WHAT IS ART?
Manuel Duarte de Sousa
ART
ARCHITECTURE
SCULTURE
PAINTING
MUSIC
FASHION
POETRY
THE ESSENCE OF ARCHITECTURE
THE ESSENCE OF PAINTING
THE ESSENCE OF SCULTURE
THE ESSENCE OF MUSIC
THE ESSENCE OF FASHION
THE ESSENCE OF POETRY
AND THE ESSENCE OF ART?
Vidal de Sousa
jerryjudy
<duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
Art is artifice, but it 'seems' full of truth because the artist taps into
the fundamental arithmetic relationships which we humans use to
'represent' and cursorily describe our world (pattern recognition for
survival, we experience this enhanced human ability every night in our
dreams).
'Deep structure' creators cleverly exploit the affinity that we have for
whole numbers. Using constrained ambiguity, the more adeptly they exploit
this innate affinity, the higher the significance their creations 'seem'
to have.
When I say the higher the significance they 'seem' to have, it's curious
and paradoxical that, in this case, this is the _same_ as saying 'the
higher the significance they actually have'! And this is why Art is so
different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.
Jerry
Seraph-sama
Ack. :P
j/k
--
Seraph-sama. 16/m, so don't call me "sera" or nothin'
http://members.tripod.com/~SeraphSama/index.html
http://members.tripod.com/~SeraphSama/class.html for info on f(f(x)) = g(x)
"Humans can't prove this statement to be true." (We suck..)
jerryjudy
<quar...@well.com> wrote:
> In sci.philosophy.meta jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> : Art is artifice, but it 'seems' full of truth because the artist taps into
> : the fundamental arithmetic relationships which we humans use to
> : 'represent' and cursorily describe our world (pattern recognition for
> : survival, we experience this enhanced human ability every night in our
> : dreams).
>
> As in counting sheep?
No, it's totally beneath the level of the conscious mind. We 'hear'
significance in music in an analogous way to 'seeing' that a 'dark'
tangled jungle is 'bad, yet an open woodland is 'good', swamp bad!, meadow
good! etc. The positive and negative (prejudicial) feelings we have about
landscapes, we also unconsciously have about the elements that comprise
art, and integer arithmetic is, in the main, what the elements of art are
constructed of.
> : 'Deep structure' creators cleverly exploit the affinity that we have for
> : whole numbers. Using constrained ambiguity, the more adeptly they exploit
> : this innate affinity, the higher the significance their creations 'seem'
> : to have.
>
> Very deep!
Thanks. This, and my other views on art, are an extension of an
aesthetical opinion that people in the field will never fully accept, for
obvious reasons.
> : When I say the higher the significance they 'seem' to have, it's curious
> : and paradoxical that, in this case, this is the _same_ as saying 'the
> : higher the significance they actually have'! And this is why Art is so
> : different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.
>
> : Jerry
>
> Art reveals beauty; science truth.
Yes, but how does Art reveal to us its apparent beauty?, when we certainly
haven't been taught, and probably couldn't be taught...
Many people don't get art, because their innate affinity for integers has
been 'deluged' by 'higher-level' affinities (if that's a good phrase).
Aestheticists might call them (unfortunately) _distracted_.
> Ideals are inter-related.
I used to believe that, but appreciating science seems to be a specific
and limited subset of the human (and the higher animal) brain's experience
of art.
> Steve
>
> P.S.: How's Juddy? Still alive?
She's been called many things, but never Juddy. heh heh
She's fine, but I had to change my online handle in order to have a better
keyword for searching Deja.com. :)
Jerry
NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code,
Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, p.227, any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is
subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of
$500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Dieter Tschauner
Acquit. The only indisputable liberty we have is the freedom of expression.
However, expression is only allowed freely when applied to art. This is
leading to the question. What is art?
Art can be the doing to the extreme. Anything done is called Art. Labeling
it as contemporary or conservative, is a statement to reward Art. Art must
be displaying the artistic doing of what has not be done before. Art can
never be copied and still demanding to be called Art. Some artwork however
has been copied to the perfection where the copy-work itself can be seen as
art.
Art is extreme. Not necessary negative or positive, not good or bad. The
extreme in art can be carried to the ordinary.
Art is contradiction. The creation of art is done by the artist but to the
beholder, art has become recognition. The Ordinary is art, and the detail is
art. Art is small and large, it may be loud, it might be silent. The craft
is art that is mostly done by the creative forming of the craftsman, by the
designing of the artist.
Art is not work. It is not performing, it exists by and on it's own. Art is
alive., it changes.
Not every onlooker sees the same in artistic work. Art can be heard, art can
be felt, smelled and tasted. Art is what we do best, many do it better, some
do it artistically.
Art cannot be wrong. If it is understood what the Artist and his art mean,
Art is right, legitimate, always impartial. Art is passionate, it is
sensitive, emotional. Art is not always right. If art it is not accepted by
the general public, but it is only declared art by the few, then art is bad,
dirty, or false.
Art commands tolerance. What is one person's art to the whole of creation?
jerryjudy wrote in message ...
sonicfish
Brian
art and nature are similar in that they both come from virtually
nothing. In life, however, when something dies, it can never come
back.
Karl M. Hartman
Karl M. Hartman
The Revenant
in order to suit the desires of the artist.
The artist is the person disposing or modifying the medium, form, or
substance in order to perform or create art.
Art need not be aesthetically pleasing, under these definitions, to be
considered art.
Walter Fisher
hocus-pocus about "art" by defining art simply as "The direct communication
of human emotions between the artist and
the "recipient" (audience, spectators, etc.) The emphasis is on "emotions",
rather than on thoughts.
To avoid further confusion and obfuscation I never refer to "art" as a
concept by itself. After all, art is derived from ars,artis and simply
refers to anything created by man (an artifact) instead of a natural object,
unaltered by man. What is one person's art is another person's crap. De
guistibus non disputandum est. We avoid endless arguments over "what is art
and what
isn't art" by specifying a particular art-form as "abstract art" or "fine
art" or "folk art" or "primitive art" etc.
If we are talking about abstract art I know that there is no appeal to
innate human aesthetics and there is no communication of emotions. It is
impossible to communicate emotions by smearing blobs of paint on canvas or
by producing random notes. Modern art is produced by incompetents, sold by
charlatans and bought by ignoramuses.The trouble with Van Gogh was: Not only
could he not paint, he became insane on top of that (probably from looking
at his own paintings).
I addressed this interesting question in my website (see signature below) in
the "Art" section. Comments appreciated
--
Walter
dum vivimus, vivamus! (Horace)
The Happy Iconoclast: www.rationality.net
e-mail responses: delete x in return address (anti-spam)
--
"The Revenant" <cr...@byteme.com> wrote in message
news:38d3...@news.cyberzone.net...