• Benj96
    Artists express themselves, their emotions, ideas, dreams etc through visual media, authors and poets through their pens and paper, singers and musicians along the airwaves, gardeners via their influence on the landscape etc etc. The possibilities of self expression are infinite. But my question is not on the diversity of self expression but rather the efficacy of it.

    Consider that in order to communicate one must firstly 1). Articulate their inner experience - be it with words, paint or whatever medium of choice they want to represent their idea with. They must manifest their self expression in physical tangible means.
    2). Navigate the inherent challenges of the environment. Each individual has challenges with self expression. Be it languages and typos, the humidity and air temperature while painting, the strength and flexibility of ones body or a large immovable boulder in the way of the garden plan, the ambient noise and echoes around the musician. These all naturally interfere with the "original thought." Even physics interferes with an idea. An idea has no physical rules and can often defy the strength, height, form etc when it is only in ones head only to be sorely hindered when recreated in the physical dimension.

    We are familiar with the term "it sounded/looked better in my head" or the feeling of dissatisfaction when it hasn't got the same glow as the thought that inspired its creation.

    3). Finally, the self expression must be interpreted. By other selves. Which will have bias and prejudice or other influencing factors on their understanding of the piece of art or self. Some may be easily able to empathise - a piece may just resonate with them while others will simply "not get it".

    So my question is; how limited really is self expression? How much attrition do you think there is between the "original inception" and the final interpretation? How much does the information evolve in the process of exchange? Do people like your art because it is what you envisioned or do they simply like their interpretation of a highly augmented, modified and compromised version of what was always the true idea?
  • Outlander
    I can think of two types of expression, rather percievement or... something of the like.


    In writing it's where you either do relate or can relate to the subject as in a first person or where you do not, as in written by someone but mostly talking about someone else.

    In art it could be where there is a single person or object in the foreground demanding your attention as opposed to a landscape where your mind can wander.

    In music it is with lyrics that you understand and so dictate the melodies as opposed to an instrumental piece where you can again let your mind wander.

    Explicit/open interpretation I suppose. Kind of not your point I guess. Basically a consolation for any deviation or static between intent and perception.
  • Becky
    Art, or self-expression is limited as much as you let it. I dance to music. But I don’t dance like other people do. I’ve been chastised because I don’t dance “normal”. There’s the term “dance like no one’s watching”. That’s what art or self-expression should be. You do it for yourself
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.