Essence of art

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Nno...Nnno...Bad dog!

:brickwall:

Saw ray. Ets tawroo.

@Fido,

Fido;23070 wrote:

Purhaps there is value in another point of view.

I find that to be so. To one degree or another.

@Fido,

Agreed, let's just say we have different ideas of what art is, and good art. By the way though, I never said my view was correct, only that it was coherent. You seemed to think that my view of art reduced art to nothing, which point of yours, I feel, you have not explained.

@BrightNoon,

As I said, if art is only self expression; what is that, since a baby can do that? There must be something more to art than a reflection of self. Even as an expression of reality, people can no more be truthful of themselves than they can be about any other subject, or subjective reality. If we recognize that we can never be honest, or truthful about self, that the self is as deep, dark and cold as the sea then we will admit that we can only hope to know what we have in common, as when people say, I see that too, or I feel that too, never knowing if we do share that common objective seeming thing, but no less shining our light upon external reality as the only sort of reality we can be half ways certain of. Art no less than science tries to prove our conceptions of reality. Hopeless as that is, it is more possible to achieve than proving anything of self, even though by proving reality through our concepts we do in fact prove much of ourselves, though, as a second intention.

@Fido,

The fact that a baby can express itself does not demean self-expression; art is abundant, good art is not (according to one's taste). Also, I hate to burst your objectivist bubble, but even deliberarlty representational art, which expresses things shared in common, as you say, is entirely an interpretation and a product of the self. There is no objective reality, or at least there is none that can be known.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

The fact that a baby can express itself does not demean self-expression; art is abundant, good art is not (according to one's taste). Also, I hate to burst your objectivist bubble, but even deliberarlty representational art, which expresses things shared in common, as you say, is entirely an interpretation and a product of the self. There is no objective reality, or at least there is none that can be known.

I hate to burst YOUR objectivist bubble, but nothing, not even self, is the product of self. We are all nascent, and the unfinished product of a process of which we have some influence, but whose motive and meaning precedes us in our culture. No life is apart from the whole. Just as art is meant to be shared, it is a representation of a shared existence. And I agree that there is no objective reality as such, but many realities approach the objective without crossing into it. A blue sky is something we have all experienced, and whether it occurs tomorrow, or is seen on a canvas, it is recognized because is is known by all, objectively so to speak, as a reality. Truth, is not different from art in that it is commonly held as truth, or art, not what we say, but what we admit to be true, or art. There is a social aspect to all forms which makes each of them a form of relationship. As life is, a shared quality. Thanks

@Fido,

When I say self, I mean to refer to a certain set of experiences, which, incidentally, is all experience, pending further investigation. I don't see where my objectivist bubble is? Could you show me? I do not beleive in the subject or the object; there is unity of individual experience. This really has nothing to do with our argument, but you brought it up when you claimed that art could not non-subjetive, non-interpretive, objective.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

When I say self, I mean to refer to a certain set of experiences, which, incidentally, is all experience, pending further investigation. I don't see where my objectivist bubble is? Could you show me? I do not beleive in the subject or the object; there is unity of individual experience. This really has nothing to do with our argument, but you brought it up when you claimed that art could not non-subjetive, non-interpretive, objective.

Forgive me; but if you trip on a rock; what non object did you trip on, and if you trip on smoke, as some trippers do, was it all not subjective. You say I have an objectivist bubble. That lable does not stick on me. I am a moralist if anything, because I see in these moral isues that cannot be given weight the balance of our lives. I am sure you misunderstand me.

All life is experienced subjectively, art included. Our lives which are the singular objective fact of our existence, common to all life, and springing from common source is ultimately, for each, experienced subjectively. Were there not scientific evidence against it, we would all still accept that people are created equal, or other wise, one at a time. So, naturally, I will say that art is subjective, but it would not be art ART, if it were not objective to all first, by being a made thing, a fact, that all can examine in turn, but also as an object illustrating an idea of reality made into an object in turn, as it were, turning our inside idea, the subjective, outside, into object and so objective. And of course, when we create we recreate ourselves. The artist is revealed in his art long after death stills his busy mind. So there is in art an assertion of reality, and also a denial of the ultimate reality that our subjective experience of life will end, and that for all, we will become in time a thing, a dead thing, an object without anima. Thanks

@Fido,

Whether or not one intends to make 'objective seeming art' (your words, which you say is good art), i.e., representational art, or pure form, dissassiacated with anything in 'reality', one neccessarily makes something which is subjective. The mental image which the artist applies to the canvas or uses to direct his editing of the film, etc is HIS image; there are no images of THE world, only images of the individual's subjective world.

You said that the work itself, as a physical object (if we imagine there are such things for a moment) is objective, thus allowing the observor to form his own mental image; i agree, this is essential to art, all art.

However, I would usuaully rather have something not strctly representational presented to me because there is more freedom in that process; the observor is allowed to form his own conception of the thing, rather than forming a conception of 'the colliseum' or 'leonardo da vinci', which as already existing ideas, carry assosciations. That relates to my earlier comments about representational art being more bland and ideological, less novel.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Whether or not one intends to make 'objective seeming art' (your words, which you say is good art), i.e., representational art, or pure form, dissassiacated with anything in 'reality', one neccessarily makes something which is subjective. The mental image which the artist applies to the canvas or uses to direct his editing of the film, etc is HIS image; there are no images of THE world, only images of the individual's subjective world.

You said that the work itself, as a physical object (if we imagine there are such things for a moment) is objective, thus allowing the observor to form his own mental image; i agree, this is essential to art, all art.

However, I would usuaully rather have something not strctly representational presented to me because there is more freedom in that process; the observor is allowed to form his own conception of the thing, rather than forming a conception of 'the colliseum' or 'leonardo da vinci', which as already existing ideas, carry assosciations. That relates to my earlier comments about representational art being more bland and ideological, less novel.

I see all concepts as subjective. Concepts are not the object itself, but a subjective understanding of the object. If our concept is true, we ought to be able to use it as a form to mold a new reality, like the object concieved. We concieve of a square subjectively, and we can reproduce a square with our form as a guide, and if our art is good, and our conception true, the square we produce will resemble the square we first percieved and concieved.
Now, I have actually been to a lot of good museums, and seen quite a bit of what is generally considered good art. I still like Van Goegh best, and some of the impressionists; but it is not because they did formal art, like others before them. They did not move into the entirely subjective world of modern art, which has its place, but took real subjects such as could be concieved or percieved by anyone. Because the subject was common to us, their departure from it could be seen as a departure, as breaking new ground, not telling us more about the thing, but about how a thing is percieved, seen from a distance, in shadow, or cloud, or rain.

To see modern art is to have an emotional experience, mostly positive or negative, and askes a question like psychogical test to determine mood, and set mood. It is subjective from start to finish, and can only be measured against itself. At the same time, we have little growth, or education from it. It might be compared to seeing some one kick a dog, and you feel something, but think nothing of it, but feel all the more for that.

I look for an older definition of art, and I am sure I have one around here, or being what all people do, and that is to represent, or reproduce a desired reality. It is a form, and to an extent, it cannot escape the form. If it becomes like music, which is only barely a form, since every perception of sound is subjective, as the perception of modern art is, it also becomes limited to a very few who can enjoy even if they cannot relate. If you have ever seen a Van goegh up close, you might realize how much like a Pollack it is, since no one in a million tries could reproduce a part of it. It does not matter if you had the painting in front of you, or the scene; the individual subjective experience of the reality is what is given in the art, but without the reality, no one can measure the art except by emotion. If it is all just paint thrown at plywood, a monkey could do it, and it has no meaning, and reflects neither on man or matter, perception or understanding. Thanks

@Fido,

Excepts from your last post:

(1) (art) being what all people do, and that is to represent, or reproduce a desired reality

feel all the more for that.

(3) They did not move into the entirely subjective world of modern art, which has its place, but took real subjects such as could be concieved or percieved by anyone.

My responses:

1: that is exactly how I initially defined art, as expression, which need not be of anything specific, or of 'reality' but of whatever reality one sees or likes to express.

2: That is my point; representational art is more cerebral than passionate; I don't want to think, I want to feel. To think, I can read a book about the art.

3: I don't prefer modern art, nor do I like pure realism. My favorites are the impressionists, cubists, les fauves, etc.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Excepts from your last post:

(1) (art) being what all people do, and that is to represent, or reproduce a desired reality

feel all the more for that.

(3) They did not move into the entirely subjective world of modern art, which has its place, but took real subjects such as could be concieved or percieved by anyone.

My responses:

1: that is exactly how I initially defined art, as expression, which need not be of anything specific, or of 'reality' but of whatever reality one sees or likes to express.

2: That is my point; representational art is more cerebral than passionate; I don't want to think, I want to feel. To think, I can read a book about the art.

3: I don't prefer modern art, nor do I like pure realism. My favorites are the impressionists, cubists, les fauves, etc.

I am not saying art is expression, but a recreation of reality, which can only be judged against reality just as any and every conception is judged against reality. Music is right up your alley, because it does not only play on the sterio, but on your emotions. And you are welcome to what ever art you enjoy. I do not judge all art art, and I do judge much to be art alone in my judgement. I suppose it is enough to know what you like, just like the rich guy who said: I have seen a lot of oxen, and those oxen in that painting look like oxen. They were not alone, and the wealth of many museums is the result of some expert telling some rich guy who didn't know beans that he should by this or that work. Remington once built a bonfire in his back yard of paintings he was not happy with, any one of which I am sure I would have loved to own. I saw recently a van Gough of a cradle rocker, which was a portrait of a friends wife. She hated the painting and used it to fill a hole in her fence. Even his mother burned piles of his work after his death. We are not all the same, and least of all others do I have the right to tell you what to like. It is enough for me in seeing a work to answer the question: Why do I like this piece? Thanks

@Fido,

I am not saying art is expression, but a recreation of reality, which can only be judged against reality just as any and every conception is judged against reality.

Whose reality? My point is that, in light of the fact that there is no known objective reality, the essential nature of good art, in my opinion, is related to its ability to express a vision of reality. In other words, I do not want to judge art by its verisimilitude, which could be done mathematically by a computer; I want to judge art by the pleasure I gain from whatever particular version of reality the artist has presented.

As I said before, the art should be able to stand on its own because it is a reality unto itself, which does not neccessary have to correspond to 'objective reality.' This allows for more freedom. Even photography, whih does have verisimilitude, is not valuable because of that resemblance; the value is in the vision, the impressions that we gain from the photograph. Above all, I want to avoid an aesthetic that equates 'realistic' with 'good.'
Realism may be good, but not because it is realistic; it could only be good if it produced an impression in us.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

I am not saying art is expression, but a recreation of reality, which can only be judged against reality just as any and every conception is judged against reality.

Whose reality? My point is that, in light of the fact that there is no known objective reality, the essential nature of good art, in my opinion, is related to its ability to express a vision of reality. In other words, I do not want to judge art by its verisimilitude, which could be done mathematically by a computer; I want to judge art by the pleasure I gain from whatever particular version of reality the artist has presented.

As I said before, the art should be able to stand on its own because it is a reality unto itself, which does not neccessary have to correspond to 'objective reality.' This allows for more freedom. Even photography, whih does have verisimilitude, is not valuable because of that resemblance; the value is in the vision, the impressions that we gain from the photograph. Above all, I want to avoid an aesthetic that equates 'realistic' with 'good.'
Realism may be good, but not because it is realistic; it could only be good if it produced an impression in us.

Whose reality... Jeez, I never thought we all might have our own...You know, the use of concepts might be art.. I'll have to see how the Greeks and the middle ages clerks considered it. Sure, art ought to stand alone... So should a house, and each are the end of a certain concept.

@Fido,

Is that supposed to be a joke of some kind...:listening:

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Is that supposed to be a joke of some kind...:listening:

Maybe... A joke for a joke. But I didn't want to call it a joke... I just thought it was funny... The way you phrased it did not seem particularly well thought out; Why look for a reason if the long and short of it is that you like what you like. Personally I like a sort of definition I read once that excluded no human activity from art... Art is what we do. Philosophy is what we think about it... I'm done now... Tell me a good one..

@Fido,

...a man walked into a bar and kicked a dog...

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

...a man walked into a bar and kicked a dog...

A man walked into a bar and said: Ouch!

Philosophy Forum

Essence of art

Quick Links

My Account

able2know