Art and Influence: What is the role of the arts in bringing forth change?
I am asking about the level on which art can play in addressing social and political issues. I am speaking about the role of expression of feelings in art, fiction, music and other art forms. How far should it be seen as an aesthetic quest or one which is part of a cultural statement? How influential can art be in raising consciousness?
Also, I am asking about the responsibilities of the artist. To what extent is the artist just expressing personal feelings? Is there any danger if art, music or fiction is too 'dark', such as metal music? Does it matter what art we create?
Also, I am asking about the responsibilities of the artist. To what extent is the artist just expressing personal feelings? Is there any danger if art, music or fiction is too 'dark', such as metal music? Does it matter what art we create?
Comments (80)
Emotional or subconscious level.
Quoting Jack Cummins
It can be either or both.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Very, I would say, but being so subject it’s notoriously difficult to quantify results.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Even in commercial art creators are expressing themselves to some degree.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Anything that has the power to influence can be used for nefarious or selfish purposes, and that being the case, art that is too ‘light’ can be dangerous.
Quoting Jack Cummins
If it didn’t then art wouldn’t matter.
It is also possible for the artist, in addition to fueling cultural memory with his art, making it a vehicle of intelligence and transforming art into a concept. He can do that, although he is not obligated. There are artists who worked with a very clear intellectual awareness of what they were doing, such as Henry James, who wrote an explanatory preface for each of his novel. Sometimes the preface was even better than the book. Others would not even be able to explain how they did the book, because their job is not to explain, but to do. Once done, that genuine, true experience is recorded. Hence you can easily distinguish what is genuine experience from mere copied experience, stereotype repetition (which is a thing that has little memory content and is just word repetition).
I am glad that you think that art matters in many ways because I believe that there are many people who don't, including some people who value philosophy highly. I would say that art does have a major impact at a subconscious level.
It is also interesting that you suggest that art can be too 'light,' I would say that it can be about surface and lack depth. Perhaps that which 'dark' has the ability to explore the subconscious and explore the unknown.
And express/reflect some aspect of culture. If a kid supposedly commits suicide from listening to too much Marilyn Manson doesn't that imply that everything was good in their life up until the exposure to MM, that the kid lived in some kind of utopian paradise rather than the culture that MM, and the kid, are both products of?
Your response is mostly about whether artists are processing the underlying the cultural meaning of what they are creating. I am sure that many people making art in its various forms are not thinking that much about this, especially in popular art. If you take many best selling authors I am sure that the biggest concern is about making money and also about public creditably. I am sure that is the case in music too. Concerns about popularity can have such a negative effect. It is often that many rock bands music appears to deteriorate once they become mainstream.
The whole idea of art as involving concepts is interesting. Here, it is a conscious intention and we can think of all the various movements ranging from surrealism in art to the idea of punk or glam rock. Of course, beyond the movements we have all the unique concepts the individuals, such the whole idea of the stream of consciousness in James Joyce's novels.
The theme you have raised between subtle and conscious is one that is so vast that it could in itself be made into a dissertation.
Your comment captivates the element which I was thinking about when I was creating the debate, especially as I have a fascinating with music which is extremely dark. In particular, I became interested in metal music when I was studying art therapy. It seemed to be a way of exploring my own shadow side.
Your mention of Marilyn Manson is particularly important because he was and probably is interested in the whole idea of Jung's idea of the shadow. I know this because I read his autobiography. Actually, he said that he thought he was the antichrist at one point. However, over a period of time this idea lessened. He has read a fair amount of philosophy. I have a few of his albums although I don't listen to them very much. I would say that the one that is the most listenable is 'Mechanical Animals'.
But having dived off into talking about Marilyn Manson, I realise the point that you were making is what if someone ends up committing suicide through absorption in this music. Certainly the whole emo (emotional hardcore) genre was esteemed by suicidal teenagers. You could ask whether it just emerged in response to a growing number of teenagers who were depressed or did it in itself promote a culture of depression and self harm. Emo music has faded out of the mainstream now, although I recently saw My Chemical Romance's 'The Black Parade' in a chart of greatest albums of all times.
But, the other side of the argument about music is that music which is dark helps in the most darkest moments and perhaps we need the music which resonates with our worst feelings. So, I would say that while we probably need to be balanced in our listening it would be a mistake to try to avoid all the music which is dark. Perhaps such music prevents many suicides.
But, music and the arts we enjoy is not just about the personal it is about effects on others. So, we could also query whether it is dangerous in the sense of stirring up hatred? What effect does the music of mass entertainment have on people, on a conscious and subconscious level.Does certain music support and invite prejudice and violence?
Of course, it would go deeper than just the lyrics. I would wonder what certain music does on a vibrational level. Here, may be where we begin to see the complexity of music on the subliminal level. Music and the arts are about states of consciousness and it is this potential of the arts that I am really wondering about.
I rewrote what I wrote to you a little bit because I realised that I had been focusing too much on the role of the experience of the individual, whereas I am really wishing to address the wider effects of the arts. In particular, I am concerned about the states of consciousness entered into by the creator of an art form and how this impacts upon the audience, on a personal but also, on a collective basis.
I used to live in South Korea and AFKN was the American military broadcasting station. It was not unusual to see men in arms doing exercises, running through courses, drilling. And then they began playing rock music to the mock combat activities, and the effect was appalling as it put the whole matter within a context of carefree play, a nd rock music has a certain violent nature of its own, with its hard driven beat, so there was a kind of natural fusion of primitive impulses. What was lost was the gravity of the deadly violence they were preparing for. It all became so light and free and exciting, and I felt as I watched them that the spectacle was a kind of Hollywood production.
So what is objectionable about this? It turned what should be the most dreaded thing imaginable into a juvenile fiction of sorts. Of course, we see this kind of thing in movies and television all the time, and while I do get a kick out of these things as much as anyone else.....I do not approve (one of the great benefits of reading philosophy is that it can give rise to second guessing one's own impulses and gratifications).
But then, art has no natural affiliations in ideologies, in purposes and intentions. It can be used for propaganda (See Stalin era posters; see WWI posters encouraging enlistment, glorifying the cause. Siegfried Sassoon and Wifred Owen wrote their poetry opposing the war, and art was put to service on both sides), advertising, movies scores (what would a movie without a soundtrack? Note how music transforms the mundane the dramatic, the romantic, the comical).
Art is only as dangerous as its context.
I get really annoyed when people mistake art for something decorative or purely aesthetic, including when artists themselves do this. An artist is free to make whatever they want to, so they tend to make the best thing they can think of. The best thing they can think of is directly related to the height of their consciousness. In this way the product of art is information about the artists consciousness. Whether they be a two year old composing their first crayon drawing, or a Beethoven composing the 5th symphony, it is their consciousness that they are revealing in their work. A two year old reveals in their work what is uppermost in their mind - mummy, daddy, the house, dog, etc, whilst a Beethoven twists and turns and takes an orchestra to places only a Beethoven can. Art work is first and foremost information about the artists consciousness, in some form. This is the singular thing that art always must be, so art should be understood in terms of it. The form it may take is endlessly variable and open ended, but it can not escape being information about the artists thinking. Art work is symbolic of the thinking that created it.
So from this perspective the above question would read: can "the artists thinking in symbolized form" raise consciousness, or is "the artists thinking in symbolized form" a product of the culture the artist resides in, or is the " artists thinking in symbolized form" concerned mainly or entirely with decoration.
From this perspective some resolution to these questions is possible.
I was writing this thread more with a view to changing consciousness rather than changing opinions, although it is fairly possible that actual opinions could change. For example, some portrayal of an aspect of life could be portrayed in a film or a novel and it could bring a deeper understanding which changes opinions.
Opinions can be hard to change, even with the aid of philosophy and it is likely that the depiction of certain historical struggles can bring about depth and emotion to a portrayal of an aspect of social life.We could say that this could be done without need to involve an imaginary construct. For example, it is possible to write about life in the form of non fiction rather than just turning it into fiction.
We could also say that when philosophers write can involve some artistry too. I don't just mean sophisticated arguments but the deeper engagement with artistic creation, to bring forth the best philosophical writing.for This might enable people to engage more with the underlying issues and have an incredible world of ideas and knowledge. This may aid the way in which ideas are manifest in real life and bring important changes in the world.
I love political cartoons and in a very old book about poverty that I have, there pictures worth the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words".
The Spartans used music to coordinate the movements on the battlefield, and Athenians thought music was very important for aesthetic reasons and was an important part of education.
I liked the energy mental music better when I was young, and now I prefer mellow classical music. I like the rhythm of rap but often do not like the words! The hatred of some rape music is frightening. And the Beatles and The Mamas and the Papas, Alice's Restaraunt, I've Got a Hammer, I really think it was songs about war and peace that created peace when it was the thing to be Hippies. And oh my how much fun it was to dress Hippie and be creative. We sure could use some of that now.
I started this thread with a view to thinking about creating art but it is hard not to indulge in discussions about music because it affects us and inspires us in every way. I probably spend as much time listening to music as I do reading.
I love the music of the 60s and so much of that was consciousness raising, including the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and all the psychedelic bands. Music is so connected to what is going on in culture and it will be interesting to see what music emerges from the pandemic. I do find a lot of good new music, including a lot of psychedelic music because I read music magazines and used to go to record shops regularly before the pandemic.
I am worried that a lot of the record shops may never reopen and many have already shut down. Record shops and live music give music a dimension which I don't believe can be captured when people just rely on You tube and other sites at home.
You made an interesting Freudian slip. You said 'rape' music, presumably meaning rap. I think that it is possible to feel raped in the head by the sound of some music. Some rap can be very interesting politically, but a lot of it is very commercial.
But music is so central to the whole emotional and mental life. I am sure that it is one of the most important means for altering and raising consciousness on all levels.
I think that you make a very good point that,
'Art is only as dangerous as its context.' I am sure that sound can be misused. Someone once told me that it is even possible to kill purely by the use of sound.
But music has hypnotic potential and I am sure that this can be used with positive or negative intentions and effects.
Your post raises many important points and areas for questioning and examination about states of mind underlying the process of making art. I do believe that the consideration of this is essential and I definitely do believe that art can and should be so much more than decoration or commodities.
While I have done visual art always, in the last few years I have done more creative writing than art, so when I was creating this thread I was thinking about how to create the best fiction but I there are issues underlying all the arts, but with slight differences depending on the form of art. In some ways, it involves thinking of the way in which the aesthetics of the art will affect the viewer and about the dimensions into which the audience may be taken into. However, I do recognise the importance of the way in which art has a subjective element, but, also, as you suggest, it involves symbolism.
One of my biggest questions is about the whole question of dark fiction and fantasy. This is because I have to admit that in many ways this appeals to me, as does magical realism. Here, I would say that some of the authors I admire are Cormac McCarthy, Angela Carter and Stephen King. They involve mythic dimensions and do engage with the dark side of life. It would seem so shallow if they did not. I am influenced by the ideas of Jung and Joseph Campbell. I believe that the ideas of Joseph Campbell were used in the making of 'Star Wars'. Of course, this film was about the portrayal of a quest for popular audiences for film.
However, the underlying question is how dark should one go to create a good story,? I am not saying that in reference to making fiction with a view to what would be sellable, but with a view to what is most interesting for others to read. When I was going to creative writing workshops I did find that I was inclined to go in the direction of the dark and was a bit concerned that I should not do so, because I am not wishing to take others into negative states of mind. Ideally, I would like to write and make art which is transformative in a positive way.
I do believe that part of this process may be about getting into positive states of mind in the first place. At times, I have struggled with depression and dark states of mind, so I do try to work on this. I do some meditation. I would imagine that medication has some effects on the states of consciousness which can be useful for creating positive mental states for making art. I do use some visualisation CDs, including some shamanic ones.
Of course, shamanic journeying involves the journeying to lower worlds as well. I suppose this is where my questioning is based. The shamanic journeying is intentionally going to the lower worlds, but with a view to find healing potentials. So, I guess what I am wondering is whether we should be exploring such depths, or simply be exploring higher states of consciousness. This is on the personal level but also in the art we make.
I am sure that there are no simple answers but I do believe that it matters and has important implications.
That is a fascinating idea for an art or writing project: taking the idea of Satan and turning him into Jahweh. We can all play around with that idea.
The most relevant art that I can think of is 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' by William Blake. Also, I can vaguely remember reading in one of Blake's works, that, 'Milton wrote in fetters because he was part of the devil's party unknowingly.' No wonder that I worry about expressing my dark side, even though I am not religious in a conventional sense, and Blake wasn't a mainstream thinker himself
As you suggest that you are more able to take consciousness to the next stage or two on a practical level than I am, I am fascinated to know more. Obviously, I don't know if it is something which you are willing to share about it on this site.
What bothers me is one particular aspect on the subject of aesthetics. Taking calligraphy as an example, smooth sinuous curves are added onto basic forms and that suggests, perhaps only to an untrained eye, that beauty has something do with complexity and being that requires more time and energy, right? In a sense we burn more calories when we want to be aesthetic.
On the other hand, there's another kind of beauty, mostly seen in math and the sciences especially physics. Mathematical beauty is all about simplicity, finding the shortest, most compact equation is the holy grail of math and the sciences. This kind of beauty is about austeurness - conserving instead of expending calories
Ugliness falls between these two kinds of beauties. Reminds me of dumbbells. I think I'll call this view of beauty as the Dumbbell theory of beauty.
I have known a couple of people who made art based on toilets and urinals. There may not be a strict division between the sacred and the profane. The quest may be to discover the beauty within madness.
While maybe a bit of a tangent to the OP’s intent, I’ve been itching to say this, so I will.
Art is, and has always been, a major social force. Cave paintings weren’t just for kicks; they played a massive role in forming the institutionalized, though tribal, cultures of the past, often via initiations and rights of passage for folks that held an upper hand in how society, and its concepts of worth and of reality, were formed. Which played a significant role in politics with an upper “P” via politics with a lower “p”. And art still shapes most of our attributes as a society in total. Today, however, the vast majority of artists are the servants of corporations. Billboards are art, as one example among many. Corporations taking over the music industry and the public airways as another. To stick with advertisements, they are not made by CEOs but by the artists companies employ. An advertisement is worthless unless it captivates via some form of aesthetic, has some form of emotive appeal. And this is the artist’s job to produce. It’s just that, nowadays, the vast majority of art that shapes our minds - our perspectives and thoughts regarding values and so forth - is not done by artists pursuing the expression of truths - be these personal, universal or anything in-between. For most of these artistic productions, there’s little if anything inherently valuable to the artist in the artwork created. It’s value is mostly, if not fully, instrumental: typically, a tool for hording as much cash as one can. For the often poorly paid artist, yes, but also for the CEOs and fellows that largely determine what the vast majority of society’s artists can and cannot do. This if the artists care about sustaining themselves, if not also their loved ones. And by being a major influence upon society’s collective values, this same commercial art influences what people tend to chose in respect to elected officials and their attributes, it influences people’s judgments of what is just and unjust in respect to legal decisions, and so forth. In short, it influences politics with a small “p” and, consequently - though very much indirectly - our politics with a large “P”.
So, in my view, yes, art is a major force in forming society at large.
ps. Especially as regards today’s world, I’m obviously not talking about high art - which, imv, is today more often than not socially impotent. But the art we're exposed to on a daily basis via advertisements and the like is art all the same.
pps. Yes, artists of all stripes have been known to be rewarded for their art with money for some time now. Still, the corporatization of today’s vast majority of art stands on its own relative to humanity’s history.
Artists love to deny any and all responsibility. Art is a kind of caveat emptor affair, where all the responsibility lies on the audience.
I think the other poster is talking about installing a music player into the toilet room, so that when the toilet is flushed, music plays.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/524645/6000-toilet-warms-your-seat-plays-music-and-flushes-command
"Consciousness raising"??!
The music that you mention is decadent and lowers one's consciousness.
Off the top of my head all I can say is that the key ideas in art are to,
1. [Capture] the beauty of nature (paint, sculpt scenic landscapes, handsome men, gorgeous women, etc.)
2. Beautification of nature (take what's aesthetically deficient and make it beautiful e.g. calligraphy, poetry, cosmetics)
How does the sacred and the profane fit into such a framework of art? The sacred, in and of itself, is beautiful to behold; all that the artist needs to do is copy it onto a medium. As for the profane, it needs work, the artist must tap into his ingenuity to find a way to make what's essentially revolting into something beautiful.
I am puzzled about how you see the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and psychedelia as lowering consciousness. What do you mean and what music do you believe raises it ?
Because that music is either bestial naivete, or cynicism that belongs to the theatre of the absurd; neither is conducive to living a productive life, thus, it lowers consciousness.
Whatever music there might be that is conducive to living a productive life.
The kind of music one could listen to, for example, before going in for a job interview or when being told that one has terminal cancer, and that music would make one (more) able to do well in that interview or to live a meaningful life despite the terminal cancer.
AFAIK, there is no music that does that.
I am not sure what you would consider to be 'the productive life.' My own would be one of making art and writing. If you consider the sixties music as the theatre of the absurd what do you make of new wave, indie, hip hop etc?
You speak of the importance of music that could be helpful before going to a job interview or being diagnosed with terminal cancer. These are vastly different and I have been in the situation of going for interviews. I remember playing an album by the band Weezer before one and it helped, but music is subjective.
The question of what music one would play if one was terminally I'll is interesting. I am sure it is subjective as well. You speak of no music for living a 'meaningful life despite terminal cancer'. I think it would be mistaken to project all expected on to music. I think if I was told that I was terminally ill I might find the music of U2 to be helpful, such as The Joshua Tree. The biggest challenge would be not to retreat to bed but to continue an active life. But I am sure different people would have different challenges and music might not be the biggest concern.
But the main thought which I am having while writing this is that while I love to listen to music that I don't just want to indulge in this too much as a passive observer, as a victim of consumerism. I don't make music but I want to be creating art of my own.
I think that you are coming mainly from the point of view of realistic art, which for many might be seen as replication. I do have experience of making art which is realistic although I was wishing to give added depth rather than simply copying.
However, you seem to be advocating conventional aesthetics insofar as you speak of portraying handsome men and beautiful women. I have never just wished to depict the people who are the best looking. I often drew people who were 'different', including people from various subcultures, such as punks and even drunk, down'n'out people sitting on park benches. I found these were interesting to draw and what I found was it could be stark to portray them in beautiful settings, such as the park or near architecturally decorated buildings. Perhaps this is the level of paradox applied to art.
You seem puzzled by how I seem to think that the whole mention of the sacred and profane applies to the arts. I would point to the whole history of religious paintings, stained glass windows and art work in other religions, especially Hinduism. The art of Hinduism is particularly interesting because it involves the many aspects of the gods, including Shiva and Kali. But even traditional Christianity did portray the diabolical as well, as conveyed by the images of gargoyles.
But, above all else, I do believe that the arts and making it involve moving into different states of consciousness. I know that you are more of a mathematician than an artist. I do not enjoy maths but I am wondering if you find maths can change consciousness and here I am wondering about the experience of the transcendent truths?.
As for the sacred, it's beautiful and all that the artist needs to do is reproduce a faithful copy - I suppose this is what you mean by realistic art. The profane, however, is going to need more work from the artist for the immediate gut reaction to it is going to be that of disgust and revulsion. Given such circumstances, the artist has a mountain to climb in turning the sacrilegious into art for it involves turning what is, any way you cut it, hideously ugly into something that's a sight for sore eyes.
I do like your comment. It is a problem that art has often fallen into the hands of corporations. When I was leaving school I did consider going on to study graphic art. But the idea that it may end up leading to designing baked bean can wrappers deterred me. Even Andy Warhol's soup cans don't really inspire me. But now, I would say that so many would be queuing up for a supermarket to stack cans of baked bean tins onto the shelves.
But the tension does remain between art as a pursuit for its value and the whole system of earning a living. Some people who are extremely successful make a lot of money, but they are the minority and often have to look to the sphere of popularity and commercialism? Most people I know who try to make money through various arts cannot make enough money to live and have to have another job, or be topped up with benefits. So, where does that leave most people wanting to pursue the arts? Does it end having to be just a hobby'
Personally, I don't see the appeal of some very abstract art or installations which are displayed under guises such as postmodernism. But, of course, some people do think highly of this and that is where subjectivity comes in.
But, when I speak of the sacred in art I would certainly not be thinking of replicating the sacred art from past ages. I am thinking of capturing states of higher consciousness, which for want of a better term I will call 'enlightenment.' I am asking about this possibility and about mythic truth. Please also note that I am not just talking about visual art but all others, including literature. Perhaps many of the greatest writers ranging from Dante, Herman Hesse, Dosteovsky, to name a mere few managed to capture certain states of consciousness. I would say that the arts, including the visual can express so much of the deepest, innermost truths. What do you think about this?
As for the sacred and the profane, I reiterate that both can be art but in different ways. The former need only be depicted as it appears to us for it is, in and of itself, beautiful and there's no point in gilding the lily. The latter, however, by its very nature evokes in us feelings, negative ones, that aren't conducive to the pleasant experience encounters with art should be. Ergo, the artist who wishes to make art out of the profane has faer back against the wall, clearly such an artist is working with his hands tied behind is back. Given these truths, we should expect very few artists, at least those who care about their reputation, to get involved in art with profane subjects. Am I right?
I think ‘aesthetic quality’ is arguably not about what is judged ‘beautiful’, but about what attracts our attention and effort towards understanding what we see. The installation of a urinal in an art gallery aims to achieve that - to challenge the art critic to look for the rationality in such an incongruous display. If they don’t find any - is it a lack of potential in the artwork, or in the viewer/critic?
Art that simply reassures the viewer of their own static position in the world offers no aesthetic experience.
Not just ‘attract attention’, but attention and effort towards understanding - this is how we learn about the world. A ‘judgement of beauty’ is part of this.
Go on...
What do you mean by "...effort towards understanding..."? This phrase seems more suited for a philosophical article than art.
I haven't replied to you because I didn't want to break up the discussion you were having about art installation you were having about with Possibility.
But coming from a different angle, what do you think about the whole issue of aesthetics in works of literature? I am a fan of gothic fiction which challenges certain norms, as well as traditions such as cyberpunk. I would say that I like being guided into alternative ways of seeing and this really gives me a lot to think about.
In one word, beauty
Quoting Jack Cummins
:up: I can relate to the goth subculture although my experience of it has been very superficial. Black is my favorite color - keep that between you and me please :grin:
It is probably evident that I am a bit of a music addict and I do listen to goth music a fair amount, ranging from the Cult, Bauhaus, the Cure, the Mission and even a bit of industrial, including the Nine Inch Nails. I know you say that are not a big music listener.
I like to explore the arts as widely as possible and in many genres.
Thanks. :grin:
Quoting Jack Cummins
Pragmatically speaking, this seems to be the case in today's world.
All the same, there's a musician I like who makes the claim that we must out-create the dominant, corporatized creations of the day if we are to preserve our humanity. This is very loosely paraphrased - and the "corporate" part is likely my own embellishment. But I find the underlying notion - that of a competition between types of artistic creations in relation to society at large - to be quite noteworthy.
Paying the artist for the artwork one likes rather than downloading it for free is one way to support the artists one likes so that they can continue making their art. Though a majority of people prefer not to pay money for it. Which in turn suffocates the art that they would otherwise want.
I am rather horrified by the way in which so many people seem to expect arts for free. I have friends who do not buy music at all and seem to think that I am ridiculous in paying for it. I also hear people grumble if the books in charity shops are not as cheap as in another shop, being over fifty pence or a pound. I often point out that why should they expect to get it for almost nothing, considering all the work that it must have taken.They usually laugh at what I am saying.
But I will confess that I have downloaded many books on my Kindle. I have managed to get so many of the classics free, and a lot of the authors are not living ones. I have also got a lot of new indie authors books or samples, and it is unlikely that I would have bought all these without having heard or read about them.
But I am deeply disturbed by the way people seem to object to having to pay for the arts. When I have conversed with some others who seem to think that I waste my money in this ways, they have gone as far as to suggest that artists should not expect to make their money and do jobs and do art as an extra. So I am left wondering how do we change a culture which expects the arts as a free extra?
You're in good company. Done so myself plenty of times. But, as you say, here the authors are not living ones. And their works were not pirated.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't have any straightforward answer for this. Still, culture is constituted of individuals. The relation between the top-down effects culture has on individuals and those individuals have upon a culture is complex, to put it mildly. Bare minimum I can do, I'm thinking, is preserve my own way of valuing things as a constituent of the culture I am a part of. And of course, engage in conversations such as this. There's too much egotism that accompanies the prevailing materialist perspectives of the day, I'm thinking. Again, with this materialism being perpetuated by the overwhelming sum of (commercial) art we are exposed to. This, in turn, entailing not enough thought as regards others and what they require to produce those things that enrich our own lives. And this is a hard tide to turn, especially in the short run.
That made me think of steampunk and the clothing that goes with that. All of the forms of music go with a dress style and perhaps a lifestyle.
Art and music are food for our souls. It enhances our life decisions to be calm and relax or hyped up, to be energized and angry, or calm and peaceful. It literally has a biological effect on us and some claim music has a biological effect on plants as well.
If something is beautiful to us or absolutely awful depends on how harmonious or symmetrical it is. Our brains are wired to chose patterns that have harmony and symmetry and recoil when there is over disharmony or a lack of balance.
Quoting Reginal E. Payne II, Jayne O'Donnell and Marquart Doty,
You are Jack are having an absolutely marvelous discussion that I wish all of us would have! Before the 1958 education act that focused the US intensely on technology, children had art and music classes. I think for the sake of humanity and civilization we seriously need to return to liberal education and art is very much a part of science, and music can put our brains in rhythm for increased learning. The positive effect of the arts means this should be supported by government and it most certainly should be in our school system. If the government made that decision, teachers would be taught to value the arts in education. This is just a snowball that gets bigger and can move a civilization as 1960-70 art and music us until the impact of the 1958 had its full effect.
The music I am listening to now is supposed to Serotonin, Dopamine, Endorphin Release Music, Release Negativity. What if as an intentional effect of cultivating children they learned the effect of the arts can have on them physically and with that knowledge had true liberty to chose to have want influences them. Might we lift children out of poverty with such knowledge?
In a post yesterday I was saying that it is very sad that people are starting to expect books, music and other works for free, without appreciating of the artists' need to make money to live.
However, what you are saying about community arts is very important. I do believe that children and adults should have access to being able to participate in art based activities. Just before lockdown I was attending a creative writing group at a library and had just discovered an art group, which I attended once, in a museum. These were free. I do believe that it is important that people, children and adults, are provided to have access to the arts. It is such an outlet for people and I hope that after the pandemic these groups will be part of culture. I would also hope that there is public funding for such activities, rather than them just having to be staffed by volunteers.
Absolutely, that is the very meaning of being civilized! The enlightenment was about lifting everyone out of the dirt and taking us from being worms to honorable and dignified human beings. It became what we call liberal or classical education bring the world's best literature and best philosophy to everyone through public education.
I don't want anyone to think I am against technology. I am sure it is an important part of the New Age. However, we went a little overboard with thinking technology would resolve all our problems. Technology is only a tool and how we use it depends on what kind of human beings we are. And I must say, your threads are excellent for getting us to think about such things. :heart: :flower:
When you stop to look at an artwork, it has succeeded in attracting your limited attention and effort. That’s a start. Aesthetic quality is based on feelings not just of pleasure but also of displeasure. Nevertheless, most adults want to simply ‘enjoy’ art, like life - not be influenced by it. Undeniable pleasure in the observation of art is often about its ability to render qualitatively positive aspects of experience in an acceptable form, enabling an incrementally positive overall shift in our perspective, and therefore understanding, of the world. A ‘judgement of beauty’ is an integration of this new understanding. Displeasure draws attention and effort in an initial unwillingness to integrate either certain qualitative aspects of experience or the form in which they are rendered. Sublimity highlights those qualitative aspects of the experience that we struggle to understand: the limitations in our faculty of judgement.
So, when we come across a urinal displayed as ‘art’ in a gallery, aesthetics enables us to come to terms with an interoception of displeasure in a rational understanding of our own limitations, and at least recognise that we’re equivocating a judgement of ‘art’ with a judgement of ‘beauty’ or of ‘form’, to the detriment of our capacity for understanding. The possibility of understanding such an installation as ‘art’ challenges the viewer to correct their conception of either ‘art’, ‘beauty’ or ‘form’ - or to reject the possibility of understanding what they see.
Sure, science can be used to surround us with technological miracles, but is afforded no respect or authority. From Descartes' subjectivism, to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - 1818, right through to present day blockbuster films - all we see is the mad scientist, stringing together some world ending abomination unto God; depicted as either a careless fool or an evil genius - that only the flag waving, God loving hero can save us from.
But here's the problem, the climate and ecological crisis is a consequence of applying technology as directed by ideology - rather than, applying technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality. It's not a matter of morality - it's a matter of truth, and science has proven the truth of its ideas endlessly with technology that works.
But hey, maybe if we pray hard enough - snap off a few more salutes to the old skull and crossbones, climate change will just go away!
There is a certain commercial value placed on entertainment in the arts that fails to distinguish between ignorance, escapism or denial of reality, truth, etc and creative challenges to prevailing assumptions about reality, truth, etc. There is no recognised commercial value in high-quality thinking - only in the products of thought and their measurable utility. Because of this, any sub-standard thinking (or thinker) that generates a product people can use is potentially valuable. Enter Trump.
But the value/significance of creativity is in its relational structure of popularity, originality, comprehensibility and relatability - subjective and fluid measures on which we will never entirely agree. Whenever we reduce these relational structures to a single monetary value, we fail to clearly articulate why it matters so much. Everyone then assumes their own reductionist methodology to be in play, and so will argue that the value is ‘wrong’.
Any society that equates meaningfulness with a linear or even two-dimensional structure of monetary value will never fully grasp the utility of the creative process.
Yes, I do think that your whole debate on originality, comprehensability, relatability, popularity and accuracy is important to. I was thinking about it in relation to a comment I received in the thread on original ideas, and was planning to recommend that the poster scrolls back and reads what you wrote there. But, here, in the discussion of the arts, I would say that popularity is the one which is most related to making money and that should not be the most important way of evaluating art. I would say that this does happen a lot in the way that music and books are often viewed in terms of charts or best sellers. I can remember, mainly as a teenager, getting so concerned about where my favourite bands were in the singles and album charts.
I definitely think that art cannot be reduced to monetary value. I probably don't think in terms of the importance of popularity and money ranking that much at all, but more about how the individual artists and the arts can survive and flourish. I am worried that the arts will get pushed out of being considered as important. While I do have friends who are interested in expression in the arts, most of the people I interact with do seem to think that they are insignificant, and that matters such as sport are far more important. I can see that this is probably coming back to the whole popularity issue, aside from monetary value.
I do believe that meaningfulness is beyond monetary value but sometimes get demoralised by the way culture is going. We live in a very materialistic culture, although the pandemic may be a wake up call to challenge it. I am just hoping that the arts can be a leading force and that culture does not collapse. The reason why I am saying about culture collapsing is because I was having a discussion about this with Gus Lamarch in the thread 'Suicide of Mod' yesterday. He was suggesting that we are seeing a degeneration, which is equal to the collapse of the Roman empire. However, he does suggest that revolutionary thinking can possibly prevent this, to some extent. I am hoping that art can be a main way forward as a revolutionary force.
Enumerate these feelings.
I know that understanding is important but that goes for everything not just art and so understanding as a notion fails to distinguish art from non-art.
For my money, if there's an essence to art, it has to be beauty, and while it may or may not be possible to grasp beauty, art is simply experiencing beauty and not studying or analyzing it i.e. art is not about understanding anything but rather the act of beholding that which is aesthetically endowed.
To make my point clearer, there's understanding and then there's understanding beautifully. For instance, some mathematical theorems have more than one proof and some of them may be long-winded, many pages long and fail to capture the core ideas behind the theorems while others, the artistic ones, are succint, and reveals a deep insight of the theorems. Aesthetics and understanding are different things.
If artists want to do pure art, art for art's sake, then they indeed must not expect to make money off of it.
If they make music, paint pictures, dance, etc. in order to make money with that, then they are not being artists to begin with, they are merely business people who are selling products and services.
By putting pressure on the artists, because the problem starts with them. They need to stop wanting to sit on two chairs.
If they want to be taken seriously as artists, they need to stop selling themselves.
If they want to be taken seriously as business people, they need to stop giving themselves away for free.
Sport (especially football/basketball) is form of entertainment that draws people frustrated by a sense of helplessness, offering an illusion of potential/value in a constructed environment. It’s a form of escapism - for both the viewer and the participant - that has far too many people fooled into believing it’s the only solution to all their problems. The music and reality TV industries seem to be peddling the same distorted perspective in the arts.
BUT they’ve built these industries around a multi-dimensional structure of potential/value that just makes more sense: physical/creative opportunity, popularity, influence and money. Of course, it’s a house of cards, but it appears real enough - more real and more attainable than any value/potential offered by visual arts, anyway.
This comes back to valuing high-quality thinking and its relation to more accurate, comprehensive and original products of thought instead of simply more expensive or more popular ones. In my view this has to start with education reform, particularly promoting creative, critical and constructive thinking across all subjects (not confining it to the arts), and from a much younger age. But it also requires restructuring industry to both value and provide opportunities for creating and utilising more original and accurate products of thought by developing their comprehensibility and popularity, as well as demanding more accuracy from popular products of thought, and more comprehensibility from original products of thought - like we do with products of science and technology.
Unfortunately, the impact these pie-in-the-sky reforms may have on those in the fine arts industry, for instance, should not be the primary concern. Despite my support for Visual Arts and for artists, I think no particular industry format should be protected for its own sake, but for the opportunities it provides for high-quality thinking and its products. Elitism may be its downfall, if it clings to such ideals to remain commercially viable.
You are right, but could use a little more information. What is a matter of truth is a matter of morality. The line of reasoning for this conclusion is Greek and Roman. This predates Christianity, a mental disease that has us really messed up because a false belief blocks us from knowing truth and in the US this is a serious cultural problem affecting even non-Christians.
Starting with math, the Greeks got really hung up on doing things right and understanding why it is the right thing to do. That is Egypt had practical math and the Greeks learned from them, but they were not content with it works. They wanted proves. Now we come to logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech. The Bible says Jesus is logos because it was written by Greeks. With logos as the most divine power, we ask, why should we do this and not that and this is as serious as finding proves for maths. What is the reasoning, the moral choice? This is a life or death issue because the wrong choice leads to destruction, your environmental problem, and drug addiction, and all other problems resulting from bad information and bad decisions as surely as jumping off a tall building leads to death because of gravity.
When we had liberal education based the Greek and Roman classics, we had education for good moral judgment and we told children folk tales and then asked, what is the moral that story. I stress this question is about the reasoning and the reasoning is about universal law. The Little Red did not share her bread because no one helped her bake it. The Fox didn't get the grapes because he gave up and comforted himself by deciding they were probably sour anyway. But the Little Engine that could made it over the hill, because he did not give up. The moral being a matter cause and effect, and education for good moral judgment being essential to our liberty and democracy.
In 1958 we discontinued that education and left moral training up to the church and now we are in total crisis! Education for technology is not education for science. Liberal education is education for science and it comes complete with good moral judgment. Read Cicero, he tells us no animal sacfrice, burning of candles, saying prayers will make things good, when we make the wrong decision, because what will be is the consequence of our action. Not the will of a capricious god influenced by our piety. The rule of reason, logos. This predates Christianity and a book written by Greeks call the Bible.
I’m not trying to distinguish art from non-art; that appears to be your aim, not mine. I’m trying to distinguish between aesthetics and your claim that art should be about beauty.
Quoting TheMadFool
Well, for me, the essence of art is creativity, the experience of art is the possibility of understanding what we see, and the beauty of art is a judgement of success in that endeavour. Aesthetics, however, refers to the relational structure that enables all of this to occur, and is inclusive of both unmanifested creativity and any failure to understand what we see. Aesthetic value is a judgement of beauty with claims to universality, but an aesthetic experience can be so much more than that.
Art is [for me] the invocation of the unexpected. Good art is that which enshrines an original perspective. You can take the Mona Lisa and paint it in an identical way to how it was painted in the first place... will it stimulate the mind? Likely not. We will simply recognise it as being identical to its predecessor. But what if you took the Mona Lisa and this time you painted it in a distorted Or figurative way, or a colourful and vibrant expressive way, or you explored the geometry of the painting, or you made it mythological, or used only cubes to paint it or you painted it as a robot or made of fruit. The same recognition processes go into appreciating that it is the Mona Lisa but the newness is in “what kind of version of it he Mona Lisa Has been painted.
Art chews up the previous and rebuilds it into the future Presentation. It always has an input from the past but the result is always a transformation for the purpose of new expressions. This is artistic evolution.
Whether art offends/ is dangerous or not depends on to what degree it opposes the status quo/ the expected. There are many cases in history of art being destroyed for its obscenity and unacceptability but that is a reflection more of the art appreciator/ viewer than the artist and of what is culturally “appropriate” of the time. The “primavera” A mythological And somewhat pagan depiction Of the goddess of spring that was painted during the height of the Roman Catholic Church had to be hidden and protected for many years For this reason.
Art should provoke. Because if it cannot... it is dead. The essence of art is the new and therefore maybe the uncomfortable/ unpalatable/ unsightly.
I am all in favour of art as a means of provoking and being about the unexpected. I do believe at that level it has the power to bring about change. The only thing which I would say is that I don't just see it as being about an end result. It is a process as well and the whole experience of making art the art is a process of changing consciousness.
In speaking of this I am speaking of the change it may bring to the individual as well as on a social level. This can include the therapeutic use of the arts or about the way it brings a change in the state of the mind of the creator.
I would suggest that you are right to suggest that art should provoke but of course the effects cannot be judged in terms of the reaction of the viewer as well. What is new to some may be old to others. Ultimately, I believe in the role of art in bringing change but I do not wish to be making judgements about any art being inferior even if it is seen as a repetition of the past or less provoking. I would not want to step into the role of being an art critic.
Well, if we're going to discuss a topic, we should isolate it from other topics i.e. to talk about art, we need to exclude non-art from the conversation. Anyway, you've done exactly what I did below [underlined] and so we're good.
Quoting Possibility
I do admit that creativity is involved in art for it's necessary for beautification - how might I take something and give it, in your words, "...aesthetic value..." However, creativity per se isn't art. For instance it took a whole lot of creativity to invent the automobile but the earliest automobiles, if you look at old pictures, lacked the "...aesthetic value..." modern automobiles possess.
I’m not say that creativity per se is art, but that it is a property without which art would not be what it is - ergo, its essence.
There are many skills that are considered an ‘art’ in the hands of some, due to their creative approaches to problem-solving that incrementally challenge what can be achieved, but such endeavours are considered ‘beautiful’ only so long as they don’t overstretch our capacity to integrate the new information with how we predict it would (or believe it should) look or move.
The ‘aesthetic value’ of early automobiles is lost on many of us, but at the time they would have been looked upon by engineers (at least) as a masterpiece, a thing of beauty - in looking at this contraption they understood what could be achieved. If you understand the history of the craft, you would appreciate their aesthetic value even now, just as we do with paintings and sculpture.
I did admit that creativity is part of art but that it's the essence of art is debatable unless you mean to say that beauty is a facet of creativity.
Quoting Possibility
So, do some art "...overstretch our capacity to integrate the new information with how we predict it would (or believe it should) look or move"? After all, if beauty is not all that central to art, some art shouldn't be beautiful. Can you give me some examples of art that have nothing to do with beauty?
I can give you some examples of art in which creativity has no role at all. Take for instance the Niagara falls or the Grand Canyon or any other natural wonder for that matter. The artist when he works on such subjects focuses on a hi-fi reproduction, a carbon copy as it were, and keeps faer creativity, if fae is so blessed, on a tight leash lest he make the silly mistake of trying to gild the lily.
Quoting Possibility
This doesn't make sense. It goes without saying that the cars of today are aesthetically endowed relative to the first ones that were made in the 1800's. Back then the car was simply about function - their sole purpose was to get people from point A to point B. Nowadays, that simple formula just won't cut it - people are looking for more than just transport - they also want their vehicles to be nice-looking (beauty).
Some art isn’t beautiful, or at least elements of it are disturbing or difficult to face, watch or acknowledge, let alone judge as ‘beautiful’. These pieces are often described as ‘important’. The earlier example I referred to was of Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, first exhibited (after initial rejection) in 1917. The 1994 New Zealand film Once Were Warriors is etched in my memory as a disturbingly powerful piece of cinema that I cannot bring myself to watch again, and yet would not hesitate to recommend. Likewise for Khaled Hosseini’s novels.
And Monet’s Impression: Sunrise was among many works rejected by the Salon des Beaux Arts in Paris for years prior to the 1874 Impressionist Exhibition, because they over-stretched critics’ capacity to integrate certain techniques and subject matter with how they believed paintings should look. These artworks were not ‘beautiful’, and did not aim to be: they intended to portray the aesthetic qualities experienced in the fleeting nature of light and the ordinariness of life. That critics couldn’t recognise this aesthetic quality, let alone judge it to be ‘beautiful’, did not mean it wasn’t art, even then.
I can tell you this, your views depart from the mainstream understanding of art is. Read below:
[quote=Wikipedia]Aesthetics, or esthetics (/?s???t?ks, i?s-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics).[/quote]
Marcel Duchamp was simply having some fun and unfortunately it was at the expense of those who know that art must be about beauty. I'm sure his reputation from his previous works which were, I suppose, beautiful, helped him slip this monstrosity past the art checkpost. It happens. I remember a long time ago knowing a person who was known for his honesty. At one point he did lie but everyone believed it because of his reputation as an upstanding bloke.
I’m okay with that - I’m not after the popular vote.
Quoting TheMadFool
You might want to do a little research on Duchamp before you leap to this conclusion. Duchamp had already earned a reputation for adding aesthetic qualities to his work that challenged the criteria of form. He added elements of movement (Nude Descending a Staircase No.2) and even elements of mental activity (Portrait of Chess Players) to his Cubist artworks that scandalised critics, and he later rejected what he referred to as ‘retinal art’, which he believed “intended only to please the eye”. Fountain was his most significant Dadaist work, was one of a number of ‘readymade’ objects he used in his art, and was indicative of his desire “to put art back in service of the mind”. It didn’t ‘slip past the art checkpost’, but was originally rejected as ‘not art’ for an exhibition that supposedly had no jury, prompting Duchamp to resign from the Board of its organising society. But it wasn’t the first time his art had been rejected from a non-jury exhibition.
:up: Fantastic!
Quoting Possibility
The reason why Duchamp was recognized as an artist was because some of his works were beautiful. OK.
Quoting Possibility
In other words, to many, those who share my sentiment that art has to be aesthetically pleasing I presume, Duchamp's work wasn't art.
As far as I can tell, if Duchamp was a pioneer of the point of view on art that you're espousing, then kudos to him. I don't know what kind of artistic environment his take on art take shape in but it must've been marked with deep frustration at the status quo whatever it was. To present a toilet as art comes off as a desperate measure...perhaps because of...desperate times.
Just to add to the discussion regarding toilets f, my friend who used to make paintings on the theme of urinals, did this making the walls and structure of the room like temples. He spoke of how he imagined sacred, esoteric rituals taking place in such places in the middle ages, probably based on paganism.
But it is worth saying that he began making this art while in therapy. His work was based on his own struggle with Catholic views on sexuality. and how especially the idea of hell had affected his mental health His work probably fell into the tradition of 'outsider art'.
Absolutely it runs along the lines of “one mans rubbish is another’s treasure.” With respect to “popular art” I would imagine it is that which has the capacity to engage a large audience - that perhaps it has a message or emotion that is either new to many or just simply held in great esteem/importance to the majority. Art that deals with current affairs or archetypes of human nature would fit this category. It is observed that art that deals with struggle and hardship, depression, love or the mysteries of life has that kind of impact that resonates with a lot of people while of course there are also niche arts that won’t relate to the majority but are profoundly interesting to a few. But as you pointed out, to say one is better than the other is a fallacious claim just as to assume ones dreams/ambitions are less correct or valid as another’s is also merely a matter of opinion.
I think however that Whilst most of us wouldn’t be comfortable critiquing art, critics do have a purpose or knowledge in discerning what is perhaps powerful or popular art verse art that is less so. But they would make judgements not only on the relevancy or perceived “worthiness” of the piece but many important factors such as; Technique and precision - how well did the artist execute the message they wish to portray, style - is it something that is refreshing and unique or something that has been repeated 1000 times already, how was the piece composed - how well does the artist demonstrate spatial awareness and balance in the piece etc. The list is extensive and always open to contention.
In essence the true irony is that critiquing or “appreciating” art is just as much an art-form as the artwork itself and this is why many a time several famous or well recognised art critics can be at total odds with each other as to the beauty of a piece they have all independently analysed. One could say it’s the best thing they’ve ever seen and another could say it belongs in the bin.
It is therefore important for artists (especially those who create works of a deeply personal nature - the artists who quite literally put their soul/ being into a piece) that a criticism is never universal. And that a disliking of the piece is not a reflection of the validity or worth of their personhood and they should not take it to heart too much.
The issue really is that as I pointed out earlier most of us have very little idea of what is “good” so we tend to agree with the experts opinions despite maybe liking the piece before the critic “ripped it to shreds” and this can feel awful for an artist when the group turns on their piece without really knowing what decision or who’s decisions lead them to that conclusion.
A worthwhile final note is that dozen of artists have faced severe and often life destroying levels of exclusion/ denial of their talents based on the status quo at the time only to emerge as distinguished and highly regarded artists posthumously in the future. If only they could see what became of their work.
Not the same thing - and I’m getting a little tired of you clipping my statements to suit your own argument. Aesthetic qualities does NOT equal beautiful - you’re equivocating aesthetic qualities with positive aesthetic VALUE. His Nude Descending a Staircase No.2 horrified art critics and patrons alike in the US in 1913:
The aesthetic qualities he added challenged Cubism’s criteria of form at the time. It clearly lacked those aesthetic qualities by which it could be judged ‘beautiful’ as an art form, and yet it was important for the aesthetic qualities it did have: repetition, indeterminacy of form, and variations of perspective that suggest movement. Today, with photography and cinema, we take these particular qualities in 2D form for granted, but at the time they were conveying a new understanding of how to see the world - one that wasn’t yet understood in art.
Quoting TheMadFool
I recognise that many people draw the line of ‘art’ at visually pleasing, which they understand to be the limit of aesthetics. I find it sad that this opinion is still mainstream (even considered intellectual) after more than a century of artistic exploration beyond this horizon. But some people still insist the earth is flat and only 6000 years old, so...
I also recognise that Dadaism emerged from the environment of WWI, a stark reality that made this criteria of ‘retinal art’ seem like escapism, fantasy, a denial of their own experience. But the idea that aesthetics was about more than what is visually pleasing, and included sublime delight in the process (however fearful, difficult or disorienting) of attempting to understand what we’re looking at beyond the limits of our senses - I believe that was Kant.
But the aesthetic VALUE is completely determined by beauty, the aesthetic quality. To speak of one is to speak of the other. You wrote "...aesthetic qualities..." Pray tell what other qualities other than beauty are there in aesthetics?
Not that I want to get into an argument with you but I quoted YOU so if you're not happy, you have yourself to blame for it.
I understand that Duchamp's works, some of them I presume, elicited a response that was negative in every sense of that word from the art critics. For my money, the reason why critics were, in your words, "...horrified..." was because the work was absent beauty in the form that the world and the critics were familiar with up until that point. For Duchamp to be considered a legit painter, an artist in his own right, we must come to the conclusion that he was offering a different perspective, on, revealing another side to, beauty and not outright rejecting the role and importance of beauty in art. That;s as far as I'm willing to go with what you said.
Quoting Possibility
A "...new understanding of how to see the world..." as I've been explaining ad nauseum isn't unique to art. The same can be said of philosophical positions, scientific theories, and whathaveyou and that being so, art can't be defined by in those terms. To illustrate analogically, we can't use eyes to define human beings because other animals also have eyes; to define human beings, we need to focus on the essence of what it is to be human. Similarly, to define art, we can't rely on features that are present in other non-art disciplines; what we need is something unique to art and that, for me, is beauty.
I think that you make an important point about the need for 'a new understanding of the world.' Of course, this is not unique to art, and definitely applies to philosophy. But I do believe that art and the arts are one place where this can take place. You speak of the 'need to focus on the essence of what it means to be human' and I completely agree.
I do not see the question of art and influence as being entirely separate from the one in the thread of where are we going? Remember, I am not talking about visual art alone but about all the arts. I would also see philosophy as an art in its own right. I believe that we need to find new ways of seeing.
I'm doubtful whether art can done to the exclusion of beauty considering that beauty is the only thing that gives it a unique identity.
I'm aware that @Possibility and you lend credence to other dimensions to art, specifically that it provides a "...new understanding..." of the world. However, in my humble opinion, whatever "...new understanding..." artists bring to the table it has to be executed beautifully; if not, it fails to do justice to the spirit of the artistic enterprise.
I realise that you believe that art is about beauty. However, your discussion of this in relation to the this seems to be mainly abstract. So, I am just wondering which artists or works of art can be seen as measuring up to this quality?
Aesthetic qualities are the way in which art elements and principles, materials and techniques work together to influence the mood, feeling or meaning of an artwork. They can be gentle, angry, happy, sad, sharp, bright, harsh, languid, etc.
Aesthetic value is the value that an artwork possesses in virtue of its capacity to elicit pleasure (positive value) or displeasure (negative value) when appreciated or experienced aesthetically.
Quoting TheMadFool
Duchamp was offering a broader perspective of art - he was disputing the rejection of negative value in a created aesthetic experience.
Quoting TheMadFool
But beauty is not unique to art at all - it is ubiquitous in nature. So, by the same token, art can’t be defined in terms of beauty, anymore than new understanding. In my view, what is unique to art is the self-conscious creation of an aesthetic experience. And no, it doesn’t have to be new in order to be art, but it doesn’t have to be beautiful, either. This is what art ultimately strives for: new and unexpected information, rendered with satisfying aesthetic clarity. It’s more a work-in-process than a product in this respect.
I'm forced to admit my abject ignorance on the matter of specific artworks that would validate my position that art is about beauty. Consider my point of view to be one that's extracted from a brief and perhaps too superficial a survey of what's being peddled as art to the general public. Yet, I I'm somewhat confident that if we make a list of artworks that have been bought/sold for huge sums of money, money here the surrogate marker for real art, you'll [probably] discover that art lovers all over the world choose beauty over anything else that art deals with.
Quoting Possibility
Google definition of aesthetics: a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty.
Odd that nowhere in your colorful description is beauty even mentioned in passing.
Quoting Possibility
If that's what Duchamp was doing then kudos to him. I too feel that artists should broaden their horizons and expand their interests to be as inclusive of the multi-faceted world that we inhabit. However, they mustn't do this in a way that undermines art itself and they're guilty of doing precisely that when they ignore beauty and get carried away by the novelty of their ideas. For example, Duchamp seems to have been so bowled over by the freshness and originality of his ideas that he completely forgot about beauty.
Quoting Possibility
What's unique about beauty in art is that the latter makes the former a value in its own right.
I would say that my parents certainly came from the same perspective on art being about beauty. I was encouraged to do realistic art by my parents and on courses I have done.
My funny memory was is that of doing an abstract painting, all in black, at age 4, at play school. When I was making I felt like it was a deep statement, but when I showed it to my mum, she was absolutely horrified. So, I told her that it was burnt roast potatoes, and I think that this was the end of my abstract painting career.
I have experimented in symbolic drawings, especially on the art therapy course. My favourite artists do include Dali and William Blake, who are recognised in the 'aesthetic' sense, although many have criticised Blake's lack of drawing skill.
I would like to do more symbolic art at some point in the future. However, I as I have said on a number of occasions I am interested in the arts in the widest sense. Generally, I love alternative perspective in writing and music, including the most experimental psychedelic styles, for looking into other dimensions, for increased experience, transformation and understanding.
I would confidently dispute that. If you took a look at the twenty most expensive paintings sold, roughly half of them would not be considered ‘beautiful’ by the general public let alone art lovers, and were certainly not purchased at that price for their beauty. These include de Kooning, Munch, Pollock, Rothko, Lichtenstein and Basquiat - all over $100 million apiece. Many of them, however, are recognised as ‘important’ works in our overall progress of aesthetic awareness. Modigliani, in particular, is indicative of a more ‘respectful’ and ‘sensitive’ treatment of female nudes - although they were considered ‘ugly’ during his lifetime (for showing pubic hair). These artists challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just for what we’d prefer it to be. Their aesthetic value is realised in the knowledge we gain - not just the pleasure - from thinking about how we feel when we look at it.
Quoting TheMadFool
If you can’t see beauty in those definitions, then I doubt you understand aesthetics at all. It’s only after Kant that the term ‘aesthetics’ was commonly reduced to the nature and appreciation of beauty. It’s such a narrow perspective - Kant uses the example of beauty in aesthetic experience to demonstrate rational structure in our capacity for judgement, not to define aesthetics. The sublime is no less important to an overall understanding of aesthetics.
Quoting TheMadFool
I would argue that Duchamp never ‘forgot’ about beauty, but that he deliberately downplayed it in his art to achieve the focus he was aiming for. Artists shouldn’t be expected to encompass an holistic view of this multi-faceted world in every piece, nor to create ‘art itself’ - instead, they embody in their work what they believe the world (of art) can learn from their perspective: ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world’. It is the ‘freshness and originality of his ideas’ that he aims to present in the clearest way that he can, and to attempt anything else is hubris.
Quoting TheMadFool
Sorry, I just don’t see this.
I understand where you're coming from but to "...challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just for what we'd prefer it to be" is, to be brutally frank, not an artist's job or if you that doesn't go down well with you, it definitely isn't something unique to art i.e. it fails to define art; plus it amounts trespassing onto territories that rightfully belong to other disciplines/fields.
That said, I did admit that artists should be given the freedom to pick and choose any topic under the sun as subjects of their artistic urges BUT, and this can't be emphasized enough, they should make it a point to leave a clearly visible sign that the topic/subject, whatever it is, has passed through the mind of an artist.
This standpoint is in keeping with how we approach other issues: I remember, quite some time ago, reading a book on critical thinking and there's as discussion in it about how we must get all sides to a story and that, as per the author, involves getting a teacher's perspective, a student's perspective, a parent's perspective, a politician's perspective, so and so forth. The reason why this is done is because each such perspective brings to the table a different take on the issue at hand and, most importantly, each perspective is unique and vital to our understanding.
Likewise, an artist's perspective must be unique for it to be worthy of our attention and admiration and it, for certain, isn't if the artist's intention is solely to "...challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just what we'd prefer it to be". Philosopher's do the same thing with words. Comedians do it with jokes. Thus my insistence that beauty be recognized as an essential attribute of art for it's the only quality that art can claim as its very own and thus the only quality that can make the artist's perspective stand out as a one of a kind among the myriad points of view that are available to us.
Quoting Possibility
Read above.
Your insistence that we must be restrained by these categories that define our thinking is a fundamental misunderstanding of creativity, and of art. I’m not saying that challenging our perception of reality is an artist’s job - it’s everyone’s job. But to say that artists are ‘trespassing’ by doing so, or that they should have art defined for them by other disciplines, is ridiculous.
Quoting TheMadFool
You’re talking about creative intentionality. But who decides what a ‘clearly visible sign’ is? This is what I’m talking about - ignorance on the part of the audience does not constitute failure on the part of the artist, anymore than aesthetic awareness on the part of the critic does not constitute creative intentionality on the part of the artist (eg. Roosevelt’s Navajo rug). Not everyone recognises (or is willing to recognise) the creative process at work, especially if it transcends their own capacity to describe it. So much of this creative process is unavailable to the viewer, and even the artist may not be able to describe exactly why their work elicits a certain affect - but it demonstrates awareness, connection and collaboration in achieving an aesthetic experience.
So, how do you gauge creative intentionality? This is part of the question that Duchamp asks in his art. How do you know that an artist made this or that stroke of the brush on purpose? What leads you to assume that Duchamp chose to exhibit the urinal as a joke? Is this something for the critic or culture to determine, or is an artwork inseparable from the artist’s creative process after all? And why do we define art by a judgement of beauty - as if excluding our potential to manifest ugliness and disturbance in the world is more valuable than the truth?
Quoting TheMadFool
It’s the focus on a consolidated uniqueness that I take issue with. Labelling each perspective as such detracts from the importance in the perspective of a teacher who is also a parent, for instance; or an artist who is also a scientist.
Quoting TheMadFool
Comedians may do it with jokes, but much of a good comedian’s material these days ‘trespasses’ into performance art and philosophy, as well as directly challenging what we think of as ‘funny’. Likewise for philosophers who publish fiction (de Beauvoir, Sartre, Rand, Camus, Nietzsche) or who are also scientists or mathematicians (Aristotle, Descartes, Pierce, Dewey, etc). So, you can insist on everyone ‘staying in their lane’ all you want - but it only limits your perspective of reality if Descartes can be essentially EITHER a mathematician OR a philosopher, but not both.
An artist’s perspective IS unique if it challenges us to SEE the world differently from our current understanding. Whether we take that challenge is not up to the art or the artist, it has to do with our own expectations of what art and artists can achieve. Art cannot claim beauty as its very own, anymore than philosophers can claim wisdom, or comedians humour.
We need to get away from trying to protect institutionalised concepts from change by defining them by some unique ‘essence’ that is nothing more than an illusion of power. Is it so troublesome for your perspective of reality that art aspires to transcend definition and reach beyond our current understanding? Why does that unsettle you so?