You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Escape

Nagel March 11, 2021 at 02:07 7650 views 22 comments
2:11 AM 21/02/2021

Art viewed as escapism—how very naïve. I suspect that this naivety stems from man's conscience; the part of him that induces guilt whenever he goes contrary to the identity he connects himself with. He has developed such a pessimism towards life that he labels sources of relief, comfort, glee, and all these pleasant feelings as hostile—in the way that they feel as though life, being full of pain and suffering, should at all times remain the only priority. The things that repels them from their miserable conception of life are interpreted as the evil that must be avoided. Anyone who puts themselves on the side of goodness always feels remorse at the presence of evil. Thus it was born—art viewed as escapism.

But of course, those who view art as something that has the ultimate purpose of freeing one from their conception of life, by which I mean life full of pain and suffering, are most guilty of dirtying the mass' conception of art.

By this, I mean to say one thing—art is not an escape from reality; it is its festival!

Comments (22)

Shawn March 11, 2021 at 02:09 #508828
This is true. And, Schopenhauer was happy to say so!
Nagel March 11, 2021 at 02:20 #508837
Reply to Shawn though in this case, Schopenhauer is the one who is responsible for this dirtyfication.
Shawn March 11, 2021 at 02:23 #508839
Reply to Nagel

Yes, but, why dirty? It's a fact of life, no?
Nagel March 11, 2021 at 02:24 #508840
Reply to Shawn what, that art is supposed to pull you away from the suffering of life? Asceticism seems to me very repulsive, especially in art. If it is a fact, it is one I am greatly opposed to.
Shawn March 11, 2021 at 02:31 #508844
Quoting Nagel
what, that art is supposed to pull you away from the suffering of life? Asceticism seems to me very repulsive, especially in art. If it is a fact, it is one I am greatly opposed to.


Asceticism doesn't have much to do with art, or does it? I simply think art doesn't necessarily distance life from itself. Schopenhauer didn't get this right with the genre. Perhaps, not entirely but somewhat in specific nuances.
Tom Storm March 11, 2021 at 02:32 #508846
Reply to Nagel

Art does whatever you want it to do. What does it matter? Unless you are a strict idealist...
Nagel March 11, 2021 at 02:52 #508852
Reply to Tom Storm It matters only in the humanistic sense, free of or consciously constricted by psychological hurdles. Beyond that, I have nothing to say. It can be whatever, right, though once it becomes something, it will as with the principle of individuation, separate itself from other conceptions and build a world for itself.
Nagel March 11, 2021 at 02:55 #508853
Quoting Shawn
Schopenhauer didn't get this right with the genre.


Precisely my point.

Quoting Shawn
I simply think art doesn't necessarily distance life from itself.


As do I. However, I think that once one treats the whole of life, the world, as art, the best way to appreciate it would be by, er, "treating it as a festival." i.e., as a celebration rather than an escape.
baker March 11, 2021 at 19:40 #509043
Quoting Nagel
Art viewed as escapism—how very naïve.

There's a simple cure for this naivete: Enroll in a college course to earn a degree in art.
Nagel March 18, 2021 at 07:26 #511749
\Quoting baker
There's a simple cure for this naivete: Enroll in a college course to earn a degree in art.


"Simple," you say.
TheMadFool March 19, 2021 at 12:04 #512220
Art as escapism. Well, it's quite undeniable that given the right conditions - a certain personality type, the right kind of art, and so on - a person can construct a world out of art which then becomes faer made-up sanctuary - a place to retreat to, if only in daydreams, from the indifference bordering on frank hostility of reality.

That said, these mind-worlds serve a very useful purpose - as beacons that reveal a "better world" as opposed to the world as it is, "unsatisfactory" to put it mildly. In other words, it's quite a difficult task to tell apart an escapist from a visionary.
Nagel March 20, 2021 at 03:22 #512449
Reply to TheMadFool You have a point. A simplification would probably be to say that one is constructive, the other destructive, but it falls short as a separating line. But couple this with "activity," there will be a seemingly apparent difference. The visionary of a Leandro Leviste or an Elon Musk can very apparently be seen especially when juxtaposed with the "sleeping, dreaming man" It's that act of valuing, the striving for a "better world" that differentiates one from the other.
TheMadFool March 20, 2021 at 06:45 #512488
Quoting Nagel
You have a point. A simplification would probably be to say that one is constructive, the other destructive, but it falls short as a separating line. But couple this with "activity," there will be a seemingly apparent difference. The visionary of a Leandro Leviste or an Elon Musk can very apparently be seen especially when juxtaposed with the "sleeping, dreaming man" It's that act of valuing, the striving for a "better world" that differentiates one from the other.


I find the combination escapism and art to be packed with potential. The escapist is weary of the world - just too many things wrong with it - and the artist, naturally sensitive to aesthetics, imagines, creates and presents faer impression of how beautiful we can make the world.
Nagel March 22, 2021 at 00:26 #513309
Reply to TheMadFool I am wary to equate the escapist with the cultural critic, but I suppose it's that combination of art and criticality that creates the visionary. Problems with education, sustainable energy, employment, and whatnot; these are addressed and solved by the 'critic' and the 'artist'; on the other hand, the escapist would be more than willing to get away from these as far as possible.
Deleted User March 22, 2021 at 13:03 #513434
Reply to Nagel As an artist I've always been very aware of this dilemma. Where do you draw the line between fact and fiction? Growing up with Van Gogh, I told myself that I'd never lose my grip on reality like him. To do so, I spend only limited time on the production and consumption of art. People don't even realize how we are being inundated with music, imagery and other forms of involuntary brainwashing. That's why meditation and contemplation are my core ascetic tools. And no, I don't think there's anything dirty or repulsive about this.
Nagel April 07, 2021 at 10:53 #519752
Reply to TaySan Is that so. As being an artist myself, I would say that I smashed broken the line between fact and fiction just as one smashes the illusory line between the internal self and the external world. However, the problem of escapism, of nonappreciation, of worldly rejection, are to me present and harmful not just in an aesthetic sense, but on a natural, humanist sense. My solution was then this: to embrace the holisticness of the artwork that is the world.
Deleted User April 07, 2021 at 11:56 #519764
Reply to Nagel Holisticness or holisticism barely seems to exist as a word even. Perhaps it's the way for the future. And I find the term 'world' confusing, since humans are already living in space. Albeit for short times. But congratulations on smashing the mirror of illusion. Must be a relief.

I'm not really good with emotions on the envy-disgust-contempt spectrum. Generally regard all 'negative' emotions as unpleasant. But perhaps dirtification can be a wonderful thing!
James Riley April 07, 2021 at 12:24 #519770
I know some artists who view existence as bad art. But as artists, they try not to judge. They go create their own art. Sometimes they think their own work is bad. They try not to judge themselves. They enjoy arting. Arting seems to have become an art in itself. They then find the good in that existence piece they didn't like. And then low-and-behold, there is a collaborative masterpiece! Which kind of sucks. So they go art.

I wish I was talented like that.
Nagel April 07, 2021 at 15:57 #519829
Reply to TaySan Welp, the paradox with my thought is that dirtification is in itself a work of art worthy of honor and so on.
Nagel April 07, 2021 at 16:00 #519830
Reply to James Riley that's interesting. it's that holistic-love full of paradoxes that I like. It goes something like "it sucks, but it is beautiful"
James Riley April 07, 2021 at 16:42 #519837
Quoting Nagel
It goes something like "it sucks, but it is beautiful"


In the special operations community we have a saying "Embrace the suck."

A great cartoon (for the Army side of the house) is a grunt standing in the rain saying "This sucks!" The next frame is a Ranger up to his waste in the rain and mud saying "I like the way this sucks!" The next frame is a Special Forces guy up to his neck in the rain and mud, a snake in his teeth saying "I wish this sucked more!" The next frame is a pilot flying over, looking down and saying "Sucks down there." The last frame is a pouge back in the barracks who can't get the cable tv to work saying "This sucks!".

Deleted User April 07, 2021 at 19:31 #519881