• I like sushi
    280
    Through various artistic means the artist creates something - be it “poor” or “rich” in subjective/objective value - to some/many/all in various degrees due to individual taste and aesthetic sensibilities. The act of artistry in this way produces an “artifact” - a product of the artistic endeavor. The muscian produces “a song”, the painter “a painting”, the photographer “a photograph, and so on.

    These items are of some magnitude. My concern here is with the comparative magnitudes through “time” and “space” with each medium of art - that is not merely the physical magnitude, but the human experience of the art temporally and spatially.

    For example if we take “a photograph”. This is clearly not a item that stretches across time. It is an instant captured. Whilst on the other hand we can think of some movie we’ve seen recently and quite obviously understand it as being drawn out across time not experienced in a single instant.

    My observation here shouldn’t be anything extraordinary I hope. I hope we can all see that experiencing every musical note in an instant would render a musical composition meaningless. For these briefly outlined reasons I am proposing that art that manifests itself in an instant (such as a photograph, sculpture, or painting) aims to essentially have the viewer of the “artifact” stretch the instant out across time from a singular instant captured in space, whilst at the other pole works that span temporal experience (films, poems, novels or musical compositions) aim to essentially bring the viewer to compress the experience into one instant.

    The “photograph” is meant to be taken as positioned in time and thought of in reference to the past and future, whereas the “play” is meant to be taken as a stretch of time with a beginning, middle and end, that is to be captured in a singular position in time once the performace is over.

    If you can bolster this idea do so. If you find it questionable then question it and offer counter arguments to this brief analysis. If however you understand the gist of what I am saying the I would like to know what you believe to be the “middle ground” and for what reasons? To be clear I mea whether you regard something like “a sculpture” to be the most appropriate “middle ground” between the “photograph” and the “play”? Or the “painting” to be the “middle ground” between the “muscal composition” and the “painting”? Basically what for of artistic medium has one foot in both the “instant” and a “span” of time?
  • Noah Te Stroete
    1k
    The sculpture is the middle ground because you have to view it from various angles, taking more time than a photograph or painting. That’s what I think.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    5.4k

    There is no such thing as the middle ground between these two because they are two distinct forms of art which cannot be united into one. One is static, the other active. Any attempt to cross the boundary, to make something which is supposed to be static, active, or vise versa, just makes a mess.
  • Noah Te Stroete
    1k
    But what about an animatronic model or 3D art piece that makes one or two repetitive movements?
  • Brett
    328


    Out of pure interest and enquiry I have these thoughts to add.

    Is there difference between a painting and film in the sense you mean?

    The film might suggest a span of time, but isn’t it an illusion? In some ways the image on the screen is the same as a painting or photo, you can only see it from one point of view, it doesn’t actually occupy space, nor does it exist without being activated through technology. Except for sitting in the theatre for an hour you don’t really experience time. That time in the theatre is only a small part out of your day or life span.

    A play does span time. Not only does the narrative have a sense of time, beginning and end, but the play itself runs for a specific period of time right in front of you. But it’s still an illusion of time, because the writer condenses time for the sake of revealing the narrative, otherwise you would need days to tell the story.

    However, music does have a real time span.

    Edit: what I’m thinking is the middle might not be where you’re looking.
  • Brett
    328
    But this is my problem. A play does not attempt to fool you into believing it’s dealing in real time. It doesn’t pretend to because it can’t. But as a play, it’s intention as a form, the span of time is real.

    A piece of performance art definitely deals in real time. There are no illusions, because what you see is performed life from one second to the next.

    It might be that the film occupies the middle ground.
  • I like sushi
    280


    Maybe if you think of each as being “climatic”? In this sense the play or piece of music is ONE whole yet it’s understood at the end in it’s completion - music could be argued to be more subtle in this sense.

    A picture doesn’t have a sense of impending “climax” and if it does it is extended beyond the piece not held within it - if you see what I mean?

    Also, I’m not saying there is a “middle ground” only asking if forced, what you would call the “middle ground” and why. It’s a musing I find interesting for various reasons, not a hypothesis.
  • Brett
    328
    It’s a musing I find interesting for various reasons, not a hypothesis.I like sushi

    Of course. I think it’s interesting, ‘middle ground’ aside, where the two opposites actually are.
  • Brett
    328
    A piece of music might be like a piece of performance art, in that the artist makes you experience each second. But each second is irrelevant on its own.

    What is a painting actually doing in your sense of manifesting itself in an instant then the viewer stretching the instant out across time? How is this happening? The time is in your head, though not real time, more like the sense of time in a dream.

    And how is the poem doing the opposite?: to bring the viewer to compress the experience into one instant.
  • Brett
    328
    A picture doesn’t have a sense of impending “climax” and if it does it is extended beyond the piece not held within it - if you see what I mean?I like sushi

    Yes, I do. Which is what you mean by the span of time?
  • I like sushi
    280
    What you say about “illusion” does have weight too though. I guess the problem we have today is we’re used to film and theatre, so a picture/photo leads us into imagining the “next scene” whereas in the past this may not as be so ingrained.

    Narratives blow my mind! Reading through Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy now so there is a lot more I’d like to add to this whole theme but I’ve not quite formulated the best way to post it yet :(
  • Brett
    328
    What you say about “illusion” does have weight too though.I like sushi

    What do you mean?

    Edit: I may have misread it. Are you agreeing?
  • I like sushi
    280
    The film might suggest a span of time, but isn’t it an illusion? In some ways the image on the screen is the same as a painting or photo, you can only see it from one point of view, it doesn’t actually occupy space, nor does it exist without being activated through technology. Except for sitting in the theatre for an hour you don’t really experience time. That time in the theatre is only a small part out of your day or life span. — Brett
  • I like sushi
    280
    That would lead nicely into the Greek Chorus where the audience is actually presented with different perspectives with the Chorus acting as a guide (heirophant).
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.