»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
What is art?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
What is art? |
|
|
mrmojorisin5908 Member
since 2004-05-03
Posts 103Colorado |
I found this quote unusual yet strangely logical ---- "I feel that in art, but especially in film, the people are trying to confirm their own existences."---------------- I am still trying to figure out what it exactly means. if anyone has any comments on this phillosophical statement about art in general i would love to hear it!!! Andrew A. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Andrew A. - All Rights Reserved | |||
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
Sounds like Art & Existential Angst to me. Hurray! One of the solutions a lot of existentialists proposed to the problem of the meaninglessness of existence was to create. That can go all the way from Nietzsche's symbolic sense of the term to Camus' discussion of the absurd man and artistic expression... I think that this quote is trying to describe how art is a possible solution to that problem, in which many find refuge. I, however, like to have a more optimistic attitude towards it... without so much changing the truth about it. This reminds me of a nice quote from Martin Buber's I and Thou: quote: |
||
|
mrmojorisin5908 Member
since 2004-05-03
Posts 103Colorado |
well one of nietzche's great fans-jim morrison- wrote this qoute. he truly is an american poet. think about the relevance of art and the meaning. Jim has an impression as being a drunkard whose sayings mean nothing. however i think thoughts reflect wisdom. And art is one in itself. Art can be whatever you want it to. Personally belief- on its behalf- is something great that no one can take away. And in time one will know darkness and the light---- "if you stare into the abyss long enough,it'll stare back into you." |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
I thought that might have been him. I think your explanation is a bit of an over-simplification, but you should probably read Nietzsche sometime, you would find him a lot more interesting than just reading inspirational quotes on the internet.. "God becomes as we are that we may be as he is." ~William Blake |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Art is the creative success of Tradition. Man keeps certain traditions in painting, writing etc, and therefore he may do studiously and with skill instead of ignorantly as if this or that were a thing hitherto unknown or very little known to all the world, when it comes from many ages of this life, where it developed traditions: it is, as good as it meets Tradition and gives something through that. The more one follows the Grace of Tradition and gives within that, the more it is Art. |
||
|
mrmojorisin5908 Member
since 2004-05-03
Posts 103Colorado |
Essorant- i like those words. However, I believe that art can break away from any traditional cultural norm (whatever that culture may be). If you look at the simplistic beauty of all objects the world in itself becomes an artistic figure head. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
think i read this here somewhere: "what isn't art?" |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
if art, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then its safe to say there's a desperate need for large scale corrective eye surgery. it's only my slanted opinion of course, but for the most part art/music are in serious decay, but art is a reflection of it's society and..ahem..culture, so it's understandable. That's not to say all art/music, just the majority, the mainstream. thankfully the underground/alternative scenes still breathe life. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Andrew -- which people do you think Jim is talking about here? The artists or the audience? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
The mainstream by definition will be homgenous... it does that to appeal to the greatest amount of people- to sell sell and SELL some more. What's interesting... what's artistic... is the way it affects us. Go to any grocery store and pay attention to product placement- look at the new camel ads- te ones set in the '20's- they all ahve one modern glitch in the painting. Listen to pretty much any mainstream radio top 40 song, go see any movie- how's 'She's all That' for mainstream mentality... or -heh- any J. Lo flick. The people who produce mainstream crap are geniuses. It's just at the art of the sale, not the art of... art. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
of course i agree hush, it's always been that way. commerce vs art. there have been pockets, however, where even the mainstream showed remarkable work. they're usually in eras of awareness, education and experimentation (think rennasiance or the 60's). most recently, the early 90s were a great example of this. but again style beat out substance and all the energy of the movement was either usurped or self destructed. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
C? "what isn't art?" nodding here, "exactly!"  |
||
|
mrmojorisin5908 Member
since 2004-05-03
Posts 103Colorado |
To rebel's question "the audience or the artist" I think it is both. The artist may be trying to find him/herself by playing a different role (in essence living a different life), expanding his mind by producing something of foriegn nature, or redifining the thought process by reflecting the thoughts he thinks are unacceptable to society. On the other hand, The audience views/listens/reads materials that put them into a state of mind that otherwise doesn't exist in their life. Trying to find a philosophical answer via art causes reflection. Accordingly, reflection in itself is art. We reflect on poetry, music,film, etc... So I think Morrison was taking both the audience and the artisit into account with his quote. To confirm your own existence a physical feeling (pain, pleasure,etc...) must be invoked. (however this does not prove life, only death can proove one was living). Also, stepping outside of your comfort zone (artistic nature) makes you feel that you are alive because you confront normality. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Man hasn't the native features and graces that the rest of Nature has to be artful most naturally, therefore he always needs extraodrindary arts. He must tinker his way through nature to get to grace, but he can't do as well as Nature, therefore he always needs to tinker more, He the undirect and deviant course, a misfit and burdenweary beast, going to the same instincts that animals do, but only in this increasingly delayed, and confusing transition between too little instinct and too much control. He remembers too much as well, therefore for the tiredness in his mind about meeting a creation, he needs to change it to be reimpressed because its artfulness he no longer sees through the tiredness of seeing the same thing all the time. Reason is man's traditional way of aping Instinct, Art is his traditional way of aping Beauty. As long as Man is never content with anything natural, the more he is given to feel things should be all reason and art, the more his Reason and art lack grace. |
||
|
mrmojorisin5908 Member
since 2004-05-03
Posts 103Colorado |
However, if reason and art lack grace, man is then subjected to infinitive bondage. Elegance is freedom in the eyes of its beholder. Without it, one feels restricted because imagination is absent. Every living creature on this world is from the same substance. However, man evolved to the zenith of all creaturs. He can produce relative thought, he can produce logic, and he can produce art. And art generates elegance and inquiry. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Art is a part of a start .... many more such statements exist and make equivalent sense... |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"Reason is man's traditional way of aping Instinct" This is interesting... do you think man invented reason because he felt better than instinct, and therein lies the problem? I would say that we use reason as a way to explain and, yes, justify our instincts. But the question then becomes why so many different mode of reasoning, or instinct? Why the grand variety in human morality? And why so much variety in art? If it's all just aping beauty, why do different people ape it so differently? |
||
|
mrmojorisin5908 Member
since 2004-05-03
Posts 103Colorado |
I think reason has evolved with time. As cultures and social acceptability has evolved so has the human thought process. However, we reason no more, than say, an ant. I think intead of trying to confirm aping with reason, humans are subjected to reason; and consequently, every living thing on this earth has a thought process. The smallest organism knows where to get food. That may be a very complex way of thinking for that life form. On the other hand, humans reason everything from where to go to dinner to what personal belief means. Reason is relative to "aping" (Apes have reason too) Andrew A. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Man lacks grace because he pretends he is not inevitably serving similar and common instinctual ties to Nature as beasts have and excel in with less structure, and the implications of which are that in order for any of our artful structure to be healthy and wellfared and excell too, natural things and the natural world must be able too beside them. It seems the more art is agreeable with and aids nature, the more nature is agreeable and aids the art. The original "art" instinct and beauty may be edified and cultivated and brought out; but if you try to remove or replace those with too much with your own plan and serve them too minimizedly, that shall make corruption and disgrace upon this world; and that is what man shall start to ape too. He will yet serve the same things but corruptedly too much by his own plan of art: corruption of Nature and Beauty, rather than Civilization of them. Man's art must serve God's art, or it ceases to be art anymore, ceases to be civilization, and ceases to have any grace. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sometimes however man does acknowledge his basic instinct, but often when he does tries to justify corrupt secondary "instincts" and conditions and manmade influences he made around that basic instinct, with the native orders of instinct itself. Or man will treat instinct like chaos, and suggest that his lack of grace is out of falling to an inescapable and disorderly force that is to be blamed instead. There is an instinct drawing one to have sex; even in manmade influences of provocative clothing, deviance, addiction, a form of violence, this instinct even still always even if most vaguely may "pull" at one, and draw one to it and therefore more into whatever conditions, however ill, are around it; but just because the instinct and the sexuality are beautiful and still call, the wrong conditions and vices around it are still not justified and never shall be or in the case of any natural forces and movings, where man may have such hand as makes conditions to differ from what nature should do on her own, if there was no choice for him to differ from that at all, I believe. Nature moves not against Order, she is not chaotic. Only man is when he has the choice and chooses wrongly. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-06-2004 03:53 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
