Philosophical Quotes About Art

Quoting Noble Dust

...The world is created not by God only, but also by man. Creation is a divine-human work. And the crowning point of world creation is the end of this world."... - The Beginning And The End Ch. 7, Nikolai Berdyaev

I like this. Here are some more:

"Art is high quality endeavor" - Robert Pirsig. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I've gone back and forth, but I don't think I agree with this.

And now for something completely different - I hope you aren't offended -

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I hate, and I don't hate that." Charles Montgomery Burns

[i]Yeah a Truckload of Art
Is burning near the highway
Precious objects are scattered
All over the ground
And it's a terrible sight
If a person were to see it
But there weren't nobody around[/i]

Terry Allen Truckload of Art Here's a YouTube version by the band Cracker:



I'll see if I can think of some more.

Reply to Noble Dust

I don't think "that nature in which the forces of enmity, ruin and chaos are at work" works, nature is indifferent to enmity, ruin or chaos, these are very human characterizations.

He goes on to state:

From sensations and impressions all unaware of meaning, knowledge is derived, from elemental subconscious instincts and attractions the beauty of a moral form takes shape, out of an ugly world beauty is captured. In all this there is something miraculous from the point of view of the world, this given empirical world.

The phenomenal world appears (to me) to be structured by rules. I doubt we can experience chaos, we are by who we are, the way we are, where are to forced to structure on what we experience in order to be able to find it meaningful at all.

And creative power has an eschatological element in it. It is an end of this world and a beginning of the new world. The world is created not by God only, but also by man. Creation is a divine-human work. And the crowning point of world creation is the end of this world. The world must be turned into an image of beauty, it must be dissolved in creative ecstasy.

This sounds like the romanticism that @apokrisis harps on about :razz: I think the inspiration that some artists are able to reach is based on their ability to tap into in the consciousness of the societies that nurtured them where they work. Their ability to create truth that juts out of the matter of their creation, which opens our eyes when we view, hear or touch it, is inspired. There is a destructive element essential to art, like the mythological Phoenix, it is only out of the selective destruction of the old that the new is possible.

Quoting T Clark

"Art is high quality endeavor" - Robert Pirsig. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I've gone back and forth, but I don't think I agree with this.

Neither do I. It’s too broad. Although after fenanglng over how to define art on this forum for the past year, I’m kind of done trying to define it, for now. That’s why I started this thread, to just gather philosophical ideas about art. And that’s also why I like how Berdyaev handles it; descriptively and intuitively, and informed by his worldview.

Quoting T Clark

- I hope you aren't offended -

Not at all, I have strong, opinionated negative views on certain art as well. That said, I think all artistic expression is connected, and “necessary”, in that sense. Nothing can be thrown out, at least from a perspective of gaining a philosophical view of art situated in culture.

Quoting T Clark

Yeah a Truckload of Art
Is burning near the highway
Precious objects are scattered
All over the ground
And it's a terrible sight
If a person were to see it
But there weren't nobody around

I love this. Who wrote it?

Quoting Cavacava

I don't think "that nature in which the forces of enmity, ruin and chaos are at work" works, nature is indifferent to enmity, ruin or chaos, these are very human characterizations.

True. I took the spirit of the idea to be the descriptions that follow what you quoted.

Quoting Cavacava

The phenomenal world appears (to me) to be structured by rules. I doubt we can experience chaos, we are by who we are, the way we are, where are to forced to structure on what we experience in order to be able to find it meaningful at all.

Can you expand? I’m not sure I know what you mean, or agree, if I do get it.

Quoting Cavacava

I think the inspiration that some artists are able to reach is based on their ability to tap into in the consciousness of the societies that nurtured them where they work.

So creative inspiration comes from/is contained within culture? How? What are the indications that this is so?

Reply to Noble Dust I'm not sure if this is the sort of response you were going for, but...

[i]"I watched the sea last Sunday as well. Everything was dark grey, but on the horizon the day was beginning to break. It was still very early and yet a skylark was already singing. And the nightingales in the gardens by the sea. In the distance, the light of the lighthouse, the guard-ship, &c.

That same night I looked out of the window of my room at the roofs of the houses you can see from there, and at the tops of the elms, dark against the night sky. Above the roofs, a single star, but a beautiful, big, friendly one. And I thought of us all and I thought of my own years gone by and of our home, and these words and this sentiment sprang to my mind, 'Keep me from being a son who brings shame, give me Thy blessing, not because I deserve it but for my Mother's sake. Thou art Love, cover all things. without Thy constant blessing we shall succeed in nothing."[/i] Vincent van Gogh.

The above excerpt is from Vincent's letters, written to his brother. If you've not heard of them or read them, I suggest you do. Frankly, van Gogh is one of my favorite writers and thinkers, even though he is obviously most known for his paintings.

Reply to Buxtebuddha

Great quote. :up: I’m looking for philophical positions on art to potentially discuss, but these sorts of quotes also have a home here as well. Good for contemplation.

Reply to Noble Dust

The phenomenal world appears (to me) to be structured by rules. I doubt we can experience chaos, we are by who we are, the way we are, where are to forced to structure on what we experience in order to be able to find it meaningful at all.
— Cavacava

Can you expand? I’m not sure I know what you mean, or agree, if I do get it.

Our experience of the world is coherent, we do not experience a buzzing mass of sense data, with little effort on our part we fit a myriad of impressions into a coherent experience. The way it is fit together suggest to me that what is manifest is structured. It is not a chaotic mass of impressions, one thing happens after another, we inductively experience and learn from cause and effect.

There is no chaos of words or sounds, there are words and there are sounds, but these are rarely chaotic. Is the sound of a robin chaotic? Language is built on grammar.

So creative inspiration comes from/is contained within culture? How? What are the indications that this is so?

Think of how the Christianity of the Renaissance affected what Michelangelo and others did and achieved in their works, their sublime inspirations came from their view of man at the time, which was based on the role the church played in their society. I think this is an ongoing process though out history.

Quoting Cavacava

Our experience of the world is coherent, we do not experience a buzzing mass of sense data, with little effort on our part we fit a myriad of impressions into a coherent experience. The way it is fit together suggest to me that what is manifest is structured. It is not a chaotic mass of impressions, one thing happens after another, we inductively experience and learn from cause and effect.

I think Berdyaev is saying our experience is coherent, but the stuff that makes up experience doesn’t have content till we experience it, and the creative act, as an experience, brings content out of the stuff of experience. That’s my interpretation.

Quoting Cavacava

There is no chaos of words or sounds, there are words and there are sounds, but these are rarely chaotic. Is the sound of a robin chaotic? Language is built on grammar.

The idea is that words, et al, bring order from chaos.

Quoting Cavacava

Think of how the Christianity of the Renaissance affected what Michelangelo and others did and achieved in their works, their sublime inspirations came from their view of man at the time, which was based on the role the church played in their society. I think this is an ongoing process though out history.

I agree, but I don’t see how this fact nessesitates that this is the only factor of how creativity is generated within the individual’s creative process.

Quoting Noble Dust

The world must be turned into an image of beauty,

What do you all think of this? This idea and it’s brashness struck me the most, out of the quote.

Reply to Noble Dust

The point about inspiration since I think it is critical. I too am not sure that society is the sole factor, which is why I qualified my initial statement, but I suspect that inspiration cannot transcend its time. Sure flights of the imagination maybe; and I am, as I have said not totally discounting that it is possible, but maybe you have an example?

Reply to Cavacava

I think inspiration transcends its time in the sens of Kairos entering Chronos; “The stars turn, and a time presents itself”, to quote Twin Peaks. The same moment of transcendence during meditation. An explanation that involves brain chemistry is fine, but not incompatible, and ultimately insufficient, I think. The only example is experience. I’ve experienced it, for one. So it’s a philosophy of experience, hence why it doesn’t get much credence around these parts (to be fair, you and I and some others are the only ones who seem interested in aesthetics in general. I wish there was a larger constituent of aesthetics people around).

Quoting Noble Dust

Neither do I. It’s too broad. Although after fenanglng over how to define art on this forum for the past year, I’m kind of done trying to define it, for now. That’s why I started this thread, to just gather philosophical ideas about art. And that’s also why I like how Berdyaev handles it; descriptively and intuitively, and informed by his worldview.

Since I wrote that, I've been rethinking it and I may have swung back the other way - maybe I do agree with Pirsig. If I remember correctly, it's been more than 20 years, the context of the quote was that he needed a repair to some sheet metal on his motorcycle as he was driving cross-country. Apparently welding sheet metal can be difficult. He went to a welder in a small town along the way. The welder fixed his problem quickly and cleanly and, what impressed Pirsig, beautifully. No self-consciousness. Just good work from the heart.

What bothered me about that is the thought that art should be communicative. There should be some education, transmission of vision and values from the artist to the viewer. Then I thought - what about houses? Are architects artists but carpenters not? Do tradesmen have vision? Do you have to have vision, self-awareness to be an artist? Am I mixing up admiration for vision with admiration for competence?

Then I thought - maybe it doesn't have to be communicative, maybe just expressive is enough. Something which expresses important aspects of someone's identity. But then, does it have to be good? Well, beautifully expressed? So that's where I am now.

Quoting Noble Dust

I love this. Who wrote it?

A guy named Terry Allen. I know nothing about him except this song. Have you considered taking up country music?

On that note, I'll put in a plug for WHRB in Cambridge MA. Saturday mornings. Hillbilly at Harvard. Everything I think a country music program should be except they won't play Lyle Lovett or Robert Earl Keen. It's been on since 1948 and it's where I came to love country. Available on the web.

Quoting T Clark

Apparently welding sheet metal can be difficult. He went to a welder in a small town along the way. The welder fixed his problem quickly and cleanly and, what impressed Pirsig, beautifully. No self-consciousness. Just good work from the heart.

That sounds like skilled, honest labor to me. Something rare indeed. An honest mechanic is worth...no, is priceless. But art? Why call that art? If you want to call that art, can't I call a painting a good example of fixing a busted engine? No, of course not; only if the painting represents that idea. what you see in a skilled mechanic isn't the same thing you see in Picasso's sculptures.. It's categorically different. But, what you might see is effortlessness. You see someone doing something seemingly without effort (rare on the forum, for instance, but @Sam26 comes to mind as a philosopher who has approached effortlessness, just as an example), and yet, you know that supreme effort was required to arrive at the point of effortlessness. Now, that principle exists all across the grand medium of human effort. But art is that moment where that effortlessness has no utilitarian meaning, but rather, only obtains meaning through a symbolical suggestion....art is sheer childlikeness. The grandest art is the art that reminds you of the days you spent digging in the mud with your brother in the springtime.

Quoting T Clark

A guy named Terry Allen. I know nothing about him except this song. Have you considered taking up country music?

No; it would be disingenuous :lol: Old School Country And Western is great, though.

Quoting T Clark

...The world is created not by God only, but also by man. Creation is a divine-human work. And the crowning point of world creation is the end of this world."... - The Beginning And The End Ch. 7, Nikolai Berdyaev
— Noble Dust

I like this. Here are some more:

Actually, I was curious, why do you like this? Does it have to do with being an engineer? I like it too, but that's because I'm a songwriter/composer/music maker. I don't know you as a theist; what do you like about this? I'm genuinely interested, and I didn't notice the potential interest until just now, as I was re-reading the thread. How do you interpret Berdyaev there, for instance?

I posted part of this in the Quote Cabinet the other day, but since you asked!:

"Art is the opening up of the universe to becoming-other ... [It] is the way that the universe most directly intensifies life, enervates organs, mobilizes forces. ... What philosophy can offer art is not a theory of art, an elaboration of its silent or undeveloped concepts, but what philosophy and art share in common — their rootedness in chaos, their capacity to ride the waves of a vibratory universe without direction or purpose, in short, their capacity to enlarge the universe by enabling its potential to be otherwise, to be framed through concepts and affects. They are among the most forceful ways in which culture generates a small space of chaos within chaos where chaos can be elaborated, felt, thought".

Elizabeth Grosz, Chaos, Territory, Art

Reply to StreetlightX

Thanks! I considered posting the initial Berdyaev quote in the quote cabinet, but then I visited that thread and noticed that the most recent post was from me, from about 20 days ago, and it was about Christian mysticism; and so, instead, I figured this would be a decent time to open a thread where we can share quotes specifically about art, aesthetics, and the philosophy of art. We can marvel at them, barf at them, question them, criticize them, etc.

(Sorry for the ensuing skiffing...is that what it's called these days? skilfing? Shiffing? I'm not that good at it, whatever it is)

Quoting StreetlightX

Art is the opening up of the universe to becoming-other

Yeah! But what other?

Quoting StreetlightX

[It] is the way that the universe most directly intensifies life, enervates organs, mobilizes forces.

Does the universe do that, or do people do that?

Quoting StreetlightX

What philosophy can offer art is not a theory of art, an elaboration of its silent or undeveloped concepts, but what philosophy and art share in common — their rootedness in chaos, their capacity to ride the waves of a vibratory universe without direction or purpose, in short, their capacity to enlarge the universe by enabling its potential to be otherwise, to be framed through concepts and affects.

Saying philosophy can, at it's best, only offer art what philosophy and art have in common sounds pretty disingenuous to me. It sounds like a mild concession to the creative act to "have it's way"; essentially the weird kid in the corner who somehow always get's the A's. Now, are philosophy and art rooted in "chaos"? It sounds pretty!; maybe. Who knows? You can't know, when you're dealing with chaos...

Now, if both philosophy and art have an ability to "enlarge the universe by enabling its potential to be otherwise, to be framed through concepts and affects", then what exactly is this concept framed against?

Also, because aesthetics is such an underrepresented branch on the forum (and historically, this also seems to be true, philosophically), I wanted to extend the invitation to @Baden @?????????????, @Bitter Crank, @Janus, @Terrapin Station, and anyone else interested in aesthetics to jump in. If this counts as boosting my own thread, then... :100:

Reply to StreetlightX

Also, what do you think about Grosz's concept of chaos, against Berdyaev's, found in my OP quote?

Reply to Noble Dust Heh, the quote caps off a chapter where alot of it is explained - hence why it seems so condensed - but the gist of it is setting itself against representational accounts of art in which art is said to represent or redouble the world as if in just another form. The argument is that art is the world itself becoming-other, elaborating and extending itself: other than what is. Think of it as a way of short-circuiting and undermining, in the realm of aesthetics, the tired distinction between subject and object, with world-as-object on the one hand and artpiece-as-subject on the other. Grosz is also attempting to attend to what she sometimes calls the 'inhuman' in art, art in the animal world, or in the life-world more broadly:

"Art enables matter to become expressive, to not just satisfy but also to intensify—to resonate and become more than itself. This is not to say that art is without concepts; simply that concepts are by-products or effects rather than the very material of art. Art is the regulation and organization of its materials—paint, canvas, concrete, steel, marble, words, sounds, bodily movements, indeed any materials — according to self-imposed constraints, the creation of forms through which these materials come to generate and intensify sensation and thus directly impact living bodies, organs, nervous systems.

...There is much "art" in the natural world, from the moment there is sexual selection, from the moment there are two sexes that attract each other's interest and taste through visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory sensations. The haunting beauty of birdsong, the provocative performance of erotic display in primates, the attraction of insects to the perfume of plants are all in excess of mere survival, which Darwin understands in terms of natural selection: these forms of sexual selection, sexual attraction, affirm the excessiveness of the body and the natural order, their capacity to bring out in each other what surprises, what is of no use but nevertheless attracts and appeals. Each affirms an overabundance of resources beyond the need for mere survival, which is to say, to the capacity of both matter and life to exchange with each other, to enter into becomings that transform each". (Chaos, Territory, Art)

Don't have much to say about Berdyaev other than that the quote sounds much too hylomorphic, much too Platonic - art arriving from on high to transform formless, base matter - for my liking.

Art without Craft is like Sex without Love.

Quoting Noble Dust

That sounds like skilled, honest labor to me. Something rare indeed. An honest mechanic is worth...no, is priceless. But art? Why call that art? If you want to call that art, can't I call a painting a good example of fixing a busted engine? No, of course not; only if the painting represents that idea.

A painting could be considered an example of skilled, honest labor, although some art doesn't seem to care much about skill - technique. Is that a related question - does good art require technical skill?

Quoting Noble Dust

No, of course not; only if the painting represents that idea. what you see in a skilled mechanic isn't the same thing you see in Picasso's sculptures.

In what way is Picasso different from a mechanic? That's the question Pirsig raises for me.

Quoting Noble Dust

But, what you might see is effortlessness. You see someone doing something seemingly without effort (rare on the forum, for instance, but Sam26 comes to mind as a philosopher who has approached effortlessness, just as an example), and yet, you know that supreme effort was required to arrive at the point of effortlessness.

Effortlessness in that if flows directly from the heart onto the canvas? Effortless technical skill?

Quoting Noble Dust

But art is that moment where that effortlessness has no utilitarian meaning, but rather, only obtains meaning through a symbolical suggestion....art is sheer childlikeness.

I'm not sure about the whole "no utilitarian meaning," thing. Are self-expression and communication utilitarian? Is displaying the majesty of God utilitarian?

Quoting Noble Dust

Actually, I was curious, why do you like this? Does it have to do with being an engineer?

I like it because it says the world is created not by God only, but also by man, which is the deepest foundation of my understanding of the world.

Quoting charleton

Art without Craft is like Sex without Love.

I guess that makes some kind of sense. I think it makes more sense the other way around:

Craft without Art is like Sex without Love.

Quoting Janus

Craft without Art is like Sex without Love.

1) Craft without sex is like love without art. 2) Art without love is like sex without craft. 3) Sex without craft is like love without sex.

I go with 2, although I kind of like 3 also.

Reply to T Clark

I don't think 2 is right because the "craft" of sex, as I see it, is not love. Porn stars could be the greatest craftspeople of sex, but no need for love there. I would say instead that love provides the art of sex.

So: Craft without Love is like Sex without Art (which is the most direct converse of my original rearrangement of terms).

3 (eponymously) only mentions three of the four elements, so I can't go with that permutation.

Quoting Janus

I don't think 2 is right because the "craft" of sex, as I see it, is not love. Porn stars could be the greatest craftspeople of sex, but no need for love there. I would say instead that love provides the art of sex.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about all of this, but then I found I believed what I had written.

Reply to T Clark

Even after my criticism? :joke:

Quoting T Clark

I go with 2, although I kind of like 3 also.

Quoting Janus

Craft without Art is like Sex without Love.

HEADSLAP!

It's a comment of modern artists who don't get their hands dirty.

Quoting Janus

Craft without Love is like Sex without Art

no it is not.

Reply to charleton

Scintillating arguments Charlie! :rofl:

Reply to Janus There is no argument necessary to counter crapology.

Quoting charleton

HEADSLAP!

If you slap your head too many times you might addle your thoughts. Oh..wait...

Reply to Janus There is no argument necessary to counter crapology.

Reply to charleton

What you really mean is that you think it is crap, but you can't find any argument to support your thought.

Reply to Janus Experience as an artist, and as a horny fucker and lover leads me to art without craft is like sex without love.
Your clumsy attempts to paraphrase me, either are off topic, or confused.

Reply to charleton

Can you understand that your experience and the conclusions it might lead to are meaningless to others without explanation?
And I wasn't attempting to paraphrase you. Paraphrasing is saying the same thing in different words; I was saying a different thing using the same words.

Quoting StreetlightX

The haunting beauty of birdsong, the provocative performance of erotic display in primates, the attraction of insects to the perfume of plants are all in excess of mere survival, which Darwin understands in terms of natural selection: these forms of sexual selection, sexual attraction, affirm the excessiveness of the body and the natural order, their capacity to bring out in each other what surprises, what is of no use but nevertheless attracts and appeals. Each affirms an overabundance of resources beyond the need for mere survival, which is to say, to the capacity of both matter and life to exchange with each other, to enter into becomings that transform each". (Chaos, Territory, Art)

This is clearly a poor anthropomorphization; the only thing artistic about those things is our perception of the beauty of those things. Does a bird hear a sexual mating call as beautiful? There's no answer because that question is meaningless. The bird hear's the call, and there is a sexual response. That's all we know. It's meaningless to even ask the question whether the bird perceives the call as beautiful, and therefore, artistic. Hence the poor anthropomorphization.

Quoting T Clark

A painting could be considered an example of skilled, honest labor, although some art doesn't seem to care much about skill - technique. Is that a related question - does good art require technical skill?

Labor to me means work that serves a specific purpose. So a painting doesn't fall into that category. The welder did the welding so the bike would run properly, allowing the biker to travel. A painter paints a painting for unclear reasons, and the potential reasons are endless.

Quoting T Clark

In what way is Picasso different from a mechanic? That's the question Pirsig raises for me.

See above.

Quoting T Clark

Effortlessness in that if flows directly from the heart onto the canvas? Effortless technical skill?

Yes and yes?

Quoting T Clark

I'm not sure about the whole "no utilitarian meaning," thing. Are self-expression and communication utilitarian? Is displaying the majesty of God utilitarian?

They aren't those things to the extent that I understand the term "utilitarian". Actually, I am a bit sick of that distinction. What I want to say is that art doesn't serve any specific purpose, or fill any "role" in culture. Art makes culture. It's like the backdrop upon which culture is draped; it creates the story of culture. I'm just spit-balling here; I always fall short when trying to describe this sort of thing.

Quoting T Clark

I like it because it says the world is created not by God only, but also by man, which is the deepest foundation of my understanding of the world.

:up:

Reply to charleton

What role does craft play in art, then? It's unclear what you mean, and the bold type didn't help.

Quoting Janus

Can you understand that your experience and the conclusions it might lead to are meaningless to others without explanation?

Doubtful, but valiant effort.

Reply to ?????????????

When has it?

Reply to Noble Dust To the contrary, the issue is not anthropomorphism but a vast underestimation of animals on your part. There is an answer to your question because there is ample evidence that birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics, and that this dicrimination is widespread and powerful enough to act as a mechanism of evolutionary selection unto it's own: sexual selection. Importantly, sexual selection operates on the basis on a genuine aesthetic choice, which means not only that animals are sensitive to beauty qua beauty, but that that sensitivity has had vast impacts on the very phylogenesis of animals. I quote from Richard Prum, an ornithologist who has written perhaps the best book I know on the subject, The Evolution of Beauty:

"Today, Darwin’s choice of aesthetic language can seem quaint, anthropomorphic, and possibly even embarrassingly silly. Clearly, Darwin did not have our contemporary fear of anthropomorphism. Indeed, he was engaged in breaking down the previously unquestioned barrier between humans and other forms of life. Darwin’s use of aesthetic language was not just a curious mannerism, or a quaint Victorian affectation, but an integral feature of his scientific argument about the nature of evolutionary process. Darwin used ordinary aesthetic language to make an extraordinary scientific claim: mate choices based on the subjective evaluations of animals drive the evolution of sexual ornaments in nature. By using the words beauty, taste, charm, appreciate, admire, and love, Darwin proposed that mating preferences evolved for displays that had no utilitarian value, other than the pleasure they evoked to the chooser." (Richard Prum, Beauty Happens).

Whoever the 'we' are that you invoke in your claim that 'that's all we know', it isn't the 'we' of biological science. It sounds a great deal more like an 'I'.

Quoting StreetlightX

there is ample evidence that birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics

Great; I'd love to see it.

Quoting StreetlightX

"Today, Darwin’s choice of aesthetic language can seem quaint, anthropomorphic, and possibly even embarrassingly silly. Clearly, Darwin did not have our contemporary fear of anthropomorphism. Indeed, he was engaged in breaking down the previously unquestioned barrier between humans and other forms of life. Darwin’s use of aesthetic language was not just a curious mannerism, or a quaint Victorian affectation, but an integral feature of his scientific argument about the nature of evolutionary process. Darwin used ordinary aesthetic language to make an extraordinary scientific claim: mate choices based on the subjective evaluations of animals drive the evolution of sexual ornaments in nature. By using the words beauty, taste, charm, appreciate, admire, and love, Darwin proposed that mating preferences evolved for displays that had no utilitarian value, other than the pleasure they evoked to the chooser." (Richard Prum, Beauty Happens).

So Darwin used aesthetic language, and thus, animals experience aesthetics? That's all I'm finding in that quote.

Quoting StreetlightX

Whoever the 'we' are that you invoke in your claim that 'that's all we know', it isn't the 'we' of biological science. It sounds a great deal more like an 'I'.

Indeed, your appeal to Prum and Darwin sound a great deal like "I" as well.

Yes, the appeal to actual real life scientists sounds like an "I". Uh-huh. I gave you citations - a link to an article even - feel free to educate yourself.

Reply to StreetlightX

That's such a poor response. What evidence did you give to site your statements that "birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics", and, again, where in the Prum quote is any actual evidence presented that suggests that animals experience aesthetics? Come on man, I know you're way smarter and well-read than me.

I cited a whole book! What more do you want?? How about Michael Ryan's A Taste for the Beautiful? That's two books.

Reply to StreetlightX

I want a discussion of ideas where you present your ideas about aesthetics, not citations of entire books. You seem incapable of even presenting your own unique aesthetic position. I can site entire books too! Have you read Berdyaev's The Meaning of The Creative Act?? Of course you haven't! Shame!

Reply to Noble Dust But these aren't my ideas about aesthetics. These are other people's ideas, supported by a bunch of evidence. I'm realying them to you. My gosh, if you want a third book, you can read Darwin's Descent of Man, where he lays out the theory of sexual selection. Or Grosz's own research, presented in the book the quote is from - or better yet in her Becoming Undone. Or you could do your own reading about sexual selection. It's like someone asking me to prove that natural selection is a thing. No, if you're unaware of it, then don't join the discussion, and certainly don't tell me I'm wrong. I'm not the one contesting Berdyaev on the basis of being entirely unfamiliar with Berdyaev.

Quoting StreetlightX

But these aren't my ideas about aesthetics. These are other people's ideas, supported by a bunch of evidence.

The problem is that you've provided quotes, but no quotes that actually depict that evidence. I would assume it would be easy for you to do so, but so far you apparently haven't bothered.

Furthermore, if you have no ideas about aesthetics of your own, your own unique take on what aesthetics is, within the context of philosophy, then I've certainly lost some amount of respect for you, despite your vast knowledge (as proved by your tome of a post in the currently reading section). You can read all day, and have nothing to say.

Quoting StreetlightX

It's like someone asking me to prove that natural selection is a thing.

Me asking you whether animals experience aesthetics is patently not the same as me asking you whether natural selection is a thing. You're grandstanding here; seeking emotional support for your emotional positions.

Reply to Noble Dust Most of what I think and say is not my own! Almost all of what I know in philosophy or elsewhere is what I've cobbled together from others, and I certainly don't have the hubris to even try and pass it off as my own. How could it be otherwise? I neither think it desirable nor admirable to vie for any kind of lofty solitude in a field as interesting and rich as philosophy. And you asking this in a thread about quotes from other people? Come on.

And my point is that sexual selection - which is a mechanism of evolution - provides evidence that animals experience aesthetics. And sexual selection is well studied, much discussed, well documented subject of study. If you want to argue about the invocation of sexual selection as evidence, then by all means. But other than showing you where you can do your own research, I'm simply not going to give you an evolutionary biology 102 lesson. At least not without a fee! Will also accept a nice dinner.

Quoting StreetlightX

Most of what I think is not my own! Almost all of what I know in philosophy or elsewhere is what I've cobbled together from others, and I certainly don't have the hubris to even try and pass it off as my own. I niether think it desireable nor admirable to vie for any kind of lofty 'ideas of my own' in a field as interesting and rich as philospohy, or even science. I'm a cobbler, nothing more.

Fascinating! We're the opposite. I wouldn't do my own intuition such a dis-service as to deny it it's natural function. Of course my aesthetics are informed by many other thinkers; but my aesthetics are uniquely my own. It's easy to throw around the term hubris; but it's harder to allow oneself the freedom of realizing the singularity of one's own intuition with regards to aesthetics. You're remaining in a cage if you can't allow this for yourself. The cult of specialities prevents the reality of generalities, and the reality of aesthetic intuition. It sounds like you're devoid of this ability. Indeed, you concede that most of what you think is not your own. Not most of what you know is not your own (which would be more accurate), but most of what you think is not your own. In other words, you don't think for yourself.

Quoting StreetlightX

And my point is that sexual selection - which is a mechanism of evolution - provides evidence that animals experience aesthetics. And sexual selection is well studied, much discussed, well documented subject of study. If you want to argue about the invocation of sexual selection as evidence, then by all means. But other than showing you where you can do your own research, I'm simply not going to give you a evolutionary biology 102 lesson. At least not with a fee!

All you have to do is provide a better quote than the one you provided which demonstrates that animals experience aesthetics. You're backtracking and making me look uneducated because you didn't provide a good quote.

Edited for blatant clarity, apologies. Was typing quickly.

Quoting StreetlightX

And you asking this in a thread about quotes from other people? Come on.

Yup, I asked for quotes on art for the sake of "contemplation and discussion". You apparently don't do well when your offered quotes get scrutinized with discussion.

Eh, I've always liked Neitzsche' quip that thinking is not something that anyone does but is that which befalls them. I have no claim to mastery over my own thoughts. It's certainly the oddest cage you might come across.

Quoting Noble Dust

All you have to do is provide a better quote than the one you provided which demonstrates that sexual selection is real. You're backtracking and making me look uneducated because you didn't provide a good quote.

I provided a quote from an article which I linked to. It's blue and everything. Did you read the article? I could copy and paste the article, but I don't think it would make for a great forum post.

Quoting StreetlightX

Eh, I've always liked Neitzsche' quip that thinking is not something that anyone does but is that which befalls them. I have no claim to mastery over my own thoughts. It's certainly the oddest cage you might come across.

It's a good axiom. It doesn't mean you and I can't have original thoughts. You're better than that; you have some interesting thoughts of your own inside you; you just need to let them out.

Quoting StreetlightX

I provided a quote from an article which I linked to. It's blue and everything. Did you read the article? I could copy and paste the article, but I don't think it would make for a great forum post.

I haven't read it yet; I'm happy to. The point is that 1) you provided a quote which didn't actually make your point, and 2) you then complained that I didn't read the article, etc. The remedy is to post a better quote next time, which I've said several times now.

Eh, enough with the pseudo-psychology. Anyway, I complained that you made an unsubstantiated claim, when all the established evidence shows otherwise. You asked for evidence, and I gave you citations. And the evidence is certainty more than can fit in a paragraph or two. Perhaps look up the evolution of feathers. Or how the Bower bird nest came to be. Or the how the club-winged manakin came to be. Or the evolution of duck sex. Duck sex is super interesting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/how-beauty-evolves/525741/

Quoting StreetlightX

Eh, enough with the pseudo-psychology.

Eh, what pseudo-pyschology?

Quoting StreetlightX

I complained that you made an unsubstantiated claim, when all the established evidence shows otherwise.

Where did you make this complaint? And the evidence you offered was insufficient, as I've said too many times now. We're going in circles now.

I think you two are talking past each other because you have different ideas on what constitutes an aesthetic or artistic experience.

Quoting StreetlightX

Almost all of what I know in philosophy or elsewhere is what I've cobbled together from others, and I certainly don't have the hubris to even try and pass it off as my own.

Reply to Noble Dust Well, Noble Dust, some people are smart bookworms, and others are wise. There is a difference there, since wisdom cannot be gained merely by the accumulation of 'knowledge'. It's also something to be skeptical of that reading alone can produce knowledge.

I hope I never become wise. Wisdom is the mummification of philosophical adventure.

Reply to Baden

I appreciate the referee-ism, but I think @StreetlightX and I are only talking past one another in the sense that I'm trying to illicit specific aesthetic positions, whereas SLX is only pontificating talking points from his home-boys. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone. I just want a real fucking aesthetic debate. I'm tired of the lack of real aesthetic debate around here. Everyone's views on aesthetics is fucking poor. Apologies for the emotional response. I'm aware of it, and I'm not going to edit it.

Reply to ?????????????

I meant "when has it" as in "when has it in history". I'm asking you for specific, real life examples, not theory.

Reply to ?????????????

But, that said, what do you mean by "confessional"?

Reply to Agustino

Indeed. Not only that, but it's easy to judge others as "unwise".

Reply to StreetlightX

I hope you do become wise.

Reply to Noble Dust Meanie.

Reply to StreetlightX

:100:

I am traveling but I recall Adorno`'s statement in his Aesthetics where he asks who could fail to be moved by the song of a Robin after a rain in the spring. He suggested that the bird is caught in the spirit of its song which we oddly find beautiful.

There have been a number of studies of the song of song birds. They indicate that baby birds learn their songs from their parents and birds that don't learn (there is a specific time period) will not be able to attract a mate. Other studies have followed how these songs have changed over several generations.

I read a recent study of Finch`s song, apparently the male Finch has brain structure that enable its vocalizations these structures are not found in the female Finch. The study suggested that the female Finch chooses a mate based on their appreciation of the song of competing males.

So yes, I think animals like these birds make choices based on their instinctual reactions to what is aesthetic available to them. This is an instinctual process and it may have some relationship to what is described as the aesthetic effect in humans (note some cave paintings in Europe now dated back 64,000 yrs), however no animal paints images like man.

Quoting Cavacava

I am traveling but I recall Adorno`'s statement in his Aesthetics where he asks who could fail to be moved by the song of a Robin after a rain in the spring. He suggested that the bird is caught in the spirit of its song which we oddly find beautiful.

:up: We find this to be beautiful; we know nothing yet, epistemologically, starting with this anecdote, about the experience of the bird itself.

Quoting Cavacava

There have been a number of studies of the song of song birds. They indicate that baby birds learn their songs from their parents and birds that don't learn (there is a specific time period) will not be able to attract a mate. Other studies have followed how these songs have changed over several generations.

So far, this is an indication that learning a mating call serves the purpose of attracting a mate. Again, there's no evidence so far that the bird experiences anything like an aesthetic experience, as anthropomophrically understood by us humans who have said aesthetic experiences.

Quoting Cavacava

I read a recent study of Finch`s song, apparently the male Finch has brain structure the enable its vocalizations these structures are not found in the female Finch. The study suggested that the female Finch chooses a mate based on their appreciation of the song of competing males.

Again, no trace of aesthetics as we understand aesthetics as humans. The female responding to the better male call says nothing about aesthetics within the context of the birds themselves, because there's no way to know if birds have any aesthetic understanding.

Quoting Cavacava

So yes, I think animals like these birds make choices based on their instinctual reactions to what is aesthetic available to them. This is an instinctual process and it may have some relationship to what is described as the aesthetic effect in humans (note some cave paintings in Europe now dated back 64,000 yrs), however no animal paints images like man.

How does this follow? I can't see how it does..

Reply to Noble Dust

If you are suggesting that we can not appreciate animal behavior as an animal appreciates it, I agree. Yet it is apparent to me that their behavior is an instinctual reaction to what they can sense.

Reply to Noble Dust

All good art is crafted. There is no good art without craft. When I make art, I MAKE it. I get dirt under my nails.
Some of the most "accomplished" modern artists (so-called) have an idea and tell others to do the work; others just drag some shit out of a skip; and others shit into a bag.
For my money these examples simply do not qualify as art.

Reply to Agustino
He's talking bollocks. I don't think he is very bright. slow and a bit confused. Not even sure he knows what subjective and objective mean.
Subjective and object is about relationship. All objects of art are objective in that they are material. They are also ALL subjective as to their meanings.

"I despise a world which does not feel that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." (from a musician, and also philosopher? Ludwig van Beethoven) :wink:

Quoting Noble Dust

That's such a poor response. What evidence did you give to site your statements that "birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics", and, again, where in the Prum quote is any actual evidence presented that suggests that animals experience aesthetics? Come on man, I know you're way smarter and well-read than me.

I could at least imagine such evidence and I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes available in the not-too-distant future. Next Sunday AD. If birds can be subjected to MRIs, PET scans and all those other magic sciency things cognitive scientists are using these days to understand human cognition, we could find out if their brains are processing things we think of as beautiful in ways similar to how humans do it. Then we would have an answer, or at least something definite to talk about.

Reply to charleton

I agree. But Jeff Koons and co represent what art has become; that art is a direct result of the art that we love. The ever-increasing experimentation of art that began...during the late romantic period (in music; that's my reference point), was inevitable. Musically, it's only logical that Messiaen followed Ravel's experimental period, and then Boulez. We can't really be angry about that art if we love the art that came before. That transitional period, for instance, of Ravel, was a period of tension and a latent emotional upheaval; now we see the results of the exposition of that latency when we see Koons, Abramovich, et. al.

Reply to T Clark

I would still worry that it would be an anthropomorphization. It just seems so obviously, intuitively, absurd to me, to imagine birds experiencing their own beauty in the way in which we experience their beauty. I made a whole thread about that notion.

Quoting ?????????????

Non-argumentative, I suppose. It does not try to refute or prove something, it describes and narrates, it offers an alternative way of looking at things.

I think the best art (real art, really) is "confessional" in the way you describe it. What do you think?

Quoting ?????????????

Always, I'd say. To the point that different pieces of art suggest different understandings of something, the work is done.

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning here.

Reply to matt

What do you think about the idea that music is higher than wisdom and philosophy?

Reply to Noble Dust

Try to listen to the song while watching the picture.
I do feel like, someone's quoting someone.

Quoting Noble Dust

I would still worry that it would be an anthropomorphization. It just seems so obviously, intuitively, absurd to me, to imagine birds experiencing their own beauty in the way in which we experience their beauty.

I think there is appropriate anthropomorphism and inappropriate. The fact is, we're animals. We're like other animals more than we're different. Our DNA is the same and, for those close to us on the bush, our evolutionary pathway is too. A simplistic comparison of behaviors, e.g. sociobiology, where ducks sexual behavior is directly connected to human rape, is worse than silly. But - I look at animals and I find it hard to imagine they don't feel things; some things, not all things; the same way we do.

Quoting Noble Dust

What do you think about the idea that music is higher than wisdom and philosophy?

I think its a bit too dualistic to think about these things as separate. I think philosophy and music converge at their best moments. Beethoven's music expresses his understanding of the world and of life. For the record this isn't the exact quote I was looking for but I thought it was decent enough to post. I really wanted to find the quote I think from Schopenhauer that places music as the highest form of art.

Quoting T Clark

I think there is appropriate anthropomorphism and inappropriate. The fact is, we're animals. We're like other animals more than we're different. Our DNA is the same and, for those close to us on the bush, our evolutionary pathway is too.

I disagree; to presume that a bird's experience of aesthetics is the same, or even similar to ours seem just as inappropriate. What leads you think that might be so?

Quoting T Clark

I look at animals and I find it hard to imagine they don't feel things; some things, not all things; the same way we do.

Yeah, epistemologically, I surely think knowledge is a continuum. But that doesn't mean the knowledge of a dog, vs. the knowledge of a human, is anywhere close to being similar.

Reply to matt

It's a nice sentiment; maybe you could expand more on your own personal views on the subject?

It's kind of ugly to talk about art in a philosophical way, but seeing as I was invited, here are some fairly random thoughts...No quote either, just jumping in on the anthropomorphism bit.

It might be useful in tackling the question of what we have in common with animals in our appreciation of aesthetic qualities to draw some distinctions between the terms 'aesthetics', 'beauty' and 'art'. For me the trio represent in order an increasing level of social mediation, and in the case of 'art' an inevitable institutional pollution. So, aesthetics can refer to basic sensory perceptions of form as well as more advanced conscious judgments. It's hard to deny that we share some of this with animals, but we can't readily disentangle the basic sensory perceptions that attract us to or repel us from some particular object or organism from the higher level interference of conscious judgment that we're "burdened" with. We see some harmonious arrangement of pattern and/or colour etc. and it resonates with us on initially a visceral and then on a more conscious level, filters up through us in a way, and we think, "that's beautiful' (or whatever). And so we're on beauty then, a more emotionally loaded term, broader, more personally and socially mediated, more prone to historical trends, cultural differences etc., and suggestive but not illustrative of that base-level harmony of form that goes beyond all judgment. From there then we progress to "art" which is never really "art" until its designated so and has no necessary relationship at all to aesthetics or beauty, a kind of free-floating value with the main criteria being that it be "useless", communicative of some emotionally accessible state, and institutionally positioned either physically or in the abstract. Here we've left the non-human aspect of aesthetics far behind, and I tend to agree there's not a lot of interest we can sensibly say about that (notwithstanding possible future scientific discoveries) without falling into clumsy anthropomorphism. Our vessels are likely too full of the bigger picture of beauty to appreciate the most distilled nature of aesthetics.

I'm reading "seeing the invisible on Kandinsky" by Michel Henry

Because the truth of art is a transformation of the individual's life, aesthetic experience contracts an indissoluble link with ethics. It is itself an ethics, a 'practice', a mode of actualizing life. The internal connection between the invisible aesthetic life and the ethical life is what Kandinsky calls the "spiritual".

Expressing the inexpressible.

Quoting Noble Dust

I disagree; to presume that a bird's experience of aesthetics is the same, or even similar to ours seem just as inappropriate. What leads you think that might be so?

I didn't presume anything. I said 1) it seems plausible to me that an animal's sense of beauty might have something in common with ours and 2) there may scientific ways to evaluate the possibility soon.

Quoting Noble Dust

I look at animals and I find it hard to imagine they don't feel things; some things, not all things; the same way we do.
— T Clark

Yeah, epistemologically, I surely think knowledge is a continuum. But that doesn't mean the knowledge of a dog, vs. the knowledge of a human, is anywhere close to being similar.

You said knowledge, I said feelings. Not the same thing.

Why would I look at a person and judge she was having some particular feelings and then look at an animal behaving similarly and not at least consider it was feeling the same thing? You don't think mother cats love their kittens? You don't think dogs wagging their tails are happy?

“In the long run, no force can stand against culture and art.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“The wise and the artists are the builders of the future.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“The position of art and artist is very valuable.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“The spirit of art must be intertwined with humanity to fascinate generations.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“Works of art are a valuable part of an artist's existence, no one can deny or ignore them.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“Sometimes within works of art we see ideals, history and even philosophy. Understanding a marvelous work of art is not an easy task.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“The art that went into everyday life is not lasting, does not become pervasive, and is not lasting.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“Only works of art become immortal, closer to the artist.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“Always sad writers, poets and artists open the gates of defeat on their land with their works.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani


“Praise and encouragement is an art, an art with which even the most wicked people can be loved.”
?The Philosopher Hakim Orod Bozorg Khorasani

Yukio Mishima:Works of art are things of imperfect beauty. If ever a work of art is made perfect, it becomes a crime.