.

Quote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: true, but universal beauty isn't so.

It IS in the eye of the beholder, there is no such thing as 'universal beauty', other than whatever beauty that you perceive in YOUR universes, moment to moment. All perspectives are quantumly unique, and discriminating 'beauty' from 'other than beauty' is a matter of Perspective; the 'wider' the Perspective, the less personal 'discriminations'. It is individual perspective alone that discriminates 'beauty' and 'ugly'.

Quote:
Put in modern terms, universally beautiful is what a community finds beautiful,"

Not 'modern terms' at all, and illogical. You now state that a 'community consensus', implying a 'community of any size' consisting of those with similar perspectives, defining 'universality' and asserting it for the sum total of all 'communities'. Non-sequitur fallacy.

Peace
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Theory on the purpose / effect of art
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/14/2020 at 08:58:42