• Cavacava
    2.4k
    Art is everywhere, even if it is not called art. The new 2018 summer clothing styles are a type of art. This is art you wear. Good art induces an emotional reaction. New clothes induce positive feelings. Designer clothes give the best buzz. The former is individual and the latter is collective.

    Clothing styles are ornamental, they are not fine art. The aesthetic effect of fine art arises from its being and not from any purpose or instrumentality or any other interest that cause "the best buzz".
  • Tomseltje
    148
    I think this is only possible if force of these works reaches certain objective truths about the world thatCavacava

    I don't think art is mainly about objective truths, I think it's more about transcendent subjective truths.
  • Tomseltje
    148
    So the butcher, the baker, the cobbler, the culter, the chef...don't have an aesthetic?Cavacava

    Ask the question in french and it's obvious they are more alike than different from each other.
    artiste ou artisan? (artist or craftsman?)
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    Here is the full quote from the OP

    Great works of art exert power that is not diminished over time, power that goes beyond the normative bounds of any observer. I think this is only possible if force of these works reaches certain objective truths about the world that, if we have sufficient knowledge and emotion, can't be avoided because their power consists in their spontaneous ability to continue to generate new or deeper thoughts, newer more meaningful narratives in observers.

    I don't think art is mainly about objective truths, I think it's more about transcendent subjective truths.

    If by transcendent subject truths you mean " Truth that is, ultimately, beyond human comprehension and before all concepts. It is beyond reality, and is the Creator of realities, existence, time and all there is, was and is yet to be." Wikipedia, The only sort of experience that approaches this conception is that of the Sublime, as that which is beyond comprehension and I doubt such experience can be classified as true or false, it can be experienced but it can't be conceptualized.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    So the butcher, the baker, the cobbler, the culter, the chef...don't have an aesthetic?
    — Cavacava

    Ask the question in french and it's obvious they are more alike than different from each other.
    artiste ou artisan? (artist or craftsman?)

    This is also taken out of context. I am not sure what your point is? Yes, they are similar that is what I stated, but fine art is not instrumental based on utility like the crafts.
  • Dalai Dahmer
    73
    The role of art is to have our brains entertained. It may invoke thoughts and/or feelings which then entertain us.

    Ar you entertained by your thoughts and feelings? If not, why not?
  • trixie
    3

    Art originally started as bored bourgeoisie who had nothing better to do all day than sit and stare. Filled with feminine energies they took their ideas to canvas, to express their feminine souls. Over time this became old hat, painting lost it's charm and novelty, and people were no longer amazed by the works. So it turned into a cash-grab contest to convince as many suckers as possible that their art was amazing, revolutionary, and profound. Cash in on other's narcissism, make them feel like they are special, unique, that only they are capable of such grandiose levels of pretentiousness, that is so elite they cannot put into words, only they can understand the divine, ethereal beauty of a Campbell's can of soup. and History will write you as one of the profound eccentrics, one of the greats.
  • rachMiel
    48
    I really like the notion that an artist is a collective-level dreamer who shares his/her dreams with the collective: world, culture, society, tribe, etc.
  • João Pedro
    3


    If a great work of art is a constant source of new, deeper meanings, aren't the love songs about how the singer loved a woman/man good art?

    The phenomena of discovering deeper meanings begins in the subject that's experiencing art. If one hasn't the interest to interpret a work of art, nothing new will come. And if the subject is willing to find new relations and interpretations in a work of art, he/she can decompose the chorus of "Gucci Gang" and have something frutiferous.

    For me, if the aesthetics study's goal is to find objective hints of the existence of a property called "beauty", I'd take as principle remainder the fact that each person reacts to something differently.
    It's then clear that aesthetical experience consists of a piece of work and a subject (a piece of work isn't art itself), and that is related to the subject's reaction.

    And, if each subject reacts to a work of art differently, the good art explores this concept (this is why Duchamp's "Fountain" is so powerful; it produced the most different reactions. And this is why the silly love songs of the 80's are also so powerful; and they were played, everyone was sure what to do: to dance together with a partner). It is important to remember that my interpretation of good art is directly connected to the social context in which the piece of art is being experienced. And this is another attribute which good art explores: good art can cause the most different reactions or the most certain reaction for a longer period of time.

    Maybe this is just another way of saying what you tried to say, but I'm using words less related to the piece and more related to the subject.

    Cheers

    (Very well formalized thesis, by the way)
  • gurugeorge
    517
    I think that a great work of art is basically a microcosm, a miniature universe, with its own internal logic, and its goal or function is, as Schopenhauer suggested, to induce an arrest in normal, everyday consciousness. It's basically the secular version of a kind of religious or mystical experience. Art galleries are the humanist temples secular people go to in order to get a religious jag without religion.

    An important side-effect is the cleansing of the doors of perception (you look at things afresh when "coming up for air" after being absorbed in a great work).

    I would say also that art shouldn't be too much divorced from craft, and that some 20th century art took a bit of a wrong turn when it tried to do that. Over-intellectualized art is another blind alley, as is pure conceptualism.

    Also, while art is in part a dialogue between artists down the generations, if it gets too introverted and self-referential and you need a secret decoder ring to "get" it, then again, it's drifted too far from the main point.

    The question of whether you need a "guidebook" and knowledge of context (personal and social) is variable - whether it'll be worthwhile making the effort to know the context around the art depends on the quality of the artist, whether you're rewarded by making that effort or not.
  • praxis
    809
    Art galleries are the humanist temples secular people go to in order to get a religious jag without religion.gurugeorge

    So what happens to a religious in-humanist when they visit a gallery?
  • Lucid
    16
    "The goal of art is not to create paraphraseable imagery, but to create something to which no paraphrase ever does justice."

    In my opinion, that sums it up rather well. What makes art, art, in my view, is the fact that it expresses something which otherwise would have been related to, or even outside of, personal experience. In other words, it defines the ineffable and ephemeral, encapsulates them such that it cannot be paraphrased, or broken down further. And allows this to be shared.

    Kinda like, how music is so inextricably tied to emotion, and how many people have songs that define them, or at least particular emotions they experience. Hence the fact that we have theme songs for characters, mood songs... How people have happy songs, sad songs... Etc.

    As to whether or not such is the Goal of art, or the result of it... Is the Goal of a hammer to pound in a nail? Or is that merely the result? I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here, as it primarily depends upon our experience, which is subject to change and variation. Though if you ask Hegel... :P
  • gurugeorge
    517
    So what happens to a religious in-humanist when they visit a gallery?praxis

    Their head explodes.
  • praxis
    809
    So what happens to a religious in-humanist when they visit a gallery?
    — praxis

    Their head explodes.
    gurugeorge

    Rather, in accordance with your claim that art provides an "religious jag," whatever art is congruent with their religious views would have the greatest potential to "induce an arrest in normal everyday consciousness" (what you claim is the goal or function of art) and whatever art was incongruent with their system of beliefs and meaning would likely fail to induce such an arrest in normal consciousness. Right?

    You're tangling this idea you have about the goal of art being an arrest in normal consciousness with a system of meaning (religion) and it doesn't make sense. Can you explain?
  • gurugeorge
    517
    Rather, in accordance with your claim that art provides an "religious jag," whatever art is congruent with their religious views would have the greatest potential to "induce an arrest in normal everyday consciousness" (what you claim is the goal or function of art) and whatever art was incongruent with their system of beliefs and meaning would likely fail to induce such an arrest in normal consciousness. Right?praxis

    I don't think it's that cut and dried. After all, secular humanists can enjoy the older, religious works of art, and religious people can enjoy some modernist art too. In that way, the function of art as providing an arrest in normal everyday consciousness transcends questions of meaning in that social sense (re. roles, etc.)

    But to be really clear, then perhaps i should stick to "mystical" instead of religious (taking "mysticism" in the sense of certain types of experiences that are common across most human beings, because of neurological similarities - deep or transcendent feelings of awe, wonder, ego-loss, etc.). I do believe that mysticism is more at the root of religion than the kind of "social glue" factors that rationalists usually canvass, though they are important too.
  • praxis
    809
    Rather, in accordance with your claim that art provides an "religious jag," whatever art is congruent with their religious views would have the greatest potential to "induce an arrest in normal everyday consciousness" (what you claim is the goal or function of art) and whatever art was incongruent with their system of beliefs and meaning would likely fail to induce such an arrest in normal consciousness. Right?
    — praxis

    I don't think it's that cut and dried.
    gurugeorge

    Of course it's not. I was attempting to illustrate the absurdity of your idea.

    secular humanists can enjoy the older, religious works of art, and religious people can enjoy some modernist art toogurugeorge

    How generously and open-minded of you to think so. :roll:

    the function of art as providing an arrest in normal everyday consciousness transcends questions of meaning in that social sensegurugeorge

    I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that you're simply wrong about the function of art and therefore don't need to try making a square fit a round hole by claiming it transcends shape.

    But to be really clear, then perhaps i should stick to "mystical" instead of religious.gurugeorge

    If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have mentioned religious to begin with.

    I do believe that mysticism is more at the root of religion than the kind of "social glue" factors that rationalists usually canvass, though they are important too.gurugeorge

    Even if this was saying much of anything, you haven't made a case for equating aesthetics and mysticism. They may be similar brain states but it's our cultural and individual conditioning that determines how we interpret these experiences. Atheists or "secular people" don't visit art galleries for spiritual awakening.

    You're a guru of ignorance, george. Crawl back to whatever hillbilly barstool you staggered away from. Maybe you'll find a disciple or two there.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.