WHAT IS ART?
jerryjudy
<duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
> I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
> 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
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
LindaGee
jerryjudy wrote in message ...
>In article <38a5...@readers.ip.pt>, "Manuel Duarte de Sousa"
><duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
>
>> I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
>
>> 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
To me, *What Is Art* is best stated as being, a presentational means for a
superlative re-representation of an artist's (referring to someone who has
already acquired the basic techniques and skills for a particular
endeavoring to achieve something of a superlative or spectacular nature
and/or status - whence compared by what is viewed to be the norm) deepest
innermost contemplations, about the subject matter that is endeavored upon.
Art is capable of displaying an artist's innermost connection with
reality/truth in relation to the subject matter endeavored upon. And upon
which others, in general, may react-to within a relatable or identifiable
sense, or not....as in being consistent or inconsistent with their own
experiential level of reality and/or of what they consider to be true for
them, or not.
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
jerryjudy
<Lind...@email.msn.com> wrote:
It would 'seem' so...
> Art is capable of displaying an artist's innermost connection with
> reality/truth in relation to the subject matter endeavored upon. And upon
> which others, in general, may react-to within a relatable or identifiable
> sense, or not....as in being consistent or inconsistent with their own
> experiential level of reality and/or of what they consider to be true for
> them, or not.
Yes, well stated!, and the way we impart and communicate this is by the
resonance of logic around the survival value of integer arithmetic. It's
complicated...
Hi Linda, (when I was ten I wanted to marry a Linda, but I never did)
Jerry
LindaGee
If it only seems so and is not as such, then in all likelihood it is not of
artistic caliber. See Aristotelian Ethics for an outline on how to determine
the difference between appearances and that which actually is.
Also, bear in mind, that Aristotle claims that fiction is more valuable than
fact; being as fact can only relay what was and/or is, whilst fiction can
extend the mind toward improvement, insofar and inasmuch as that which can
and/or ought to be, within any given tendency.
>> Art is capable of displaying an artist's innermost connection with
>> reality/truth in relation to the subject matter endeavored upon. And upon
>> which others, in general, may react-to within a relatable or identifiable
>> sense, or not....as in being consistent or inconsistent with their own
>> experiential level of reality and/or of what they consider to be true for
>> them, or not.
>
>Yes, well stated!,
Not quite. A little more like *Art-Fully* stated.
>and the way we impart and communicate this is by the
>resonance of logic around the survival value of integer arithmetic. It's
>complicated...
Been there done that. Shame on you, for not picking-up on that. But then
again, I expect that you couldn't pick-up on it, because you define art as
being equal to artifice, subsequent to the utilization of artifice as
opposed to artistry, as being your own descriptive means for devising.
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language
artifice; n. [<L. <ars, artis, art + facere, to make] , 1. skill; ingenuity.
2. trickery; craft. 3. a trick; artful device.
artifact; n. [L. ars, artis, art + factus; see FACT] any object made by
human work or skill : also sp. artefact.
The Fine Arts, by-way-of their very own nature, comprise Art Work that have
no other purpose for human endeavoring, other than for the sake of their own
enjoyment. In other words, it is quite far removed from the physical
surviving realm. However, they are critical to the purpose of enjoying
whatever survival time, we do happen to muster-out, on this lonesome planet,
that we reside and rely upon.
>
>Hi Linda, (when I was ten I wanted to marry a Linda, but I never did)
So you married a Judy instead. Good for you!
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
Coby Beck
jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:jerbidoc-130...@lc0054.zianet.com...
And when music increases its acoustic intensity, it 'seems' to be beautiful,
and it 'seems' that life is worth living. But in fact, all that is
happening is that conditioned response is causing your heartrate to increase
and automatic neural responses are triggering electical impulses in the
region of your brain that is associated with what we irrationally call
pleasure. And in fact, the most logical course of action is just to slit
your wrists while lying in a hot bath.
Coby
jerryjudy
<cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
Or, we're becoming more in tune, unconsciously, with the integer
relationships and some of their imitative cross currents.
> And in fact, the most logical course of action is just to slit
> your wrists while lying in a hot bath.
I agree. On the one to one, personal level, 'art' has little to do with
hard realities. In this arena, art will always be a let down.
Jerry
>
> Coby
LindaGee
Can we ever know who we really are?
Are the answers within-- or far beyond the farthest star?
Can we only know what the eye can see?
Or is sight more blind than the blind can be?
I see I say is to visualize
As I see with my mind what I cannot with my eyes
Images of the past we have brought with us today
Can be formed and reformed like the sculpting of clay
Who we are today may be a mystery
But tomorrow perhaps we may find the key
To unlock all our fears--- misunderstanding---
Unbind our souls-- let loose our wings
For anything at all that the mind can see
To fly like an eagle to sting like a bee
To try even harder than the hardest tree
To be like an angel and try to set man free
Of all the ways-- all the possibilities
It can stagger the mind-- make one feel ill at ease
To ponder in thought about the infinite
Can make one long-- for what is more finite
Yet the crux of the matter cannot be avoided
We can know who we are or we can choose to avoid it
In that we are what we believe we are-- yes we are, yes we are
Either a grain of sand--- or an illuminating Star!
LindaGee
MMM 1992
LindaGee wrote in message <#VeZ6xpd$GA.128@cpmsnbbsa05>...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,rec.music.classical
>Date: Sunday, February 13, 2000 6:52 PM
>Subject: Re: WHAT IS ART?
>
>
>>In article <##7#wRmd$GA.202@cpmsnbbsa05>, "LindaGee"
>><Lind...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jerryjudy wrote in message ...
>>> >In article <38a5...@readers.ip.pt>, "Manuel Duarte de Sousa"
>>> ><duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
>>> >
John Carter
feel is worth while just the same..
John Carter Barsoom
> <duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
>
> > I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
>
> > 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
>
>
>
LindaGee
John Carter wrote in message <889h9b$jsv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Something you can not eat, wear, make love to or exchange for money but you
>feel is worth while just the same..
...but of course... you can purchase gourmet, you can wear lingerie + you
can make love to an aesthetically appealing - living and breathing -
human-being!
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta
LindaGee
the endgame wrote in message
<889qh2$5ei$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>Someone once said that G*d is Art, and that by expression of the abstract
>through to the quantifiable the great G*d metaphor is slowly diminished.
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>
>
jerryjudy
(GFostel) wrote:
> Someone wrote:
>
> > I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
> >
> > 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
>
> Donald Knuth (big shot computer science guy) wrote a book(s) called "The
Art of
> Computer Programming" yet such is not in the list above. Nor is drama, film,
> fiction and several other modern varients. And "modern" is relavant here. If
> you go back in time, the great artists were more craftsmen than todays
artists.
> Michalangelo's David is great in large part because of the skill reflected by
> the stone. Art in the modern era is a more metaphysical thing. A variety of
> semi-technical fields are refered to as "black arts" because the good work is
> not simply logically derived.
>
> A few posters suggested that numbers, especially whole numbers, had something
> to do with this. I think that is wrong. Numbers have nothing to do with it
> and are antithetical to it. Art is illogical, not mathematical. There is
> beauty in some mathematics, but not art. The best thing I read in the posts
> was an allusion to art as being like dreams. No one yet understands
dreams yet
> they are vital to humans and most other mamales. Dreams are related to our
> lives yet distinct and wonderful. Illogical.
Gary, you are so close to understanding art!, as opposed to science....
....and dreams!, as opposed to waking reality (which is 'brain controlled').
The integer solutions and their inter-relationships, working _under_ the
conscious mind, are the engine by which we 'appreciate' everything,
including the arts, history, and Love etc. etc. But the arts are tied
inexorably with whole numbers. Ask any musician about the reassuring
whole numbers of rhythm and harmony and form.
>
> Modern art has moved somewhat from craft towards inspirational illogic
as logic
> has invaded other parts of our lives.
As much as I must dismiss the flailings of modern art, they usually have
an unbroken link to the past, no matter how tenuous!, and whether or not
they know that they do. <grin>
> A Buddist might refer to the art of
> living, but we are pushing that out of modern life and it pops up in our "art"
> which we use to reconnect with that other part of our minds.
The 'art' of living is too 'big' for art to inform, with its best
reserve. This is a mistake that even some artists make.
Jerry
> Hey that seems logical. (:-)
>
> ---GaryFostel---
Coby Beck
> conscious mind, are the engine by which we 'appreciate' everything,
> including the arts, history, and Love etc. etc. But the arts are tied
> inexorably with whole numbers. Ask any musician about the reassuring
> whole numbers of rhythm and harmony and form.
>
appreciate music by it "integer-relationships" than you can understand love
or despair by analysing the bio-chemical processes of the brain. This is
like saying that the excitment one feels watching waves crash against a
rocky shoreline comes from some ludicrous innate appreciation of Newton's
Law of Gravity and its effect on the tides. Mathmatics is an *abstraction*,
an intellectual *model* of the physical world. It is the printed word NOT
the meaning behind it.
What about the Golden Mean? Why isn't a good waltz tempo an exact 1-2-3
(it is *NOT*, btw)? Why does a minor key sound more dark and plaintive than
a major key? Because 3/4 is happier than 6/5 ? Baloney.
This is such an over-intellectualized and cold view of music that it makes
me more saddened than anything else. It is an all to common symptom of not
being able to distinguish between *thinking*, *believing* and *feeling*.
Coby
---
vertigo
Obviously you're right. Shaw once parodied music criticism by grammatically
analyzing a line from Shakespeare. You know, "To be or not to be" begins on a
infinitive, followed by a correlative conjunction, then by a negative with a
recapitulation of the infinitive.
In the same way, Moliere has one of his characters act surprised when he
learns that he has been speaking prose all his life!
Makes it all sound nice and complicated. That, by the way, is itself a
trope or tropism, since the phrase should be "nicely complicated," but we'll not
go into that right now; the important thing to realize is that we CAN go into
that.
The fact is, all disciplines are self-legitimating; and they self-legitimate
themselves, first of all, with terminologies. Just like criminals maintain an
exclusive (and exclusionary) jargon or argot, distinguishing members from
outmembers.
The fact is, aesthetics will NEVER be explained, except in something like
the great Samuel Johnson's normative standard, "what pleases many for long"
(paraphrase). And, of course, the most explanatory forms are the least
creative. When you think of it, the most perfect form ever created is the
dictionary, since every single letter can be related, systematically, to every
other letter. And, when you reflect on just a few listings in the dictionary,
or, for that matter, a telephone directory, it IS quite pleasurable; I mean, to
find Johnson right before Jones & Jonson right after. In a larger listing of
course, the changes are even more subtle. Yet none of this is truly expressive
form; because expressive form depends precisely on something that eludes the
mathematical, alphabetical, geometrical, alphanumerical, or predictive. And who
could have predicted a Turkish march could possibly fit so well in one of the
greatest of all symphonic moments, the final movement of Beethoven's Ninth
symphony. Now just when all of Louie's epigones had thought they had mastered
his vocabulary and were imitating it with total predictability (hence,
mathematically, and with banality), Beethoven throws it all away again on
something entirely new, entirely unpredictable; indeed, perhaps unimaginable.
Now the mathematical is the predictable; but art is precisely that which is
unpredictable. Until Shakespeare, who would have thought to mix high tragedy
with low comedy like he did. Yet he did.
--
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Chateau/6775/
****************************************************
It is a trick of the worthless to stand forth as
opponents of great men, so as to win notoriety by
a roundabout way, which they would never do by the
straight road of merit. There are many we would
not have heard of if their eminent opponents had
not taken notice of them. There is no revenge like
oblivion, through which they are buried in the dust
of their unworthiness.
Balthasar Gracian, THE ART OF WORLDLY WISDOM
****************************************************
sapp...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jerb...@zianet.com (jerryjudy) wrote:
> In article <38AB6A96...@ms22.hinet.net>, ver...@ms22.hinet.net
> Hi Coby and vertigo, :)
>
> > Obviously you're right. Shaw once parodied music criticism by
> > grammatically
> > analyzing a line from Shakespeare. You know, "To be or not to be"
> > begins on a
> > infinitive, followed by a correlative conjunction, then by a negative
> > with a
> > recapitulation of the infinitive.
>
> Of course, where's the cleverly constrained ambiguity in "an infinitive,
> followed by a correlative conjunction, then by a negative with a
> recapitulation of the infinitive."? Without the ambiguity 'game',
> there's no art...
> Be that as it may, integer arithmetic happens to be the reason why we
> humans 'appreciate' art.
Don't speak for me, I'm not very good at sums.
> But, it's not a conscious awareness.
> > In the same way, Moliere has one of his characters act surprised
> > when he
> > learns that he has been speaking prose all his life!
> > Makes it all sound nice and complicated. That, by the way, is
> > itself a
> > trope or tropism, since the phrase should be "nicely complicated," but
> we'll not
> > go into that right now; the important thing to realize is that we CAN
> > go into
> > that.
> > The fact is, all disciplines are self-legitimating; and they
> self-legitimate
> > themselves, first of all, with terminologies. Just like criminals
> > maintain an
> > exclusive (and exclusionary) jargon or argot, distinguishing members
> > from
> > outmembers.
> > The fact is, aesthetics will NEVER be explained,
>
> Evolutionary psychologists are trying...
> The arts derive their predictability from whole numbers and their
> innately-understood arithmetic interrelationships.
I prefer art that isn't predictable - maybe I'm a fractions man.
David
> It's true though, if
> the numbers become immediately obvious to the receiver, the art will
> seem
> too predictable. Sadly, this process occurs unceasingly (in the
> individual and in the culture as a whole). New movements in art, albeit
> -fashioned with the same integer relationships, are continuously
> required.
>
> Have I said anything threatening or severely disconcerting? I'm a
> musician and this naturalistic view doesn't perturb me...
> Jerry
Stephen Mann
: 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?
: '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!
: 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. Ideals are inter-related.
Steve
P.S.: How's Juddy? Still alive?
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.
Abelard2
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Jerry <jerb...@zianet.com> is dead wrong when he asserts that <Art is so
different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.>
And Steve <quar...@well.com> is also wrong (as Keats observes) when he asserts
that <Art reveals beauty; science truth. Ideals are inter-related. >
The reason that both Art and Science took a nose-dive in the 20th Century, is
that young students blindly accepted the dogma of Savigny and Kant, that Art
was subjective and capricious, while Science was logical and objective. Science
and Art are both the creative intervention of Man into Nature; there is no
Chinese Wall between them. Was Da Vinci a scientist, or an artist? Or to be
more polemical: was Beethoven a scientist, or an artist?
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/davidsbuendler.htm
Abelard2
Date: 2/23/00 8:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <20000223113632...@ng-cq1.aol.com>
jerryjudy
abel...@aol.comspamless (Abelard2) wrote:
> Subject: Re: WHAT IS ART?
> From: abel...@aol.comspamless (Abelard2)
> Date: 2/23/00 8:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
> Message-id: <20000223113632...@ng-cq1.aol.com>
>
> At the conclusion of his "Ode to a Grecian Urn", John Keats truthfully sings:
>
>
> "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” that is all
> Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
>
> Jerry <jerb...@zianet.com> is dead wrong when he asserts that <Art is so
> different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.>
>
> And Steve <quar...@well.com> is also wrong (as Keats observes) when he
asserts
> that <Art reveals beauty; science truth. Ideals are inter-related. >
>
> The reason that both Art and Science took a nose-dive in the 20th Century, is
> that young students blindly accepted the dogma of Savigny and Kant, that Art
> was subjective and capricious, while Science was logical and objective.
> Science
> and Art are both the creative intervention of Man into Nature; there is no
> Chinese Wall between them.
The difference between science and art in my life has been that -science
was eminently reliable when I was young and immature, but now art has
eclipsed science in its 'reliability'. So, art is able to reveal what
'seems' to be true, for humans, but science is convinced, with good reason
I think, that it can't.
> Was Da Vinci a scientist, or an artist? Or to be
> more polemical: was Beethoven a scientist, or an artist?
Beethoven impresses the casual observer as a great mind who would have
made a very poor scientist, because he was too angry (probably
justifiably) about the life that fate had dealt him, but I have to agree
that if you study the logical development of his sonatas, quartets and
symphonies, as each one emerges more 'affective' than the last, by means
of specific discoveries, he succeeds exactly as a scientist would!
Thanks abelard2,
Jerry
vertigo
> In article <20000223114155...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
> abel...@aol.comspamless (Abelard2) wrote:
> >
> > Jerry <jerb...@zianet.com> is dead wrong when he asserts that <Art is so
> > different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.>
Science is predictable. Art is not. In fact, art is the complete
opposite of predictable. The greatest art is the most unpredictable.
Now, interpretations of art are another matter. That may in fact be
"scientifice." Which is why it is almost always WRONG. To the extent
that comments about art are predictive, they are predictive in a
synthetic, not an analytic, sense. That is to say, once the art has
been achieved, one can argue coherently about coherence; but, in point
of fact, one could never have predicted such meaningful coherence
previous to the work of art. And, when you can, it is not art, as in
melodrama, forumlaic films, muzak, etc.
> >
> > The reason that both Art and Science took a nose-dive in the 20th Century, is
> > that young students blindly accepted the dogma of Savigny and Kant, that Art
> > was subjective and capricious, while Science was logical and objective.
On the contrary, the so-called "higher arts" took a "nosedive" because
of this correlation of science and art. The so-called popular arts have
fully flourished, so that the last century gave us among the greatest
creations in the history of culture, among them imperishable specimens
of soul music, Rock music, cinema, and comics. The "serious" arts died
because intellectuals took control of them.
jerryjudy
abel...@aol.comspamless (Abelard2) wrote:
> vertigo ver...@ms22.hinet.net writes:
>
> >Science is predictable. Art is not.
>
> Au contraire. Every genuine breakthrough in science involves the
negation of an
> existing, false body of assumptions about the universe, and there is generally
> a chorus of enraged howling from the more constipated defenders of the status
> quo.
Very good. I was trying to come up with the right words, but then I
thought that maybe vertigo was referring to the predictability of the
scientific method, instead of the discoveries and the theories of science.
> And, here's the good part: science never arrives at the final, perfect
> explanation -- there is always another discovery to be made, that upsets the
> applecart. Nothing about this is predictable. Similarly, there is no
"ultimate"
> interpretation of a work of art -- but there is always room for improvement.
> Just ask an organization that worked over the same repertoire for 45 years,
> like the Amadeus Quartet.
Art needs to be somewhat predictable, especially if it's destined to be
labelled as 'great'. The very rules that are adhered to and those that
are broken, contribute to the integrity of the art, as we humans perceive
it.
What value would art have if it was totally unpredictable?
> >On the contrary, the so-called "higher arts" took a "nosedive" because
> >of this correlation of science and art. The so-called popular arts have
> >fully flourished, so that the last century gave us among the greatest
> >creations in the history of culture, among them imperishable specimens
> >of soul music, Rock music, cinema, and comics. The "serious" arts died
> >because intellectuals took control of them.
>
> This is, I hope, sufficiently ridiculous that even our most hardened Netizens
> will recognize it as such. The frightening thing is, that the Pokemon
> generation may come upwith worse.
Anti-intellectualism is an easy route, but vertigo isn't like that.
Forces beyond human control have sullied the 'serious' arts in the 1900's,
their time had run out. I hope vertigo doesn't really believe that it was
the intellectuals. How sad that would be. The arts stumbled upon a level
of ambiguity that could not produce aesthetically positive results, for
the majority of people. It can only be blamed on centuries of progress
and development. :)
Coby Beck
Abelard2 <abel...@aol.comspamless> wrote in message
news:20000226201214...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> vertigo ver...@ms22.hinet.net writes:
> >On the contrary, the so-called "higher arts" took a "nosedive" because
> >of this correlation of science and art. The so-called popular arts have
> >fully flourished, so that the last century gave us among the greatest
> >creations in the history of culture, among them imperishable specimens
> >of soul music, Rock music, cinema, and comics. The "serious" arts died
> >because intellectuals took control of them.
>
> This is, I hope, sufficiently ridiculous that even our most hardened
Netizens
> will recognize it as such.
Not ridiculous at all. Well put indeed!
> The frightening thing is, that the Pokemon
> generation may come upwith worse.
>
pure snobbery.
Coby
Coby Beck
vertigo <ver...@ms22.hinet.net> wrote in message
news:38B7BAEF...@ms22.hinet.net...
> The "serious" arts died
> because intellectuals took control of them.
>
AMEN to that!!
..The nail and its head and all that stuff....
Coby
Coby Beck
Jim Curtis <jcur...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:0Y2u4.2191$ad7....@news.uswest.net...
> I don't know about predicable. I think great art unlocks something that is
> not personal to the artist but he has cleared away the muck to uncover
> something true of us all.
YES! well put. (weren't you and i just recently yelling at each other over
something else ; )
Coby
Coby Beck
or totally predictable?
We would probably all agree that this is really a half full/half empty
dispute. Art is the balance of predictability and surprise, isn't it?
I believe the greatest obstacle to 20th century music was the dissolution of
all the rules. With no more boundaries, there could be no stretching of
those boundaries. When absolutely anything goes, the listener has nothing
to reference to. But this is another thread....
Coby
Abelard2
>Science is predictable. Art is not.
Au contraire. Every genuine breakthrough in science involves the negation of an
existing, false body of assumptions about the universe, and there is generally
a chorus of enraged howling from the more constipated defenders of the status
quo. And, here's the good part: science never arrives at the final, perfect
explanation -- there is always another discovery to be made, that upsets the
applecart. Nothing about this is predictable. Similarly, there is no "ultimate"
interpretation of a work of art -- but there is always room for improvement.
Just ask an organization that worked over the same repertoire for 45 years,
like the Amadeus Quartet.
>On the contrary, the so-called "higher arts" took a "nosedive" because
>of this correlation of science and art. The so-called popular arts have
>fully flourished, so that the last century gave us among the greatest
>creations in the history of culture, among them imperishable specimens
>of soul music, Rock music, cinema, and comics. The "serious" arts died
>because intellectuals took control of them.
This is, I hope, sufficiently ridiculous that even our most hardened Netizens
will recognize it as such. The frightening thing is, that the Pokemon
generation may come upwith worse.
Jim Curtis
not personal to the artist but he has cleared away the muck to uncover
with it and we get years of great art until we can no longer chop through
the muck. Then we wait a year or 100 years for a new discovery. Evolution is
slow until the breakthrough and then the flood gates open. I don't think an
artist starts with the idea of "breaking the rules". It might seem he does
break the rules but an attitude of being contrary can't be where new
original ideas start because we can only perceive evolution as a linear
progression. Maybe predictable in that when we see it we might exclaim "
There it is! We've been expecting you".
jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:jerbidoc-260...@lc0369.zianet.com...
> In article <20000226201214...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> abel...@aol.comspamless (Abelard2) wrote:
>
> >
> > >Science is predictable. Art is not.
> >
> > Au contraire. Every genuine breakthrough in science involves the
> negation of an
> > existing, false body of assumptions about the universe, and there is
generally
> > a chorus of enraged howling from the more constipated defenders of the
status
> > quo.
>
> thought that maybe vertigo was referring to the predictability of the
> scientific method, instead of the discoveries and the theories of science.
>
> > explanation -- there is always another discovery to be made, that upsets
the
> > applecart. Nothing about this is predictable. Similarly, there is no
> "ultimate"
> > interpretation of a work of art -- but there is always room for
improvement.
> > Just ask an organization that worked over the same repertoire for 45
years,
> > like the Amadeus Quartet.
>
> labelled as 'great'. The very rules that are adhered to and those that
> are broken, contribute to the integrity of the art, as we humans perceive
> it.
>
> What value would art have if it was totally unpredictable?
>
> > >of this correlation of science and art. The so-called popular arts
have
> > >fully flourished, so that the last century gave us among the greatest
> > >creations in the history of culture, among them imperishable specimens
> > >of soul music, Rock music, cinema, and comics. The "serious" arts died
> > >because intellectuals took control of them.
> >
> > This is, I hope, sufficiently ridiculous that even our most hardened
Netizens
> > will recognize it as such. The frightening thing is, that the Pokemon
> > generation may come upwith worse.
>
> Forces beyond human control have sullied the 'serious' arts in the 1900's,
> their time had run out. I hope vertigo doesn't really believe that it was
> the intellectuals. How sad that would be. The arts stumbled upon a level
> of ambiguity that could not produce aesthetically positive results, for
> the majority of people. It can only be blamed on centuries of progress
> and development. :)
>
> Jerry
>
> >
jerryjudy
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> > jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> > news:jerbidoc-260...@lc0369.zianet.com...
> > > In article <20000226201214...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> > > abel...@aol.comspamless (Abelard2) wrote:
> > >
> > > > vertigo ver...@ms22.hinet.net writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Science is predictable. Art is not.
> > > >
> > > > Au contraire. Every genuine breakthrough in science involves the
> > > negation of an
> > > > existing, false body of assumptions about the universe, and there is
> > generally
> > > > a chorus of enraged howling from the more constipated defenders of the
> > status
> > > > quo.
> > >
> > > Very good. I was trying to come up with the right words, but then I
> > > thought that maybe vertigo was referring to the predictability of the
> > > scientific method, instead of the discoveries and the theories of science.
>
> You were right the first time. I hardly have the veneration for so-called
> "science" that many of my contemporaries do. All science is, in fact,
built for
> obsolescence. This is obviously true of the so-called "soft sciences"; but
> ultimately true of the so-called "hard sciences" as well. Consider medicine,
> where, after a century of hard scientific evidence it is still difficult to
> generalize about virtually anything in the field. And anyone who has a Humean
> grasp of the so-called hard sciences would realize that any scientific
paradigm
> is only marking time, as it were, until it's superseded by a "more" objective
> paradigm.
Yes, science consists of taking today's best stab at the mysteries, but
it's systematic in its method AND it's self-correcting! If that doesn't
impress you then I don't know what to say. :)
> Kind of like the concept of "realism" in art, which is entirely
> relative. Go see a performance of a "verismo" opera such as Tosca; or a
verismo
> performance, such as Brando in Waterfront.
> My point is that, unlike science, art can never even be generalized; only
> formulaic corruptions of art (melodrama, etc.) can be generalized.
In my opinion, art has little value if it can't be generalized.
Individual works, by themselves, are little more than entertainment, or a
momentary experience. It's only when the relatedness among the works is
shown, do we see the vision.
> There is at
> least a useful purpose for temporarily generalizing the body of so-called
> scientific knowledge; but there is no useful purpose in generalizing our
> accumulated knowledge of art at all, except at the very elementary or
> introductory level, as a disciplinary method (practicing C-major scales, even
> though one will renounce tonality, etc.).
How about saving time? We only live a few years and there's a great body
of art.
> Now science is, in fact, predictable,
> in a confirmatory sense, whereas art is never so predictable (you cannot use a
> logical method to prove an art;
You can try. And the wonders will flower. Art is all in the trying, and
IMO, analysis is part of that trying.
> you can only use a logical method to illustrate
> an art; you can use a synthetic method, but not an analytic method; you
can show
> how it coheres to you, but cannot show how it coheres necessarily).
This is a problem, but art is also very much about beguiling oneself.
> > or totally predictable?
> > We would probably all agree that this is really a half full/half empty
> > dispute. Art is the balance of predictability and surprise, isn't it?
>
> Absolutely. To say that something is unpredictable is not to say that it is
> chaotic! In life, one doesn't know if, following an argument, one's
spouse will
> say, "I'm going to leave you" or "Let's try to save our marriage." But your
> spouse will not say, "Oxxyyysiicycyccyyyccil difunnnsicyys!" Unless, of
> course, this was a sci-fi movie about aliens taking over domestic bodies; but,
> to that degree, there would still be an element of predictability. One would
> hardly expect such a response in, say, "On the waterfront."
IMO, art is not nonsense, but it is artifice. And it needs to be somewhat
predictable to acheive its goals, even when they're extremely limited
goals. :)
> >
> > I believe the greatest obstacle to 20th century music was the dissolution of
> > all the rules.
The creators knew what rules remained important, but the audience didn't
keep up. :(
Jerry
> > With no more boundaries, there could be no stretching of
> > those boundaries. When absolutely anything goes, the listener has nothing
> > to reference to. But this is another thread....
> >
> > Coby
>
> Bobby Dylan said it fairly well: 'To live outside the law you must be
> honest." Before you can break rules, you must honor them, or the principle of
> order that they enforce.
vertigo
> Yes, science consists of taking today's best stab at the mysteries, but
> it's systematic in its method AND it's self-correcting! If that doesn't
> impress you then I don't know what to say. :)
I never said it didn't impress me. In fact, almost anything impresses
me. Hitting 70 home runs in a season impresses me. Writing music
impresses me. The hard work of a Beethoven impresses me; the facility
of a Mozart impresses me also.
> In my opinion, art has little value if it can't be generalized.
Well, let's not get tangled up in semantics here. Obviously it would be
impossible to create anything without an established paradigm. All art
is to a degree generic. It is a dialogue between invention and
convention. The point is whether one wishes to stress the new or the
old. I think in art it makes more sense to stress the new. It is that
DIFFERENCE that makes the difference.
And that's entirely unpredictable.
No-one could possibly predict, for example, where music
will go next. If it's predictable, it isn't art. And this is true even
in the act of creation. Novelists, for example, always say that when
their characters run away from them, that's when they know their work
has come alive. The person who writes melodrama knows from the very
first word exactly how the melodrama will end two hundred pages later.
> Individual works, by themselves, are little more than entertainment, or a
> momentary experience. It's only when the relatedness among the works is
> shown, do we see the vision.
This is rather vague, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and
you might be saying what I'm saying (above). Obviously, invention can
only be perceived against a more predictable background. Only a
conventional background can make us see or experience the novel
foreground. But that foreground is always entirely unpredictable; it is
idiopathic, as it were, or idiolectic. Nobody has ever "spoken" in that
pattern before. I remember Lenny Bernstein's recorded lecture on the
Eroica, where he points out that the final note of that symphony's
opening phrase must have hit Louie's contemporary listeners as musically
illiterate, since flat. This is always the way with art.
Now the danger of the "scientific" argument of art is that, once this
achievement becomes predictable and familiar the theorist will argue
that it is scientific. But that's a rather loose meaning of the word!
Science, as I've said, must be predictive. If it were, indeed,
scientific, one should be able to generalize, say, from Macbeth or the
Eroica and churn out multitudinous masterpieces. But this, of course,
is impossible. Because the essence of art is always elusive, like the
essence of sexual attraction.
By the way, ask record producers, who would gladly give an arm if they
could make a hit predictable.
>
> > There is at
> > least a useful purpose for temporarily generalizing the body of so-called
> > scientific knowledge; but there is no useful purpose in generalizing our
> > accumulated knowledge of art at all, except at the very elementary or
> > introductory level, as a disciplinary method (practicing C-major scales, even
> > though one will renounce tonality, etc.).
>
> How about saving time? We only live a few years and there's a great body
> of art.
But I included that in my original response! Obviously, there's no
point in inventing the wheel anew every day. But there's no point in
mistaking the wheel with art, either.
>
> Art is all in the trying, and IMO, analysis is part of that trying.
Again, let's be clear about the difference between art and criticism.
I've no problem with critical methodologies, just so long as they know
their place. Hermeneutics and aesthetics are often confused, anyway,
but they are two diametrically opposed events. One is based on
thinking, the other on feeling. One is inclusive (every shot must mean
something), the other is elusive (it's frequently impossible to say why
that scene perfectly fits that movie). This, by the way, is why Woody
Allen's films are often admired: because every line of dialogue is so
rigidly (and tediously) plotted to mean something that it's very easy to
find coherence in his movies. But coherence and expressive coherence or
significant form are two entirely different things. As I've pointed out
on several occasions, the most perfect example of formal coherence is a
dictionary of telephone directory; but they lack expressive form to any
appreciable degree. My desktop theme, by the way, has superb coherence,
since it was intended to have this. So do melodramas. But these lack
expressive form and are, practically speaking, deciduous. On the other
hand, using conventional standards, a Mahler symphony or Hamlet are
difficult to organize in hermeneutic or formulaic schemes (hence Eliot's
famous criticism of Hamlet as lacking an objective correlative).
Eliot's poems are more thematically coherent than Shakespeare's plays.
But Eliot is kept alive mostly by academics and competitive tenure.
Shakespeare belongs to the ages & always will. And, believe me, it's
far easier to explain what The Waste Land is "about" than what Hamlet is
"about." The difference between the two is that Hamlet evokes the
highest and most complex and messy levels of feelings in audiences,
while Eliot's poem evokes a considerably more limtied and more
predictable (and predictably ordered) range of feelings.
>
> IMO, art is not nonsense, but it is artiface. And it needs to be somewhat
> predictable to acheive its goals, even when they're extremely limited
> goals. :)
>
I don't really understand what this means. But, obviously, art has to
have some level of predictability. Or to use ideas discussed by Meyer
and Robert Simpson, among others, the relationship between foreground
and background must be accessible. Where there is all background, you
get blandly predictable music, usually a defunct form or a sanitized
form, such as Muzak. Where there is all foreground, you get art that is
mostly inaccessible or "unreadable." This is the case for much of
so-called serious art of the last century; while the popular arts
brilliantly maintained an ideal aesthetic equipoise between tradition
and novelty, which is the ultimate aesthetic responsibility of the
artist. Listen to "Good Golly, Miss Molly," by Little Richard; and
something like that comes as close to aesthetic perfection as we've
reached in the last century, I think: a perfect equipoise between the
totally predictable and the totally unpredictable.
>
> The creators knew what rules remained important, but the audience didn't
> keep up. :(
Aesthetics privileges the audience, not the artist. This is a theorem
that is completely non-negotiable. It is up to the artist to "keep up"
with the audience, not the other way around.
Jim Curtis
appeal to me will still have those who have assimilated to a reference. Can
anyone actually create something that has absolutely no reference what so
ever? I may not wish to join in and for good reason as what we wish to
ignore for our artistic being is as important as what we are open to but I
don't think we can dismiss it as not applying to anyone's reference system.
The next guy may be an "everything goes" type of guy...or our idea of
"everything goes".
Coby Beck <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:_D3u4.1106$eh.1...@news.bc.tac.net...
Jim Curtis
some would enforce before it can be said that you appropriately expressed an
opinion. I'm kind of militant in this manner because it always seems that
those who think their opinions count supreme are the most ardent "imo"
sticklers.news:3I3u4.1110$eh.1...@news.bc.tac.net...
is
> > not personal to the artist but he has cleared away the muck to uncover
> > something true of us all.
>
Coby Beck
of semantics...
I was really just trying to make the point that the way one expresses an
opinion is the difference between generating useful discussion or pointless
bickering. This was a response to someone who took offence at people taking
offence! I, myself, do not let the opinions of strangers disturb me that
much...
cb
(refering to the "Bach is boring" thread of a few days ago)
Jim Curtis <jcur...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:idIu4.1393$Aa4....@news.uswest.net...