Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Cogito ergo sum]

Cogito ergo sum:

It seems to me that the greater your understanding is the less relevant art is. It seems that the purpose of philosophical thought is to learn and understand the connections between two or more seemingly different objects and or forms and then translate that into your daily life. So from that point if through philosophical thought you can control emotions and feel them at the right place at the right time and in the right amount, then what would be the purpose of art? And when I say philosophical thought I mean that from a Socratic/Aristotelian view on philosophy, where it was a way to achieve enlightenment and a way to live your daily life.

Why would you think art is simply a balance of emotions? 'Balance' possesses nothing of art in itself. Even if you were John Dewey, who thought getting your taxes in order was intrinsically aesthetic, you would not think art is exhausted by this. The aesthetic is the pleasing feeling that attends doing your taxes well. Artists are those who pursue this feeling for itself; they put themselves into problem solving interface with a physical medium, and art is "wrought out" of the experience. A concentrated form of what is part and parcel of meaningful experiences all the time. That's Dewey.



But simply put: When you're jamm'em to the tunes, your not just, well, keeping your affairs in order, and Van Gogh didn't paint to control his emotions. Artists pursue aesthetic rapture.

That's a big assumption to say van gogh didn't paint to control his emotions. You have no idea of his thought process when painting. But that is beside the point. This is not a question about the creator of the art but for the observer of art. Aristotle claimed that a play if properly constructed would purge excess pity and fear from the observer (balance then emotions) that is why I said I'm coming at this from a Greek philosophy point of view not john dewy or enlightenment thinkers. But to sum it up it seems that if you acheive enlightenment in the Greek sense art would be irrelevant and could potentially be harmful.

[Hereandnow]

Cogito ergo sum: That's a big assumption to say van gogh didn't paint to control his emotions. You have no idea of his thought process when painting. But that is beside the point. This is not a question about the creator of the art but for the observer of art. Aristotle claimed that a play if properly constructed would purge excess pity and fear from the observer (balance then emotions) that is why I said I'm coming at this from a Greek philosophy point of view not john dewy or enlightenment thinkers. But to sum it up it seems that if you acheive enlightenment in the Greek sense art would be irrelevant and could potentially be harmful.

But what do the Greek philosophers know about art? Plato thought it was a memesis of a memesis of the Real; Aristotle and catharsis: Sure, the theater can be cathartic, but this term falls far short of the joy of art. Before we entertain the meaning of art based on what the Greeks said, we should first ask if what they had to say was of any value. Not many intellectuals are fit to talk about it. Dewey wasn't, though he is interesting. George Dickey is interesting, so is Arthur Danto--his "Art World" is great, insightful; the former's notions of art as an institution is interesting. But these guys do not speak to the emotion of art. Clive Bell does this in his so-called formalism, and I think he is right. But for the most part, astheticians do not understand aesthetes. it takes a real art lover, one who swoons at a sunset and has to paint it.

Now, speaking of these various theorists, they have on their shoulders the need not merely to understand an aesthetic experience, which they don't, really, but to encompass the entire breadth of modern art in their thinking. This changes how we think about art entirely, for modern art is often conceptual and counter-intuitive; the meaning lies in the thinking, not in the "beauty". I think this is extremely interesting, that is, to analyze the art of the cognitive component of a work. But none of what they discuss can be reduced to the end of the purpose of art (though danto did write "The End of Art". Good question: Has the art exhausted itself and is now just an endless recapitulation?)

But I do know a bit of what Van Gogh was feeling, and so do you. It is emotional joy.When I behold some of his pieces I am overwhelmed, as with his Orchard series. Yes, it is fair to say that he was compensating, needing cathartic release. But the joy of painting: He wrote: I am up to my ears in work for the trees are in blossom and I want to paint a Provençal orchard of astonishing gaiety.

[Hog Rider]

Do you think that art and music is a way to express things that science and philosophy have not yet expressed and that the more we understand the less relevant art and music will become?.

No. `I puzzled why you think this might be so. I can't really think of any example where science or philosophy has offered us something that restricts artistic expression, can you offer an example? If anything, as time passes, art has reached wider, and has never abandoned any of its earlier forms.

[Cogito ergo sum]

Do you think that art and music is a way to express things that science and philosophy have not yet expressed and that the more we understand the less relevant art and music will become?.

No. `I puzzled why you think this might be so. I can't really think of any example where science or philosophy has offered us something that restricts artistic expression, can you offer an example? If anything, as time passes, art has reached wider, and has never abandoned any of its earlier forms.

I am trying to come at this from the perspective of the observer of the art not the art itself and like anything else no demand equals no supply. I am not saying that anything that has happened in art or science is in any way restricting artistic expression. There is something about art that does something to the observer it can upset and unsettle the emotions and can also purge excess emotions that are not needed. It would help you understand my perspective of this if you are familiar with Plato and Aristotle's views on art and then the later views of the Stoics who would not want any external object or form to influence ones emotions. That is why you see among the philosophers of that time this strong desire for enlightenment in which the observer is in compete control over his emotions regardless of any external influence and that would include art. So it would help when you read the question if you focus on what it does to you as the individual when you hear a piece of music or look at a painting. For example you could look at a painting and say it brings "joy" or "happiness" or maybe "sorrow" and "fear". Now from the perspective of ancient Greek philosophy and the later Stoics all of those emotions come from within yourself and the act of the observer looking towards an outside representation in order to feel or purge these emotions would emphasize a certain lack in the individual observing the art. Plato through his dialogues in the Symposium definitely took this in an interesting way with even including the desire to love another individual shows a lack in the "lover" not necessarily in the "loved-one" but this could be for a later discussion. And I have to completely disagree with you when you said art never abandons any of its earlier forms. That is completely untrue, art is always abandoning its earlier forms that is how artistic progress gets made. If not we would not have abstract art that absolutely abandoned earlier forms of paintings or sculptures. We would have not had Grunge music which abandoned earlier forms of rick music. Bob Dylan expressed it very well when he performed "like a rolling stone" at the Newport Folk festival in, I believe 1968, and he, as if saying it to the audience, "how does it feel, to be on your own, with no direction home?" He was abandoning his earlier folk style and went with an electric rock style.

[Hog Rider]

(Nested quote removed.)


No. `I puzzled why you think this might be so. I can't really think of any example where science or philosophy has offered us something that restricts artistic expression, can you offer an example? If anything, as time passes, art has reached wider, and has never abandoned any of its earlier forms.

I am trying to come at this from the perspective of the observer of the art not the art itself and like anything else no demand equals no supply. I am not saying that anything that has happened in art or science is in any way restricting artistic expression.

Obviously you are trying to say something, but not very well.

I can't reconcile this opening sentence; "Do you think that art and music is a way to express things that science and philosophy have not yet expressed and that the more we understand the less relevant art and music will become?", and ask if art is 'dying". With the one above; " I am not saying that anything that has happened in art or science is in any way restricting artistic expression"

When you are clearly implying that science seems to be making art "less relevant". What characterises art today is that far from it being less relevant or restricted, all forms to the present remain relevant, Art is an ever growing form freed from it's previous culturally specific chains, such as "Greek Classical" Now a person from any culture has unprecedented access to the entire world history of art.

-- Updated October 5th, 2014, 5:00 pm to add the following --

Art has never been more relevant, open and accessible.


When the world's earliest know sculpture was made I doubt they thought that 24,000 years later the same theme would be repeated and mutated, nor that it would be available to billions of people.


Or that art would be available in paint, video, song, sculpture (virtual and actual), abstract.

[Hereandnow]

Hogrider: Art has never been more relevant, open and accessible.

But art may nevertheless be at an end. Consider that representational art is over as a genre of mastery, say. One can argue about the point at which it came to be, perhaps it was Duchamp, but there is a transition in the history of art in which the concept became so wedded to the artwork, dominantly so with conceptual art, that art morphed into a new and alien hybrid. Of course, George Dickie's institutional account of the art world makes the aestheticallt arbitrary body of critique and evaluation an intricate part of the "business" of art. music? We are still waiting for a new genre to make an appearance.

[Hog Rider]

Hogrider: Art has never been more relevant, open and accessible.

But art may nevertheless be at an end. Consider that representational art is over as a genre of mastery, say. One can argue about the point at which it came to be, perhaps it was Duchamp, but there is a transition in the history of art in which the concept became so wedded to the artwork, dominantly so with conceptual art, that art morphed into a new and alien hybrid. Of course, George Dickie's institutional account of the art world makes the aestheticallt arbitrary body of critique and evaluation an intricate part of the "business" of art. music? We are still waiting for a new genre to make an appearance.

This is simply just not the case. Representative art is now one amongst many genres available to the artist. All the best abstract artists trained as, and were masters of representative art. Name this artist!



As for music, there are new genres all the time. Have you tried "SteamPunk"?

[Hereandnow]

Hog Rider: This is simply just not the case. Representative art is now one amongst many genres available to the artist. All the best abstract artists trained as, and were masters of representative art. Name this artist!

It's not that it is not a genre among us; it's simply that there is nothing else, or little, to be done in the genre. Nor is it a matter having to master realism to be abstract (Van Gogh was no master of representational art). The point about visual art is that once conceptualization became an essential feature of the art work, and once art values became distorted by assessment based on market value, the standard notions of what art is found themselves outside of objects. What is form and color and line, and so forth, if the art idea takes center stage. An empty room with a light switch wins a prestigious award: How does this fit into any critical ideas about art? It is more a thesis than art.

Music? I do believe they are trying desperately to compose something novel. All I hear, having heard it all, is recapitulation.

Why am I guessing who the painter is? i'm game. Dark, murky colors, yellowing paint; the cap suggests a genre (every-day life) painting. My wife says maybe Rembrandt. I think so.

[Jklint]

Artists pursue aesthetic rapture.

That's true to a great extent but it "can" go beyond that. Compare for example Schopenhauer's influence on Wagner not to mention that of the ancient Greek Dramatists on his Music Dramas.

Much more can be said on that subject but that would be a useless endeavor. The point is that art can equal and even surpass philosophy. Words by no means encompass the whole or even the most of human experience.

[Hereandnow]

i completely agree, Jklint. But art doesn't so much surpass philosophy as they have different aims. Philosophy doesn't try to create an aesthetic experience, it rather tries to explain it. But in that art produces value (Wittgenstein treats aesthetics and ethics as if they were the same, the both of them dealing with value) it stands as an amazing philosophical mystery. My hat is off to the asthete! I am one, myself.

[Cogito ergo sum]

Indeed they do have different aims. But we also need to kind of narrow what our definition of art is. I know we live in a time, especially in America, where everything that anyone does is art or its amazing and wonderful. And that is not the case. Just because someone puts paint to a canvass or records a voice doesn't make it art. Any more then what I am typing is a novel. So much of the music now is just samples of old songs in a loop with someone singing over it. Almost none of it is played with instruments and most are written by groups of people just trying to sell a product (the "artist"). So yes of course people will still make "art" as long as whenever anyone does anything we call it "art" but for me where is the emotion? where is the sublime feelings that art can express if properly structured? And as for "steampunk" like I said, just because someone records their voice with instruments in the background doesn't make it art or music.

[Jklint]

So yes of course people will still make "art" as long as whenever anyone does anything we call it "art" but for me where is the emotion? where is the sublime feelings that art can express if properly structured? And as for "steampunk" like I said, just because someone records their voice with instruments in the background doesn't make it art or music.

Don't mean to sound elitist but great art especially in music which can generate the corresponding emotions is beyond most people's ability to feel in the first place. Feelings of the sublime are not programmed into most psyches. What follows instead is confusion which is not a very pleasant feeling. In my experience of people's experience of art this is more often the rule than the exception.

[Hog Rider]

Hog Rider: This is simply just not the case. Representative art is now one amongst many genres available to the artist. All the best abstract artists trained as, and were masters of representative art. Name this artist!

It's not that it is not a genre among us; it's simply that there is nothing else, or little, to be done in the genre. Nor is it a matter having to master realism to be abstract (Van Gogh was no master of representational art). The point about visual art is that once conceptualization became an essential feature of the art work, and once art values became distorted by assessment based on market value, the standard notions of what art is found themselves outside of objects. What is form and color and line, and so forth, if the art idea takes center stage. An empty room with a light switch wins a prestigious award: How does this fit into any critical ideas about art? It is more a thesis than art.

Music? I do believe they are trying desperately to compose something novel. All I hear, having heard it all, is recapitulation.

Why am I guessing who the painter is? i'm game. Dark, murky colors, yellowing paint; the cap suggests a genre (every-day life) painting. My wife says maybe Rembrandt. I think so.

Picasso.

Abstract art is an empty exercise if you do not know what it is you are abstracting. With this image the representative artist and the abstract is embodied in the same artist. Art is a smorgasbord, in which the best artists have good grounding in each area to enhance the whole.

-- Updated October 8th, 2014, 3:53 am to add the following --

So yes of course people will still make "art" as long as whenever anyone does anything we call it "art" but for me where is the emotion? where is the sublime feelings that art can express if properly structured? And as for "steampunk" like I said, just because someone records their voice with instruments in the background doesn't make it art or music.

Don't mean to sound elitist but great art especially in music which can generate the corresponding emotions is beyond most people's ability to feel in the first place. Feelings of the sublime are not programmed into most psyches. What follows instead is confusion which is not a very pleasant feeling. In my experience of people's experience of art this is more often the rule than the exception.

You are kidding yourself - you cannot have experience of another's experience. You are not qualified to makes claims about another's "psyches" whatever you might think that is. And, yes, you do sound like an elitist, but not an elite.

[Hereandnow]

Hog Rider: Abstract art is an empty exercise if you do not know what it is you are abstracting. With this image the representative artist and the abstract is embodied in the same artist. Art is a smorgasbord, in which the best artists have good grounding in each area to enhance the whole.

No problem, but so what. It ignores the issues laid out.

[Hog Rider]

Hog Rider: Abstract art is an empty exercise if you do not know what it is you are abstracting. With this image the representative artist and the abstract is embodied in the same artist. Art is a smorgasbord, in which the best artists have good grounding in each area to enhance the whole.

No problem, but so what. It ignores the issues laid out.

What is "it", in the above sentence?

SO what is the fact the the change in art has been a widening, this is in direct contradiction of the thought that "art and music is dying." - when it so obviously is not. More people have access to more music that at anytime in history, and we are surrounded by art in a bewildering array of forms - look around you!