Who's In Charge - Artist or Audience?
I work at a music venue that focuses on a lot of new classical music. I've seen so many performances where the artist explains their music before it's performed. Visual artists have to write artist statements to explain their work. On the other end of the spectrum, when someone turns on the radio, the experience of music is immediate, without any explanation.
Other artists feel the need to use their abilities to promote political agendas. We've had long debates here about The Bull, The Girl, and now The Pug. Similarly, yet more artists feel the need to use art to evangelize (Christian rock, etc).
Marcel Duchamp was kicked out of the salon and subsequently began his own journey of turning anything into art. His Ready-Made's where repeatable pieces that anyone could make: take a postcard with the Mona Lisa on it and draw a mustache on her. Suddenly we can have a dead shark in a tank in an art gallery.
Brian Eno developed a smartphone app that generates music; the user can generate an endless stream of different combinations of sounds; it's never the same twice.
So, who's in charge? Does the artist dictate what the audience should experience? Does the audience assign meaning to the work? Did Duchamp free us from a world where the artist dictates meaning, or did he perpetuate that model under a new guise?
Other artists feel the need to use their abilities to promote political agendas. We've had long debates here about The Bull, The Girl, and now The Pug. Similarly, yet more artists feel the need to use art to evangelize (Christian rock, etc).
Marcel Duchamp was kicked out of the salon and subsequently began his own journey of turning anything into art. His Ready-Made's where repeatable pieces that anyone could make: take a postcard with the Mona Lisa on it and draw a mustache on her. Suddenly we can have a dead shark in a tank in an art gallery.
Brian Eno developed a smartphone app that generates music; the user can generate an endless stream of different combinations of sounds; it's never the same twice.
So, who's in charge? Does the artist dictate what the audience should experience? Does the audience assign meaning to the work? Did Duchamp free us from a world where the artist dictates meaning, or did he perpetuate that model under a new guise?
Comments (120)
The artist set the stage for the show. The audience hears and sees a facsimile of what was intended. The interpretation of what was presented is usually limited by the blinders put on in the artist’s presentation. We don’t rewrite a poem, but we may misinterpret or we may give new meaning – added meaning. I always liked Simon & Garfunkel – “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.
If the audience can give new meaning to a work, then how is that demarcated from misinterpretation?
I hope this is responsive - The work speaks for itself. An artists explanation or biography may or may not be interesting and helpful, but to a certain extent it is irrelevant. If you told me what a work of art you hadn't created meant, I'd consider what you said if I found it helpful, but ultimately I would rely on my own judgment. Why should it be any different if you were the artist? Many artists I've heard interviewed are completely inarticulate about their work.
Yes, that's exactly it; there's nothing to say. So why do so many artists blather on about their shit? There's a pervading philosophical notion behind the assumption.
Edit: also, is this inarticulacy a timeless trait, or a factor of the the modern world we live in? Was Da Vinci equally inarticulate?
Did you?
Quoting Noble Dust
It seems to be a bullshit post-modern thing about knowing your sources, because, you know, there's no such thing as originality or unknowing, inarticulable knowing. :-}
Ok, I think I agree, but why? Why is Duchamp not right? Why is this art rather than that? Am I interpreting you correctly here? Was Duchamp a boon or a blight?
One of my favorite songs. I remember in the town in southern Virginia where I lived then, the local radio station kept trying to beep out "whores" from "Just a come-on from the whores on Seventh Avenue." but they kept missing and beeped out "the" or "on" instead.
I think Duchamp was both a boon and a blight; he made people step back and think about what constitutes art, but then he has been followed by many mediocre imitators whose work is tedious in my view. He also de-emphasized 'art as inspired creation', which I think is a big mistake. Although that is probably not so much his fault; I remember reading a statement of his once which was something along the lines of "The artist does not know how he creates his work", so the fault is probably more with the followers than with the man.
I always thought this is a wonderful work and one of Duchamp's least characteristic (although I haven't seen it "in the flesh"):
I agree on the tediousness of his followers. But if Duchamp made us step back and question what constitutes art, what is our answer? I agree because I so deeply value that question, and I so value artists like Duchamp for having the audacity to ask the question. But if we don't like the general consensus of the answer, then what's our answer? Was there some other path we were supposed to take, but failed to do so? is the evolution of art and creativity deterministic or completely arbitrary?
I don't know what the answer is; perhaps the very nature of art itself precludes the possibility of a definitive answer. I think the value of the question lies more in shaking us out of preconceived or ingrained assumptions.
I don't believe the evolution of art and creativity is deterministic or arbitrary; I believe it is a dialectical unfolding of the human spirit with its own, not entirely determinable, logic.
I like to think the work speaks for itself. But of course that's always in a context, a work doesn't speak in a void: Euripides and Sophocles still mean something profound to us, but we won't keep performing their work unless we renew it in the (re-)making.
But then...I do bend in galleries to read the little descriptions beside each painting, I read up on musical works in advance. There's aesthetic gain in understanding the background to a work.
I would mention that there is a third layer of people: the commentariat, who are also often the funders of public work, (or the same sort of people) and the advisers to private funders, as well as the teachers of the arts. They speak a certain language, on the whole, and influence how 'we' see art, both we-as-artists and we-as-audience. When I was a writer the reviews mattered, as did the sponsoring organisation's internal comments. As a freelance you're only as good as your next commission. If you can't speak the lingo of the commentariat you'd better have friends in high places, or be damn good :)
Re "who is in charge" of what gets created, it obviously depends. It differs on a case by case basis. You get everything from artists working solely to please themselves, solely following their muses wherever they lead, to artists solely attempting to please/appease the demands of either an audience or some particular suit or set of suits (like a record company owner, for example). And there is everything imaginable between those two extremes, with the norm being a balance between the two. The vast majority of artists want to follow their muses to an extent, but it's rare that anyone you'd know about--that is, anyone who'd have any sort of career in art & entertainment fields, wouldn't also think a bit about how their work is going to be received by various parties (including audiences, record labels, gallery owners, etc.), how it could affect their career, and then make some adjustments accordingly.
Re meaning, meaning in general works via individuals assigning it to things they experience. You can't literally put meaning into an artwork. You rather create meaning catalysts or meaning potentials. But once you release your work, meaning is out of your hands, and no matter what you do, there are going to be tons of interpretations that bear little resemblance to the meaning you personally had in mind. (Well, you hope tons, because you hope your work reaches that big of an audience.)
Re what you were talking about in your initial post, where composers introduce pieces, where visual artists write artist's statements, etc., it's simply due to social convention at this point. In some milieus it's basically become a requirement that you do those things, and many artists hate it. But it's unfortunately the case that if you want to get a gallery owner to consider your work, for example, and you're not already moderately famous, you need to provide an artist's statement.
Otherwise it's simply a factor of giving interviews and such. Some artists would rather not do that, too, but managers, label folks, etc. often basically require it as part of their PR efforts.
Things are art or not interpretively and via social convention. That was more or less the whole point of The Fountain (as well as 4'33").
I think Duchamp's Fountain established the artist's right to say "this is art" within the 'art world'*. It also was the first piece of Conceptual art as such. His basic ideas were not picked up until Andy Warhol went to work, and after him Joseph Kosuth laid the theoretic foundation for Conceptual art, whose penultimate culmination (at least for me) was the placing of instructions on the wall of a museum as the work of art.
The thought that the artist's idea is the art work fell apart after this, although it remains persuasive as a narrative, in my opinion.
It is not too surprising that the visual artist puts a brief description about his work in a gallery or museum, otherwise people might be totally mystified by some modern works of art. The practice started in the 1990s. Curators today have become the new 'artists' in the visual arts, and the installation itself has become a work of art. The curator controls who gets into the museum or gallery, how the work is placed within the museum, what other works or themes are presented.
The art world controls what is seen, heard and read, what is considered art or not. The artist's creation is only his to the extent that he is responsible for making the work. The art world, the society(ies) in which the artist was nurtured bear most of the responsibility for the creations of any artist. Note how certain theories are developed independently and contemporaneously such as Leibniz/Newton's creation of calculus, or Darwin/Wallace's theory of Evolution. These are not anomalies, I think they point to the 'fact' that we all think and act with cultural narratives, conceptual frameworks (call it whatever), it controls, it guides, and it is difficult to get outside of, maybe why Gauguin took off for Tahiti.
There is a lot more to say, but...I wondered about your term "new classical music", what does that mean?
*The Artist's Visual Arts Act, the Berne Convention attempt to protect works of art after the artist has transferred ownership. It might have prevented Rockefeller from destroying Diego Rivera's mural.
I have struggled with this question. I go to the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston. I see things which involve little technique. I can see the idea behind what they are trying to express, but I question whether or not it is art.
Not sure of my own definition of "art" is exactly, but the word means something. Some things are art and some are not. The artist does not get to decide. Robert Pirsig said that art is high quality endeavor - he included skilled welders as artists. I always liked that thought, although I don't agree with the definition.
Why would we expect that someone who is a skilled and talented visual artist to be able to express herself in words? For that matter, why would we expect a poet or novelist to have the skills of a literary critic?
Everyone blathers on about their shit. Why would you deny artists the satisfaction?
I think you are really asking what is art and what is it worth? Art is in the eyes of the creator and the observer. What I mean to say is that art is anything the creator intents – be it music, literature, science, mathematics, philosophy or theatre. It can be anything. Is there such a thing a null-art? Many argue that Rothko was a nihilist. I am not a big fan of Rothko, so I will not comment. I saw Rothko’s work in Houston and it was powerful – in a way. I am not sure what his message was.
Artists are the leaders of civilization. They have a vision of what tomorrow will be. Without artist, we don’t know where the hell we are going. Einstein had many theories that he was not sure of. He had the courage to propose things that were uncertain. I think we are all glad he did. A good artists or perhaps the best artists are out on a limb. It takes courage to get – far out on that limb - to push the horizon past where it stands.
The audience has a somewhat easier job. You know the old saying – “everybody is a critic”? How much great art and/or ideas have been crushed by critics? I don’t know – a lot. However the audience is important in its interpretation and implementation of the art. The ball is in the court of the artist to ensure the dance between the two is successful or not. I like found art – junk art – some people look at my stuff and say – what the fuck is that? It is all grist for the mill.
Art is what steers our ship of state. In the very beginning philosophers proposed methods of living and thinking which we used to advance. Zeus was a very successful vision of the world in its day. I wonder how Zeus feels about things now? Oh well, we have new sculptures in our houses today. Perhaps you have one of Jesus on your walls? Tomorrow I hope people will put my works in their house. Art bridges us from today to tomorrow and on into the future.
We all do.
To me, Duchamp and then the conceptual artists afterwards are just moving the goal posts; I think the same drive still compels them as much as those who came before to "make art". That's more of what I'm getting at.
Quoting mcdoodle
Sure. But most of the best experiences of art/music etc that I've had have been with a limited context. I think this especially happened when I was younger; I didn't have the proper context to understand something, but it moved me deeply, struck a new chord within me, etc. If someone had droned on about what the piece was supposed to be "about", it would have ruined my experience.
You can't force-feed the audience what your intention was. But I see it happening too much.
Quoting mcdoodle
Good point.
Quoting Terrapin Station
What I mean by "who's in charge?" is more in line with the second quote you made here. I wasn't talking about whether the artist or the record label, or whoever, is in charge. I meant what you addressed in your second paragraph here, and I agree: the audience assigns meaning to the work. The audience is 50% of the equation of art. This is why I'm against artist statements and the like. Or, show me the piece first, and then I'll read your statement.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I agree in part, but as I mentioned to , I think there's still an underlying drive that motivates artists and audiences. We still seem to need or want art, regardless of how the definition changes culturally. It's almost as if that definition doesn't really matter as much as the underlying drive.
It just means contemporary classical; it's also called "New Music", at least in NYC.
Because I want to experience their work myself first. Then maybe I'll listen to what they have to say. I'm a musical artist; I rarely explain anything I do to anyone.
I'm asking how art receives content or meaning, and as I've stated, I think the audience is 50% of the work, so all of these attempts by artists to define what they've done beforehand are not only unhelpful, but futile.
I have mixed feelings about conceptual art. It feels like more content being forced on me, the viewer. I think if an artist is going to involve the audience so much in their work (giving instructions on what the piece should be), then the audience should feel free to disobey the instructions and do something different. That to me would be the logical end point of this sort of art; the audience should rebel, thereby taking away the content the artist thought they were imparting to the audience.
Artists don't lead civilization, they ride on it. Excess wealth generated by centralized economic systems allows expenditures on things that are not directly related to food, shelter, and security. That doesn't say anything bad about art, but there's no doubt it, as an organized institution, is a luxury.
The paintings in the Lascaux cave are some of the most beautiful and moving things I've ever seen. It seems unlikely that whoever painted them had any concept of art or artists. Seems to me that art became a thing when cities came into existence. I have no evidence for that.
I'm an engineer. I always explain everything I do to everyone.
This thread is about artists, not engineers.
Yes, I know. It is not inappropriate to broaden the perspective a bit in a discussion. How non-artists behave is not irrelevant to how artists do.
Also, I was trying to be amusing. I read my post again, and still think it is.
Ok, so how is it relevant?
You seem to object to my post. I don't understand why. I have been responsive and on-post throughout this discussion. How can 11 words cause a problem?
Spoken like a true engineer. You see the surface mechanics of things real well. However the voice behind the curtain is that of the artist. Do you realize philosophers are artists? Who thought of the institutions of society first? Who helps steer the ship of state today? When we debate stem cell research in the US – who is talking to the politicians?
I'm not objecting; follow the thread of our conversation, I'm asking you honest questions. I'm not sure if I agree that broadening the discussion will help, but that's why I'm asking you to explain, maybe I'll end up agreeing.
I agree with you and stated that in my post - and much more - perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Or maybe something else is going on - you seem frustrated.
It wasn't particularly clear, no, but maybe I should clarify as well. When I say the audience is 50% of the work, I mean that literally, the audience defines the work more than the artist does. This is a symbiotic relationship that bears itself out based on what the artist first puts into the work. If the artist tells the audience what to think, or creates a work that can only be interpreted in a limited number of ways, then the audience tends to be left cold (if they're discerning) or they'll mindlessly accept the definition given to them. But art that's diffuse and multi-layered encourages an audience to think for themselves. This is when the audience really puts in their 50% share of the work, and many different interpretations of a piece get made; people experience within many different contexts; a piece that transcends generations gets experienced in even wider (historical) contexts.
It wasn't a big point. Explication of one's work is common practice. Artists are not somehow special in that regard. Some of us do it well, some don't. My work - reports and designs - has to speak for itself as much as yours.
Ok, I see what you mean. But I still disagree; art at it's best is it's own form of communication; it's own language. That's why the best art, to me, doesn't require explication. It does in fact speak for itself because it speaks in it's own language. That's actually a main component of the argument I'm making.
You have a pretty high falutin vision of the importance of philosophers and artists, especially philosophers. None of us are "the voice behind the curtain." There isn't one.
So do I, but and I think it is important, until conceptual art came along art was, and to a large extent still is representational. Du Champs, Warhol et al made art that was overtly metaphorical, giving it a representational facade with a metaphorical referent. Doing this was very different from what went before it, which is not to say there were no metaphorical works of art, only they were not structured to be overtly metaphorical such as Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans, or Roy Lichtenstein's works such as
My response to you is the same as mine to Thinker - I think you are raising art up on a pedestal it doesn't need or deserve. Art is human action. Thinker called me a "typical engineer." I think he thought it was an insult or that it somehow disqualified my argument. I think he thinks he has a clearer vision of the ground of being than I do.
I'm not trying to insult you; if you hadn't said you were an engineer I would still be debating your ideas in the same way.
Quoting T Clark
I disagree that art is action; what do you mean by that? Creating a work of art is an action, but the art itself isn't action.
Yes, this is always a good reminder. I have to look at the metaphorical content in my own work and be reminded that I have a debt to conceptualism. But it's an interesting point, actually. Metaphor has always been an aspect of human thought in general (not just art). Language itself is based on metaphors; when new scientific terms get coined, for instance, they're almost always metaphorical. Even a representational piece of art is still itself a metaphor, but with conceptualism, as you say, the metaphor becomes more overt. I think it's because of a sense of self-consciousness; the irony in the Lichtenstein piece is extremely self-conscious. Sometimes I like think of the development of human thought in stages of individual human growth; Warhol, Duchamp, et al, seem to represent a stage of artistic "puberty" to me. The conscious irony, the flaunting personalities, the exhibitionism.
I don't think you were, but I think Thinker thinks he was.
Quoting Noble Dust
Art is just another thing that people do/make. I like visual art and music, but I'm more attuned to writing - poetry, stories, essays. The satisfaction and pleasure I get from "Heart of Darkness" feels the same as that I get from a good design. I get the same kind of pleasure from writing poetry as I do writing construction specifications, although I can feel myself using different parts of my mind.
I have seen many a poem interpreted well beyond the author’s intent. So, 50% is a guesstimate. It may be 80% or 20% - depends on the work and also depends on the audience.
Interesting. We seem to have different experiences then. The main difference to me is that writing construction specifications is utilitarian; it serves a practical purpose. There's a goal, and the specifications get you there. Poetry doesn't have a goal. I don't like to say that it's not utilitarian, but I agree with the painter Makoto Fujimura when he repurposes the word "gratuitous" and applies it to art.
I say 50% because there's just two participants, fundamentally: artist and audience. Or, as pointed out, there's also the middle men of sorts; the record label, the art dealer, the money guy. So maybe 33% is better.
Very perceptive of you. Ok, I guess we just got here by accident. Was calculus an accident? Was Newton an artist?
I don't think it is a fixed number - circumstances change - people change - art takes new meaning today from yesterday.
Specifications, drawings, work plans, project plans - everything that goes into a design - are all part of a vision. A model I can feel and see. I can hold it up to the light, a single, undivided whole. That's how poetry feels. That's how the world feels.
I think you are way off base here. Please reconsider this statement.
You might know that to be true of yourself and perhaps those you are acquainted with, but how could you know it to be true of all of us?
But the circumstance of artist/audience/middle man doesn't change. I'm making this point because too often one of those three gets a distorted view of their role in the process.
What are you talking about?
Beautiful description of your experience which I will not argue with.
Give me a reason why I should reconsider.
The artist doesn't change - but the audience does.
What? Sure the artist changes. Look at Radiohead - Pablo Honey vs. Amnesiac. Plus, I said the circumstance of artist/audience/middle man is what doesn't change.
I am talking about a single artist in relation to a single work.
Not sure I understand. Are you putting Newton up as a philosopher? Sure. But what he did would not be considered philosophy now. Today's philosophy is an intellectual backwater. I guess I would make a possible exception for political philosophy.
Ok, but even then, an artists perception of one of their works can change. John Baldessari burned all of his early work.
Newton was an artist in creating calculus
I would be loathe to psychologize art as a "drive". There is certainly "something else" that makes art art ,and non-art non-art, apart from mere convention. Convention itself is driven, at least in part, I would say, by this "something else". We can't say exactly what this "something else" is though, and nor should we want to, because that would just be an expression of intellectual greed.
I feel like I've dragged the discussion off-post. I'll let you guys have at it
Ok, so - he wanted to add an addendum to his work - seems a little self destructive to me.
I don't mean to do that either, but I realize the word drive suggests that. I categorize it as a spiritual drive. It's almost something ontological in our makeup, I think.
Quoting John
I agree we can't quite say what it is, but why would doing so be intellectual greed?
Quite the contrary - I hope you see the artistic Newton.
You argued that the artist doesn't change in relation to a work; I'm arguing the opposite and giving Baldessari as an example.
Not quite - I think the artist's original work does not change - all artists evolve.
You said:
Quoting Thinker
I meant the art doesn't change.
Not "doing so", but wanting to do so. If we were able to we would, but we are not; so why should we want what we can't possibly have? That said, I think that in another way, every authentic work of art is an attempt to "answer" that question, or to speak to the question, at least. Why should we hope for a 'dry' analytical or discursive answer to the question, though. Would that not be to dishonour the question by trivializing it?
Very good point.
I'm not personally looking for a dry analytical answer. And I think I agree with you that making a work of art is an attempt to answer the question. I guess I see what you mean by intellectual greed, then. I think it's possible to taste or get a glimpse of this thing that art is after, because I think it's an aspect of the same thing that everything else we do is after. That's why I said it's a spiritual drive.
I've done that before as well, apologies if I was being anal.
Poetry speaks to heart of everything - it moves - bends - breaks us.
I agree. When I said it doesn't have a goal, that was in the context of other types of writing having a utilitarian purpose and goal. Poetry isn't trying to do the same sorts of things; poetry as a discipline doesn't have a specific goal. Poetry, if anything, imbues the very world with content and meaning. It's generative, at it's best.
I agree that it's a spiritual drive, in the sense that you mean it; as you already noted, I think I was just thrown off the scent by the word "drive". :)
So, I think it's relevant to note that although the spiritual is individually, socially, culturally and historically mediated (and mediating) it is not exhaustively determined by (or determinative of), nor constructed by (or constructive of) individuals, society, culture and history.
What do you mean?
How does the form and matter have a "say"? Are you talking about how a work of art "speaks beyond itself", or some such notion? The idea that the muse seems to speak beyond what the artist intends? If so, then I agree, but I'm not clear still on what you mean here.
This is honestly a very confusing sentence; I see that it's grammatically correct, but what exactly are you saying? It sounds to me like you're saying "the spiritual is mediated in many ways, but is not exhaustively determined by those many ways". Is that what you mean? Could you elaborate in a different way?
So the characters have their own life? They exist independently of Shakespeare?
Some stories are plot driven some are character driven. Plays, novels and other works that are character driven like Hamlet can lose their plot to character development/evolution.
Well at the bottom it is the matter, regardless of what that matter is, that is formed by the artist into the work of art. The artist's idea provides the form, what the artist is using, words, paint, sound or whatever have their own limitations, advantages, needs, requirements, which in execution can over ride the artists original idea/plan.
Michelangelo's Prisoners are prisoners of their matter, and they (perhaps) are not fully realized because they are as much bound to their matter, as we are.
When you create music don't the specific instruments you include in your work form both its limitation as well as its freedom. Do instruments have an affinity for certain sounds, certain notes, certain other instruments?
The spirit of the work, in my estimation, is how the artist's idea for the work gets sorted out by the materials the artist uses in execution of his idea. How form/matter fit together may have more to do with the way the materials will/can allow them self to be composed. The artist's plan is not typically a set course and problems arise in execution, tensions build, and a new plan evolves out of the 'spirit' of the work as the work has evolved. Things have to 'fit' together in the spirit of the work or the work wont work.
Thanks :)
A bit tortuous, perhaps? You got it right though: "the spiritual is mediated in many ways, but is not exhaustively determined by those many ways". The other side of it is that the spiritual mediates (individuals, societies, cultures and history) but does not exhaustively determine them. The point I really wanted to make is that society, culture and history are not all there is to human life, and by extension, they are not all there is to the arts.
Conceptual art (believing it is following Duchamp) wants to say just the opposite. On this 'conceptual' view, in principle at least, everything about individuals, society, culture and history can be analyzed, explicated and commented upon; there is no room for any genuinely intractable mystery. I think this is a huge mistake, with catastrophic potential for the arts, and by extension, for humanity.
It sounds like you mean something else than what I (and presumably ) meant with the word spiritual. For my part, I mean that there's a real spiritual drive that causes us to make art. To me, making art is a more direct path towards the sorts of things philosophy, and even religion in a way, are after.
Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm also not sure I can argue with that. Again, I think the same spiritual drive exists beneath conceptual art. The impetus hasn't changed. I know you'll disagree because of how you view the development of human thought, but I think there's a necessary quality to each stage of artistic development (and development of thought in general). I think there's a specific spiritual (/esoteric/inner...etc) theme at the core of the development of human thought. It's hard to explain. Every phase seems to follow after the other within the bounds of their own unique logic; Conceptualism had to follow the symbolists and early modernists. It's tied into the human condition. We can look back at eras that we particularly liked, or felt were closer to our own ideal of what art should be, and we can criticize how art evolved, but we need to be realists and look at how art evolves in relation to the state of the human condition. Indeed, the human condition is that inner spiritual drive that directs how thought and art evolve.
Conceptual art is more about what is understood to be art than a change in the "mystery" of how anything is art. One of the striking aspects of response to conceptual art is just how "mysterious" it appears to many. Many times an artist will have taken some simple form, a found object, a clear white canvas, given some detailed personal account of their work, only to have half the audience respond with, in all this knowledge, "How can this be art?..." The "mystery" remains no matter how much is known about an artwork.
The "mystical" quality of art taking the soul to a world more profound then the everyday cannot be destroyed by any amount of explanation or knowledge. It operates on a different axis.
This doesn't make any sense. What quotes form John or I can you site where we were talking about "how" verses "what"?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This also makes no sense.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This also makes no sense and is grammatically confusing.
The average person doesn't find conceptual art "mysterious"; they find it nonsensical.
You seem to be thinking of the unfolding or evolution of the spirit in a kind of Hegelian sense. I certainly think there''s some truth in that idea, but I don't believe that dialectic (either in the logical sense or in Marx's material sense) is exhaustively determinative of the development of the human spirit, and hence of individuals, societies, cultures and history. There is always a true freedom and spontaneity at work, and the way things will turn out in the future is by no means pre-determined by the past. The element of truth, though, is that things are perhaps determined in their broadest outlines.
Also, there is nothing that precludes the possibility that epochs may be more or less spiritually healthy, insofar as they are more or less consciously in touch with the divine. There is nothing to preclude the possibility that the human spirit will find itself in a cul de sac and need to backtrack to regain its compass.
So, for me it's not a matter of moral condemnation of creative expressions that have "lost the spirit", but of open-eyed recognition. Of course, everyone will have to trust in, and also be prepared to schooled, their own intuitions in these kinds of matters. There are no 'knock-down' arguments either way. That's pretty much my view, for what it's worth.
The difference is that the message, the "value" in conceptual art is conceptualizable; it may be put into some form of proposition: "it's a comment on this or that", and so on. This is not the case with non-conceptual art; where there certainly may be conceptual subject matter, but the value of the works lies in the aesthetic, not in the conceptual.
I think that misses the point: in conceptual art, the conceptual is melded into the aesthetic. It never just about commenting on a subject matter. There is a representation with an aesthetic, in the exploration of the concept.
The value in conceptual art isn't really in that it's conceptualisable-- if it were, there would be no dissection between conceptual art and just talking about a concept-- it's in an outside exploration of a concept within a representation and aesthetic.
I get what you are saying; and I think there is essentially no difference between conceptual art and "just talking about a concept" except in the mode of presentation.
The thing that makes art more than merely conceptual is precisely the aesthetic; and if a work is beautiful or "profound" then it is not merely conceptual art. I certainly think that can be said of some conceptual art (some of Duchamp's work, for instance) ; that it is not merely conceptual art, but just has a more pronounced conceptual dimension than 'usual'. Interestingly, I don't think it is possible for music (without vocals) to be a conceptual art; whereas as all of poetry treads some line between propositional discourse (the conceptual) and metaphor. Of course metaphor also deals in concepts, but its modus is allusive rather than determinate.
Cage's 4:33 is all concept and no music. So it's possible, in a sense at least. Cage was kind of the Duchamp of music, and I think there's some music that is pretty conceptual. But (and I'm biased) some of the more conceptual classical music is, to me, more profound, because, as you say, it retains an aesthetic. I wasn't a fan of Charles Ives music until I read this quote form him. He would write music that was supposed to sound like two different groups playing together at the same time:
"In the early morning of a Memorial Day, a boy is awaked by martial music--a village band is marching down the street--and as the strains of Reeves majestic Seventh Regiment March come nearer and nearer--he seems of a sudden translated--a moment of vivid power comes, a consciousness of material nobility--an exultant something gleaming with the possibilities of this life--an assurance that nothing is impossible, and that the whole world lies at his feet. But, as the band turns the corner, at the soldier's monument, and the march steps of the Grand Army become fainter and fainter, the boy's vision slowly vanishes-his 'world' becomes less and less probable-but the experience ever lies within him in its reality.
Later in life, the same boy hears the Sabbath morning bell ringing out from the white steeple at the 'Center,' and as it draws him to it, through the autumn fields of sumach and asters, a Gospel hymn of simple devotion comes out to him--'There's a wideness in God's mercy'--an instant suggestion of that Memorial Day morning comes--but the moment is of deeper import--there is no personal exultation--no intimate world vision--no magnified personal hope--and in their place a profound sense of spiritual truth--a sin within reach of forgiveness. And as the hymn voice dies away, there lies at his feet--not the world, but the figure of the Saviour--he sees an unfathomable courage--an immortality for the lowest--the vastness in humility, the kindness of the human heart, man's noblest strength--and he knows that God is nothing--nothing--but love!" - Charles Ives, Essays
So are you saying that freedom exists on an individual level, but not on a broad level?
Quoting John
Here's my issue with this. Think about it from an individual level: someone struggling with an addiction or unhealthy activity, on an individual level, cannot literally backtrack to regain their compass. The reason for this is the inexorable forward motion of our experience of time; an individual trying to beat an addiction can't take themselves back to the mental state in which they existed before the presence of the addiction. Beating an addiction means fighting through the addiction until you've reached the other side: sobriety. Applying this to human thought on a grand scale... and I see the same things at play. This is also the answer to the age-old question of "why does God allow bad things?" There's no backtracking with the divine; there's only the single way forward. I don't equate this singularity of motion with determinism, either. I equate it with capital T Truth. This is a creative apprehension of reality, and not an empirical one. The inexorable nature of the movement of human thought is a function of Truth and not a function of determinism on the one hand, or freedom on the other. Freedom is primordial; it's the basis of human nature.
I can't see how someone fighting addiction can do it without hearkening back to the time before they were addicted. how else could they know the state of being free from addiction? I'm not sure waht you think I meant by backtracking.; I certainly didn't have any idea of regression mind. On the broader scale, going forward would be impossible without drawing on tradition.
If the "nature of human thought" was "inexorable" then I can't see how it could be free. Perhaps you mean to say that merely the fact of movement is inexorable, or do you mean to say that the form it takes is inexorable?
I would not classify either Cage's or Ive's music as "conceptual" in the sense I was talking about. Cage, for example I take to have been exploring radical formal possibilities, in a way more analogous to minimalist art than conceptual art.
Because overcoming addiction means acknowledging the events that lead up to addiction, and the mental and emotional states that perpetuated and encouraged addiction. These mental states have built themselves up, and now, the way forward is...forward. The state before addiction can manifest itself to the addict as an ideal time, but this is a lie because that state was a state of ignorance. Addiction now has the positive quality of lending perspective. A post-addiction life, is, by definition, a life of richer meaning and content. So, take that analogy and apply it to the development of human thought (with all of it's "addictions": it's neuroses and obsessions).
Quoting John
Just to emphasize my point: they can't know it until they are free from addiction. The state of pre-addiction is not the same as the state of post-addiction. Apply that idea to human thought broadly to get a sense of what I mean.
Quoting John
I'm not saying otherwise; but if we take my analogy here, then "tradition" might be synonymous with "pre-addiction". I realize the analogies are getting a bit hairy.
Quoting John
If the nature of human thought was not inexorable, then what would freedom exactly mean in this context? I don't mean to move the goalposts, but the problem is that if we take this idea of "freedom" to it's logical extreme, it turns into a nihilistic nothingness. Freedom becomes meaninglessness. Freedom has to exist within Meaning. How does freedom "obtain", as they say around these parts? I see a demarcation between a primordial concept of freedom that isn't bound by time and experience (Berdyaev/Tillich/The Tao/probably others), versus a concept of freedom that exists only within experience and time. Freedom only within time and experience is by definition limited, and then we can make the argument that it isn't freedom at all. So, where does freedom obtain?
So, for instance, when I say human thought is inexorable, I'm constraining it within it's proper bounds: time and experience. Human thought doesn't reach beyond these. But does this mean human thought is "not free"? No. If freedom is a state that exists outside of these bounds, then freedom is a primordial metaphysical state upon which concepts like the development of human thought are predicated. So freedom is the genesis of human thought, within this conception.
Ok, but at least for 4:33...it's a purely conceptual piece, right? It does explore form as you say, but ultimately the idea is "Listen to what you hear. Is what you hear music?" That's conceptual.
The question is "is it art" or perhaps "how is it art"? Cage was chasing the pure experience of silence, if you remove the aesthetic from a work of art all that remains is the form of the work, the score, the three piece movement here the comprehension of the work is only available through thought. Cage's choice of work was based on his desire to recreate what he heard in the sensory deprivation tank he had tried.
Isn't minimalism a natural consequence of conceptual art,? If the aesthetic functions as ornament for the conceptual artist, then the less ornament the clearer the concept. I don't agree with taking this route, but it is certainly there.
I think art tries to be original (even when it cannot be good) its movement seems to be best described as dialectical and perhaps Conceptual Art arose from Art's :P need to be original, and not be associated with the past. Abstract Expressionism was the major art movement around the time of Cage's 4'33. I see Abstract Expressionism as magnificent aesthetic overload in which the aesthetic uses emotive force to overpower the conceptual.
Conceptual Art's reaction is very unemotional, indifferent to emotion. I think that Conceptual Arts ability to disrupt (as when Warhol's Brillo Boxes hit Danto over the head) makes itself art by its ability to disrupt the way it does. Perhaps the dignity in all art lies in its ability to disrupt and change or challenge the way we experience life.
Quoting Noble Dust
Sure, but isn't that precisely hearkening back to the time before addiction in order to see how one came to take the wrong path? Isn't a return to health a return to a pre-addiction state?
Quoting Noble Dust
I don't see it this way at all. I think the idea that when one comes through an addiction one is better for having been addicted than one would have been had one never been addicted is based on false reasoning. Equally one cannot say that one is better for never having been addicted.
The point as i see it is that addiction is, like many, or probably most, other adult human states, a loss of innocence; it is a wrong-turning away from, a denial of, innocence. Of course, innocence has to be gone beyond, but ideally not by denying it and losing it.
I think this is the meaning of Christ's: “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".
We must turn and regain something that has been lost. This is where I agree with Wayfarer: something has been lost in modernity; where I disagree with him is as to the reason for this loss. Something has been lost in modernity, but it is more lost in some manifestations than in others. Conceptual art, as I see it, eschews innocence in the form of beauty, and walks the same perilous tightrope across the vacuity of mere fashion and novelty as Postmodernity does..
Quoting Noble Dust
I'm not sure what you mean here; by "logical extreme" are you thinking of a state where there were no constraints at all; no physical constraints like gravity, or solidity or physical weakness, and so on, or something else? Perhaps you are thinking of spiritual constraints, ethical constraints? There is no freedom without constraint, I would say, so any kind of a "logical extreme" along these kinds of lines could not be freedom at all. Perhaps it is these constraints that you are thinking of as "Meaning". If so, then I agree. Physical constraints constitute the meaning of the physical world, emotional constraints of the emotional, ethical of the ethical and spiritual of the spiritual, and so on.
Quoting Noble Dust
OK, it was the word "inexorable" which apparently threw me off the track. Of course, I agree that human thought, the human spirit, is constrained by time and experience (and all that goes with that: the social, cultural and historical), but, as I said before I don't think it is exhaustively determined by time and experience, which is what I thought you wanted to say by calling it "inexorable".
Perhaps you're right if Cage is indeed wanting to make a kind of meta-comment about music as conceptual art wants to about art, and postmodernity wants to about modernity. Of course I am not saying that all these kinds of "critical" moments are not necessary moments, but they quickly become vacuous cul de sacs when they "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
Listening to the Portsmouth Sinfonia is not so easy ;-)
Not mentally or emotionally, or spiritually. That's the analogy I'm trying to make; human thought (in how it's inherited through culture; how people in general perceive the world) is constantly changing because of the human condition (which is addiction in the analogy, weirdly. Not the most accurate analogy).
Quoting John
But what about suffering in general? The gospel itself actually communicates what I'm trying to communicate: Christ had to suffer and die in order to bring about salvation. Regardless of anyone's belief or lack thereof in the actual gospel, to me that concept is still very robust. Not least of which because it assigns meaning to suffering; it alleviates the meaninglessness we often feel within suffering. I think there's an esoteric truth in there; esoteric because it remains ungrasped by so many people. The argument of "if God exists and is benevelent, then why does he allow suffering?" still remains very common. But you can look at the gospel as a mythical narrative that communicates that esoteric truth about our experience of suffering.
Quoting John
I take that concept to be the fulfillment of the concept of necessary suffering that I'm outlining. To become like a child again means a childlike joy, wonder, and trust (towards the divine) without the tantrums, ignorance about the world, naiveté and selfishness of a child. It's the difference between childlike and childish.
Quoting John
That's what I mean.
Quoting John
No, I don't mean exhaustively determined by time and experience. I mean inexorable in a much more positive way. It's hard to frame the idea well because the formal concept of determinism gets in the way; what I mean almost plays by different rules. I think the genesis of human thought has a oneness to it; the idea of "everything in it's right place". This is what it is: human thought needs to grow to maturity. The structure of human thought thus far throughout history has never been such that any teleological goal of the human spirit could actually be realized. So I'm not talking about determinism in how thought unfolds over history, but I am saying there's an inexorable path which moves by it's own logic. It's not possible for thought to have gone a different way that avoided post-modernism, or conceptual art, or whatever. Or if a different path was possible (because of different individual decisions being made differently; Hitler becoming a successful artist instead of a failed one and having an art career, for instance), then the same principles would eventually be laid out, just in a different way or a different historical context; sooner or later, or whenever. That's because the human condition remains a constant. The human condition is what bears out how thought changes, and the particulars, the concepts and the beliefs, will all inexorably be born out in history. That's how I view it.
Edit: so the different eras of human thought are all gradations of a maturing process within thought. Once a certain tipping point is reached, it's possible that the actual nature of the human condition could change.
More or less, but my interpretation is that the experience of the piece should alert you to what you're not generally conscious of. Our brains automatically filter out sounds that they deem unimportant; otherwise we'd be flooded with unnecessary auditory information. So the piece is meditative; instead of focusing on musical notes, you focus on ambient sounds around you; the audience rustling, a leaky drainpipe, your own heartbeat...of course, the problem is that the piece was/is so "meta", that it's hard to get past the novelty in order to experience Cage's goal for the piece in a direct way. So this is why 4:33 is conceptual: the value of the piece exists solely in the concept because the concept is so self-conscious that it prevents a direct, immediate experience (an aesthetic experience). It has an aesthetic goal, but the aesthetic is only achieved through apprehension of the concept, not through direct experience. The aesthetic is the idea, as I think you alluded to at some point.
Quoting Cavacava
I'm pretty sure early minimalism in the art world was concurrent with conceptual art, so I don't know. In classical music, minimalism was a consequence of what I would consider early conceptual music: 12 tone music, basically. That's just from memory though, I might be hazy on that.
Quoting Cavacava
I think agree, and I would say this is similar to the argument I've made about the "spiritual drive" behind art remaining a constant, which I think is how and I got into the discussion we're having.
Quoting Cavacava
Agreed. This is ultimately why I have mixed feelings about Conceptual Art. I used to hate it, until I researched it and experienced some of it. Now I have a feel for it's place in history and whatnot, and there's some pieces that I appreciate, but I'll always love symbolist harmonies more than anything else. I need emotional content in art! But I think it will come back, and it already is in some places. It's surely remained a constant in the world of popular art.
I'm not saying it would be a return to a specific past state, but a return to a state of health if you like. Think of having the flu. After you get over it you return to the state (health) you were in before you caught it, but you don't return to a previous version of yourself. That's why I said earlier that i don't have any idea of regression in mind here.
Quoting Noble Dust
But would that not be an example of useful or even necessary suffering? There may be certain kinds of suffering in our spiritual lives that are necessary if we are to achieve humility, for example. But, I don't think that addiction, per se, is necessary to go through. It might be inevitable for some people, though, and it may lead to humility, and so not end up being an experience without value. Was it inevitable that humanity went through the phase of conceptual art? Perhaps, but I tend to think that in the unthinkable complexity of history there are many contingencies that operate like the proverbial butterfly's wings that caused the hurricane. So, I don't tend to think that the precise unfolding of the future is inevitable at all, not all pre-laid out.
Quoting Noble Dust
I was really trying to emphasize the feeling for the eternal that I think the innocence of the child consists in. So, as you say : "a childlike joy, wonder, and trust (towards the divine)". I find this in the great art, music and literature of the past, but increasingly less in (much of but by no means all) modern work, and the apotheosis of this absence is reached in conceptual art, as I see it, anyway.
Quoting Noble Dust
I agree with what you say here. It's seems inevitable that mistakes, even certain kinds of mistakes, will be made, because all significant possibilities tend to be played out on the broader stage. My point all along, though has been that it doesn't change the fact that those mistakes are mistakes, and they may be devoid of spirit; they may represent the spirit turning against itself, denying itself; and I don't believe that any specific movement of the spirit is inevitable. I also think there is always something of value to be gained form any movement, even if that value consists only in the wisdom gained by denying the movement and moving beyond it. I also think the moving beyond is always in a significant sense a return; perhaps something akin to Plato's idea of anamnesis; without memory we could have no compass.
We seem to agree about the important details anyway. :)
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I have always wondered where Art resides... in the subject, the object, in both or perhaps in their relationship. Maybe this is the wrong question and 'art' is not something stored on a CD or hung on the wall, but rather, similar to reading a book, it's an active experience that we enter into with our imagination. We suspend reality and we become 'absorbed in' a reality created by an author.
Performances act out what the artist has conceived to enable an audience's imagination to understand the work and to hopefully to become 'absorbed in' it. It is a system similar to a language system where meanings are developed within the system. In conceptual art like 4' 33 the artist has set the stage, has established the context which is social, and has put in place a formal methodology from which its performance can become meaningful. The sounds are as you said
These sounds are 'natural', they are ego-less, simple ambient sounds, which are not ordered nor exactly chaotic since their aspect is limited by the stage, by its social context, by our own physicality. Cage wants the audience to meditate using these natural ambient sounds to be enable it to become present to its own awareness, a kind of purposeless purpose or unfocused focus. I think meaning in Cage's system is achieved by the experience of a clarity, similar to the affect of meditation, but here the clarity relates the experience of sounds in silence.
His record label must hold the copyright. Frank Zappa did a cover of it and paid royalties, and Classical Graffiti, did a cover, called it 'A One Minute Silence' but they did not pay to use it and they were sued by the record label. The Classical Graffiti said that you can't copyright silence but parties settled out of court, and the settlement was rumored at $100,000.
With this all being within the analogy of addiction, I think it's probably run it's course.
Quoting John
Based on the ideas I outlined, I think so. But I don't think that the specific outline of actual history is important; it could have happened 400 years ago, or 400 years from now. But the same princples would/will have been born out. The art would have been different; even the (vague semblance of any) aesthetic may have been different. But the underlying principle (generated by the human condition) would have been the same.
Quoting John
Can you elaborate? I see you did a little bit, but I'd like to hear the in-between points of your argument about that; you seem to jump from childlike innocence to great art here.
Quoting John
Modern conceptual art is certainly not childlike; it's certainly the most egregiously adult art that history has seen. But as i mentioned earlier, I see it more as "pubescent" art. No mature adult is as self-conscious as conceptual art is self-conscious. What would true, purely "adult" art be? What would that mean? (I mean art that supersedes the "pubescent" conceptual art that I'm describing).
Quoting John
Well, I do think we're in disagreement here. We just seem to need to talk about it differently. Mistakes are indeed mistakes, which has not been a focus of my argument. But, I think that if those mistakes are devoid of spirit, then that's an apophatic contribution to the development of spirit. This is what I think is lacking in so much popular discourse, and even philosophical discourse at large, and on this forum. Negative moments in history can indeed be apophatic; they can point to what needs to come into being; they can point to the elements of the divine that we so sorely lack. And, most importantly, without those apophatic experiences, we wouldn't understand the human condition in the way we do, and continue to discover. That's "inexorable" to me; or if you prefer a less weird word, it's inevitable, in the best possible way. It's necessary, in the way that the loving but firm discipline of a child by a parent is necessary.
So, when you say "I don't believe any specific movement of the spirit is inevitable", I would counter that with your further statement that "there is always something of value to be gained from any movement". Inevitability, again, is not determinism. Indeed, both words fall short; the latter more so than the former. To crudely wrench this discussion from it's philosophical depths, it really just comes down to Murphy's Law. Anything that can happen within the confines of the human condition will happen. That's really the crux of my argument. It's the crux because I think it's significant. I think the human condition hinges on this "bearing out" of it's own self; it's own inner spiritual content. Salvation, from a Christian perspective, or union with Brahman (I just finished an excerpt of the Upanishads), or what have you, is something that needs come about only once all aspects of the human condition have been actualized.
I like paradoxes, but I fail to see how "the moving beyond is always in a significant sense a return". Probably because I'm very focused on our experience of the forward-moving motion of time. I have little of my own time to give to hypothetical states of history, or even worse, the thought-experiments of the analytics; the p-zombies and all their ilk. I have no time to even try to come with arguments as to why these hypotheticals are so useless. Time moves on as these philosophers stroke their....
Quoting John
Despite some of what I said above, yes, I agree!
As I mentioned earlier, I think art exists within 3 stages: the artist, the middle-man and the audience. All of those elements have to come together for art to exist in the way that we know it on a common basis.
However, at the risk of sounding pretentious, I think the main "seed" of art exists within the artist's experience of what they create, and nowhere else. The husk of art, then, is the rest: the middle-man and the audience. But the artist knows the art best. However, what prevents the artist from being allowed to be an asshole about this, is that the artist is only the vessel through which art comes into the world. I personally think this process is a divine process. The irony, though, is that because it's a divine process is exactly why there's no room for the artist's ego. The art is divine: that means the artist can't take full credit. The artist has to defer to the divine in the exact same way that the art dealer has to defer to the artist (not that they actually do), or, more realistically, in the way that the producer or the band members have to defer to the solo musical artist. Or how actors always defer to directors when they find themselves heaped with praise. At the last analysis, the artist herself, the one who finds all the praise being heaped on them, has to defer to the divine inspiration. Otherwise they set themselves up as a self-made god. Which we've seen born out countless times, Kanye being the cream of this arid crop.
Quoting Cavacava
After my rambling paragraph there, I agree.
Quoting Cavacava
Right, I believe Cage had Eastern influences.
I agree with this because i do think all possibilities are explored and played out in human life; or at least in our 'dialectical' 'linear history'-focused western culture.
Quoting Noble Dust
All I am saying is that I think an ability to re-enter the state of childlike innocence is necessary, but I am not saying sufficient, for artistic (and spiritual) greatness.
Quoting Noble Dust
I don't see history as 'humanity's growth' being analogous to the growth of an individual through childhood, adolescence to adulthood.I don't believe in 'progress' for humanity as a whole as 'becoming ever better', but rather as a progression as in 'chord progression'.
Quoting Noble Dust
I think you may have meant to write "I do not think we're in disagreement here", but I'm not sure. I agree that it is possible that the culture as a whole may learn form mistakes, but it's just as possible that what has been learned will be forgotten and the same kind of mistakes repeated again at another time. I am just not convinced there is any telos to history; or that there is any inevitability in its unfolding, or that we are somehow in a 'higher place' spiritually and creatively speaking than the ancients or the medievals or even the so-called 'primitives'. I think this is the beguiling myth of science. History is more like extemporised music; it can go anywhere, end with a whimper instead of a bang, and then come roaring back; it is more like play, than programme.
I kind of get your usage of "apophatic" in this context, but I'm not sure it is really appropriate. For sure learning form a mistake is learning that this is not the way, that "not this"; but the "neti, neti" of Advaita is an all-encomapssing 'not this'. It is 'not anything' in a way similar to the God of apophatic theology.
Quoting Noble Dust
A return to the spirit which is always there even if obscured.
Members...? Membranes...? Forebrains...? Foreskins...? >:O
Agreed.
Quoting John
Interesting thought. My addendum would be that not all adults grow up to be mature people (which is to say that they don't really "grow up", all though that's a metaphor, and it also has positive connotations). The idea of humanity's growth mirroring the growth of a person is just an intuition I've had for a few years that seems to work well for situating ideas about how thought develops in history. I can't really defend the metaphor other than that. By using it I'm not suggesting any coming Utopia or something (indeed, people are mortal; they die). The way I see the metaphor working is actually fairly neutral if you take into consideration our discussion about becoming like a child. Using the metaphor doesn't actually make any statements about which states of development (moments in history) might be better or worse. For instance, each stage of a person's growth (infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc) are all necessary for the growth of the person; one isn't more important than the other. On top of that, I think we live with the fallacious assumption that adulthood is somehow the "goal".
Within a more mystical view of history, it's interesting to take the metaphor of an individual, and indeed take it to it's conclusion; death of humanity could mean it's collective rebirth, assuming the possibility of an afterlife for the individual. In other words, the metaphor of the individual applied to history could apply all the way up until death, through to the possible afterlife. I like playing with those metaphors and imagining the possibilities, without necessarily laying down any definite philosophy about it. I like to think that way because it helps me move my brain around to different angles of view that I don't usually take.
Quoting John
I did; I thought I edited but it looks like I edited it to say the same incorrect thing lol.
Quoting John
Yes, I agree; I neglected this point thus far.
Quoting John
I think this is our point of departure :P I don't have a strong argument for a telos (or I haven't taken the required time and thought/writing to articulate it); I just have an intuition about it. Maybe that intuition is wrong; who knows. I recently read through an excerpt of the Upanishads, and I'm working through the Gita right now. Aside from some great positives, I still get left cold by the cyclical cosmos of that philosophy; obviously Moksha is the telos, but I think I'm still too wrapped up in a Christian viewpoint to be able to shake the idea of a Messianic telos of some kind. I'm still working through it. I acknowledge that it could just be my upbringing.
Quoting John
Well, I don't think that either, per se. It's hard to explain, mainly because I need to do more reading and writing about these ideas; I'm just not educated enough. My problem is I can hold both ideas in my mind at the same time; I do think we've lost something to history; a more immediate experience of the divine; the holy (set apart [the meat offering set apart for the god]), the immanent experience. But I think that for what's lost, something else is gained. self-consciousness is a curse, but also a tool we can use. As is technology. Science. etc. As human thought develops, we lose clarity, but we develop nuance and accuracy. But then we lose accuracy to confusion, and then we need to gain more clarity...
Quoting John
I think I can agree with that.
Quoting John
I tend to use ideas as metaphors; I was more trying to refer to the fact that there's a similarity between the ideas. I just like using words in new contexts, which is more the songwriter in me, which tends to get a lot of disdain from the philosopher crowd around these parts... ;)
Quoting John
I guess I'm on board with that, but I don't think it's in disagreement with my concept of forward motion that I've mentioned in this discussion. A return to the spirit is the return, but there's a part of the process that always moves forward.
Actually I don't think we are that far apart on this. When I say I don't think there is a telos; what I mean is that I don't think even God knows precisely how everything will 'work out' or 'end up', and I'm not too sure about the idea of any absolute culmination or end of history. (Although, it does seem inevitable, however you look at it, even from a purely materialistic perspective that human life as a whole will eventually come to an end.
I don't reject the idea of the 'hand of God' at work in human life, and it could certainly be said that. from our point of view, that is a certain kind of telos. I like to think of it as something beyond our powers of comprehension, because that precludes any kind of simple-minded fundamentalism. I agree with you in rejecting the notion of an infinite amount of time, an infinite series of moments stretching back into the past; I can't make any sense at all out of the Buddhist idea that the world has existed for an infinite duration since beginingless time. I like Plato's: " time is the moving image of eternity". The world is the temporal expression of the timeless; we are not supposed to be able to fully comprehend that using rational thought. If we have always existed it is not in the temporal sense, but in the eternal sense.
Thinking about it this way, The context in which the work is made. The cultural narratives that are available to the artist become merged in the content of the work of art, even if they are rejected in the work itself. The cultural imperatives drive the artist to work, merge in its content, I think they are part of the basis for artistic inspiration. (the other part being the 'soul' of the work itself, which I mentioned but was not discussed and which I think to some extent exists in medium/the matter of the work and which determines the work). Perhaps what you call "artist" already includes this aspect.
Art that changes us, changes our narratives, that thrust itself at us, opening new ideas and ways of viewing life, that's the art I am concerned about. But I don't think the artist "knows the art best". It takes takes all elements to comprise a work of art: the artist, the middle men/art world, the audience and the context or social values in existence when the work is made.
The inspiration of the artist mitigates against her full understanding of her work, you think inspiration it is a "divine process", where the artist is an instrument of her inspiration. I agree that the artist is an instrument of her inspiration but I believe this is a human process, where her source & drive of inspiration is derived from herself, the art world, the matter (the medium itself), and the audience.