Art says nothing about the human condition.

Humans relate the human condition via art.

To understand art, you first need to look at abstract forms, i.e. things that are completely nonrepresentational. Like instrumental music, like abstract painting, or perhaps even like architecture. The reason one should start here is that it helps you understand that our interface with art is one of feeling. We respond viscerally to it. Later on, when people add representation, then the visceral response to the aesthetic may augment (and be augmented by) the person in the painting, the words in the music, etc.

Reread what I wrote.

They are expressions of the human condition only insofar as the artist-audience interaction makes it such a thing.



Are books expressions of the human condition? Some are.

I'm sure that we all know that matters of beauty and enjoyment, unlike morality, can only be justified as relative values.

My question is this: what is the significance or art as it pertains to the human animal?

Why should we value notions of beauty and art,

and what does art have to say about the human condition?

So doesn't that contradict your first statement on the matter?

it's the humans who create art who speak to the human condition. art may or may not -- it depends what the artist intended. Nothing contradictory.

This question is not for nihilists; so if you're a nihilist please don't comment?

The entire purpose of Shakespeare's 'art' was to comment on the human condition : morality or more specifically, the lack thereof (with a bit of humor to make it more pallatable).

When I found that science could not answer questions on the human condition : I first changed to Art, then philosophy, then psychology, and finally ethics - which led me back to art. Its a vicious circle I seem confined to.

But its much more interesting than adding up numbers all day like a human computer.

The art itself isn't saying anything. A work of art is a thing.

The artist may have plenty to say about the human condition, though. And if the artist didn't, the audience of the art may derive something of the sort (think of looking at a cave painting, or Stonehenge, or something like that where we don't know what was on the artists' minds).

Art says nothing about the human condition.

Humans relate the human condition via art.

To understand art, you first need to look at abstract forms, i.e. things that are completely nonrepresentational. Like instrumental music, like abstract painting, or perhaps even like architecture. The reason one should start here is that it helps you understand that our interface with art is one of feeling. We respond viscerally to it. Later on, when people add representation, then the visceral response to the aesthetic may augment (and be augmented by) the person in the painting, the words in the music, etc.

don't you think that we can learn about the human condition from art regardless of whether or not it is the intent on the artist?

Yes, but in that case it's a statement about us, i.e. our reaction, in response to the art. It's no different than studying the response of someone beholding the Grand Canyon. There is an impact upon the audience that is not limited to the content of ideas.