But this is most certainly not all from the perspective of the audience. For the perspective of the creator of art, this makes sense — Agustino

Well, I guess I'm speaking as both an artist and audience member. But I was talking from the perspective of an audience member there - as I said, as the audience, we participate IN the art itself, in the best works of art, anyway. What I'm saying is that the process of creation continues in the experience of the audience. The more profound experiences you have as an audience member are instances where you participate more deeply in the creative act; you feel closer to the artist or the work, or a feeling for divinity or infinity, or something along those lines. Think about it; where exactly does art "exist"? In the artist's mind? No, because the idea is never quite communicated in the way the artist first envisioned it. Art primarily exists in the experience of the audience.

What effect does art have on the soul? They aren't creating new being. So what enthralls them about art? — Agustino

Personally I think it's that taste of participating in the creative process by experiencing.

Why did cave men paint, and other cave men regard and care for their paintings? — Agustino

There's always a spiritual quality in art; Historically, art and religion are inseparably linked. If you want to develop some understanding of art, the creative urge, and aesthetics, you have to have a developed understanding of religion, myth...a balanced understanding that doesn't just dismiss them as something that was once evolutionarily beneficial and now is not. This is where Terrapin Station is going wrong; he's not approaching it from a spiritual angle.

My apologies — Bitter Crank

None necessary! I appreciate the discussion.

there are more people producing than in previous times, and with less elite control over what gets done. — Bitter Crank

Yes, this is a contentious topic to me. On the one hand, I appreciate that the gatekeepers are in a sense gone, but I think, as the bell curve of technological innovation quickens, we're already leaving that golden age of internet freedom where anyone can become a youtube star (was that even a good thing anyway?). I would venture to say that the elite control over art today is the Market itself. The Market is the gatekeeper on creativity because all creative fields are subject now to The Market (except the fine arts, which are now just isolated self-referentially academic disciplines - see articles on the creative writing MFA, etc). The most creative fields today are in technology, which is just another slave to The Market (everyone has to have the new iphone). It's billed as technological evolution for the good of Mankind (a sort of optimistic humanism), but in reality it just feeds the ever-bloating Market. Creativity is enslaved to Mammon in our age. It seems to me that there are epochs in history in which a pure artistic expression makes its voice heard in culture, and then afterwards comes a period of cultural decay...

I think art is spiritually powerful insofar as it is an authentic response to being. If it is inauthentically driven by ambition, money, the desire for fame, then it will be tainted by mediocrity, and lessened by submitting itself to a market.

Art can be an expression of spirit; a direct product of living intuition. Unlike science it doesn't have to worry about being wrong.

That's just it, beginning with the assumption that it needs an evolutionary reason to arise is a fallacy. — Noble Dust

Well, there's some phylogenetic beginning to aesthetic reactions--that much is undeniable. Whether it was evolutionarily selected-for or whether it was just a contingent development that perpetuated because it had no negative impact on survival-to-procreation is hard to say, but it's curious in any event why it would have developed and persisted.

Have you studied much art? — Noble Dust

Half of my degrees are in the arts (music, specifically), I've made my living in arts & entertainment fields for decades, including that I do visual art on the side, and something like 90% of my friends are artists who work in various fields--music, visual art, film, performance art, choreography, literature, etc., and I've always been a voracious consumer of the arts. So yes, I've studied a lot of art.

So yes, I've studied a lot of art. — Terrapin Station

Good stuff, I was only asking because it seems that we're coming at it from different angles. It made me wonder whether you were involved with the arts; I am as well.

Humans making patterns for other humans to enjoy, be enthralled by, take intellectual pleasure in.

I'm unconvinced that for artists to be motivated by money somehow taints what they do. There is much dreadful art produced from the most pure and spiritual of motives, and much excellent art produced by people making a buck.

If it is inauthentically driven by ambition, money, the desire for fame, then it will be tainted by mediocrity, and lessened by submitting itself to a market. — John

Hmmm, I have to disagree. Show me an artist with completely pure motives and I'll believe it. Motives are a spectrum, not a binary "this or that".

I do think, though, that there is a purity in the creative act itself. It's like sex, you're not thinking about anything other than the act while you're doing it. It consumes the mind during the process. There's a purity of intension in creation itself. Artists with varying degrees of pure and not so pure motives are capable of entering into that pure creative act.

I can't see where your disagreement lies. You say there is (by which I assume you mean 'can be') a purity in the creative act itself. The purity of the creative act is precisely what I am saying can become adulterated by inauthentic concerns. What the artist thinks about or desires at other times is not as relevant or perhaps is not even necessarily relevant at all.

I don't mean "can be", I mean there is a purity in the creative act. I guess the creative act is maybe a bit of a nebulous concept. I consider it a purely spiritual phenomenon: Kairos entering Chronos. I consider it a divine phenomenon that occurs through the medium of a person. That's why I consider it to always be a pure act. But, maybe a distinction needs to be made. There is a lot of work that goes into trying to create something, and a lot of the work isn't the creative act itself. Maybe there are degrees of creativity, and the highest degree is a pure, divine phenomenon. I'm not totally sure.

Can you elaborate on your concern about inauthentic creative acts? What's an example? Are you bringing in a moral element to the creative act?

I was using "creative act" in a broader sense than you, it seems, to include any act of 'art-making'; whether it be writing a poem, painting, drawing, composing music, and so on. So, that I would say the creative act is authentic is perhaps equivalent to your saying it is a creative act at all, on account of its purity.

But I don't draw a necessary distinction between religious art and secular art. They are both equally spiritual, when authentic, in my view, just in different ways. I'm not sure if you draw that distinction yourself.

Have you studied much art? — Noble Dust

I would have to study art, because I seem to have approximately zero talent in art.

Rubbish!

I was using "creative act" in a broader sense than you, it seems, to include any act of 'art-making'; whether it be writing a poem, painting, drawing, composing music, and so on. — John

Well, I'm also using it to at least include those things. lol. I'm a little bit confused.

So, that I would say the creative act is authentic is perhaps equivalent to your saying it is a creative act at all. — John

Maybe? I see the act as an inner, generative, spiritual process that isn't a conscious process; it's not a process that is derived from or controlled by the intellect. So yes, I'm talking about a very specific, pure act or process.

But I don't draw a necessary distinction between religious art and secular art. They are both equally spiritual, when authentic, in my view, just in different ways. I'm not sure if you draw that distinction yourself. — John

No I don't draw that distinction; I agree with you here. My concern isn't about religious or secular art at all. As a "spiritual" (if not quite religious) believer, a lot if not most of my favorite artists happen to be atheists. Ravel for instance. It's of no concern to me because I believe that the things they expressed have a spiritual significance in the world. This is a key aspect to how I view the creative act: that divine process occurs regardless of any belief system of the artist, precisely because, as I said, the creative process isn't directly connected to the intellect in any substantial way.

Well, I'm also using it to at least include those things. lol. I'm a little bit confused. — Noble Dust

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I mean literally any old act of art-making at all. By 'creative act' I'm referring to the outward act, not the expression of a special inward state. I think the latter is what you mean by 'creative act' and that is what I would refer to as 'authentic creative act'.

I would agree with you that the authentic process is not controlled by the intellect, I would say it follows intuition. I also agree completely with your last passage.

I think the latter is what you mean by 'creative act' and that is what I would refer to as 'authentic creative act'. — John

Aha, that brings clarity. I think we're essentially on the same page here.

What gives art (literature, poetry, religious texts, visual art, music, etc.) its power over the human soul? Clearly, art never helped man to survive, except in a very abstract kind of way. It's more likely that we live in order to create art, rather than create art in order to live. So why do we create art, and why do we enjoy art? — Agustino

I'd note that I think all of your questions, including the title question, are asking different things. What gives art power over the human soul isn't the same thing as the purpose of art isn't the same as why we create art or why we enjoy art.

I'd also probably separate religious texts from art, saying that religion -- while it can be and is interpreted by artistic ways of understanding -- is a separate domain from art. We can make religious art, but religious texts are just religious -- they may have artistic qualities to them (like the Psalms, for instance), but in reading the Psalms from an artistic perspective we are not reading them from a religious perspective, and vice-versa. We can do both at once, of course, but they're different too.

I'd say art has no purpose. It does not derive its value from some higher goal. It is intrinsically valuable.

As to why it is intrinsically valuable -- why it has power over the human soul -- I would say I'm not sure. What could possibly serve as an explanation for, say, science or religion? Why does science have power over the human soul, why does religion have power over the human soul? While we can propose answers, it would seem to me that any answer would presume to know too much about both the human soul and its subject. It may be an informed and reflected upon opinion derived from much work, so it's worth listening to answers that people have arrived at, but I wouldn't say I have an answer and I wouldn't say any answer is knowledge.

As for why we create or enjoy art -- that seems to be pretty individual, from my point of view. But perhaps I don't understand the question. In answering "why" I'm thinking about what motives people have, and if that be the case then that is highly individual -- some people gain pleasure from creating/enjoying art, some people want something extrinsic to the art, some people feel a duty to create/enjoy art, etc. It would just depend on the person.

Show me an artist with completely pure motives and I'll believe it. Motives are a spectrum, not a binary "this or that". — Noble Dust

Exactly.

There are some artists who have no concern with making money from their work, but it's extremely unlikely that you've ever heard of any of them. Even people just publishing stuff online and making any effort to ensure that others are aware of it are likely to have at least a secondary motive of making money from their work.

Heck, just think about it this way (John and others buying into the mythical art/commerce dichotomy): if someone loves painting, or writing or playing music, or making films or whatever it might be, just how likely do you think it is that they'd say to themselves, "I'd rather work 9 to 5, five days per week as a computer programmer/carpenter/retail clerk/whatever and try to squeeze in a couple hours here and there for my art than make a living with my art and be able to do it full time"?

Were the disrupters of realistic and traditional representational art in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century managed by the Old Elite? I don't think so. Picasso Van Gogh wasn't selling his sunflowers and starry nights for a Queen's ransom (just how much does Queen Elizabeth go for these days?). As I recollect the big money never reached the famous artists, and their works didn't start commanding big sums for quite some time. People like Gertrude Stein were able to pick up a lot of later-valuable art on the cheap, weren't they?

The "art market" is a whack job on people with more money than they know what to do with. It's a racket managed by the owners and buyers of art and the galleries and auction houses who have a great deal to lose by not overpricing all of the art they wholesale and retail. I suppose some artists benefit right away from this racket, but most of them don't seem to.

I'm going to exit the closet and declare that I like Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Andy Warhol, et al more than a lot of the stuff I've seen in museums. (I've come to this liking late in life.) I liked the Luther portraits by Lucas Cranach and Company that are in the big German State Luther exhibit currently in Minneapolis (and two other cities before it goes back to Germany for the 500 year anniversary). It's a very plain but forceful portrait, solid background, nothing decorative about it.

Harlan Ellison has a great quote in his fine science fiction short story, "The Man Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore: "It is not amazing that there is bad art. What is amazing is that there is so much good art everywhere." That's sort of my take on art--of all kinds. There are wonderful artists producing terrific music, great designs, architecture, sculpture, plastic and representational forms, dance, film, fiction, and so on.

The filthy lucre of the market makes the plenitude of great art possible and available to non-elite riff raff like me. The market giveth pure gold and miserable dreck alike. Of course there is a lot of crap on YouTube. That's not a fault of the market place or Youtube. The crap is the fault of ubiquitous recording devices, ease of up-load, and an open door. Let's keep it that way. It enables dissidents to put up unpopular screeds and philosophers to discuss dry topics, as well as enabling the not-overly-talented to display their not-too-extensive abilities.

Crap is the price of pure gold.

filthy lucre — Bitter Crank

Haha you liked that too - that was a good book! :P

Which of several books are you talking about?

There's more than one book with that title? I'm referring to the economics one -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filthy_Lucre:_Economics_for_People_Who_Hate_Capitalism

Haven't read it. I picked up the term from English literature, or background reading, some where. Sounds like an appropriate read, though -- considering my attitude toward capitalism.

But I thought you are a person "who hates capitalism" :P

Ahh too late, you edited your post. It's quite a good book. From memory it has very interesting ideas as well, which don't apply only to economics. For example, it teaches that evolution isn't necessarily the survival of the fittest. For example, when trees grow in a forest, the trees which grow tallest, will take the light from the other trees, and hence the tall gene will get selected for. But tall trees aren't efficient - they consume a lot more energy carrying the nutrients through-out their whole body, than the small trees. The most efficient is the bush. So the "best" scenario is if they all remained bushes - small trees. But the small trees isn't the outcome that the "free hand" of nature selects for - unfortunately. Instead it makes less efficient trees beat out more efficient trees. And of course this same idea can be applied to markets, and so forth. Very eye-opening book.

I've edited my comment above too

Well, I am a socialist, after all, but I picked up the term before I started thinking a lot about capitalism. Lot's of people have used the term "filthy lucre" over the years, and it's scriptural (in the King James Bible, anyway).

It is used in the King James Version of the Bible. like here, Titus 1:7... "For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker [hurtful], not given to filthy lucre;"

My guess is that all trees started out as bushes, and it became very crowded. Some clever tree decided to expand up, rather than out, and this worked out quite well for everybody concerned -- except the bushes, of course.

There have certainly been (later) famous visual artists who made very little from their work while alive, but Picasso isn't one of them. Picasso was quite well off. He struggled a bit in the beginning, of course, but at his death, he was worth at least $100 million in 1973 dollars.

I am very sorry. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you, but I meant to type "Van Gogh" not Pablo Picasso. Apparently I wished to impoverish Pablo. Van Gogh and Oscar Wilde both died broke. If this error resulted in losses, you may be eligible for financial compensation from somebody--maybe the owner of this website. Or maybe John D. Rockefeller, IV.

On the one hand, I wasn't aware that Picasso was rolling in cash; on the other hand, you may not be aware that Picasso did not paint starry nights.



Van Gogh

Saw this at MOMA, the colors were unbelievable, I have yet to see a reproduction that can match the colors in the original. I guess it was his pure black.

I haven't seen the real thing, but what I posted is not a good representation of it, pretty sure.