Question/Answers on art
TRINITINE
questions.
Hart said in effect: You defined aesthetic emotion as a state that has no
reflection beyond experience. If true, where does inspiration come from?
Example: An individual has an experience that produces an inspiration, or a
perception and concepts. He says, "I see this. It makes me think." I can't see
this in your description of aesthetic emotion.
Trinitine: True, because "I see this" is neutrally objective. "It makes me
think" is rational. Both are non-emotional and cannot be the aesthetic emotion.
Hart: This seems to be saying that art is about ideals, rather than ideas.
Conceptual idealization is nowhere to be seen.
Trinitine: True again about art being about ideals. Conceptual idealization is
rationalization, not emotionalization
Hart: If an individual paints an image of a plant, so as to express the
sensation and emotions it evokes within the artist, where is the ideal?
Trinitine: The sensations and emotions in his painting make his painting more
ideal than the real.
Hart: Some artists reflect the world around them, and love the imperfections,
the sense of how things are, not as they should be?
Trinitine: Did you ever love anything that was imperfect? Love is for the ideal
perfection, as seen in the mind of the viewer. Three artists paint the same
portrait. All the portraits are different. Each saw a different beauty that was
in the mind of the beholder.
Hart: Nature is not art, but what of art that attempts to mirror nature?
Trinitine: As I said, Nature may not have art, but it has beauty. That perfect
beauty can be mirrored in the mind of the artist.
Hart: What if the idea of using art to reflect on concepts of what the artist
perceives in his life, in effect, in Nature?
Trinitine: Beauty can be of the soul, the mind, the body, or of Nature. These
make moral, intellectual, sensual, and natural concepts that are ideal. The
artist's life revolve around these ideal concepts acquired in his life, and he
seeks to concretely image what his mind abstracts as ideal.
Hart: I think that the individual is never separated from Nature, so how can
the two be divorced within the realm of art?
Trinitine: The individual's body cannot be separated from Nature, but his mind
and spirit can be separated. That is why the mystic, ideal and the concretely
real are different. The mystical is transcendent, the ideal is mental, and the
real is natural (Physical).
Hart: Is art supposed to be pleasing, as you imply , or is it something else?
Example: I view "Drowning Soldier" that is offensive and disturbing. I love the
image, call it art, as it challenges me to look at something on the merits of
the evocation of emotion, rather than the quality of the emotion evoked.
Trinitine: Pleasing is a relative term. A dominantly religious person looks at
a dying Jesus on a crucifix and feel a sad aesthetic emotion that is felt for a
perfect God. An intellectual person looks at a Renaissance painting and feels
the aesthetic emotion at the geometrical forms, proportions and symmetry he can
see in the painting. A dominantly sensual person looks at a nude painting and
has an aesthetic emotion because of its affect on his senses. Looking at
"Drowning Soldier" (I haven't seen it) could evoke ideals that are opposite to
what is seen as offensive, like ideals of the sanctity of human life.
Hart: Could art now be turning toward other figures outside of ,man?
Trinitine: Does a Pollock painting picture anything visual about man? Does
"Modern Art", showing a plain white canvas, or the squirls of an elephant's
trunk, say anything of man? Of course, they do infer that man is now in a
no-valued, non-art phase of his society.
Hart: Could not nature be presented without the expressed valuation created
within a human culture?
Trinitine: Why paint a mirror image of nature, with no human valuation, when
the real thing is just the same or better?
Hart: Could it be that man is now looking beyond self, to mere observation
without the bias of the watcher? Would this not exclude the concepts of soul,
mind, and body?
Trinitine: If so, then man is a now a zombie with no feelings, no aesthetic
emotions, and no need for art. It would exclude the use of man's
soul-mind-body.
Hart: Could it be that the exploration of "man", thru art, has reached a
point where one either repeats what has been discovered, OR, one must now face
those things that are not within the value system of "man"?
Trinitine: The principles of art never change; the facts always change. Art
revolves around the soul-mind-body-nature and their values. These reflect the
changing values of man. The lessons of past civilizations can tell you what
happens when art has reached a point of repetition and turns to no-valued
non-art. The solution is to repeat the cycle of changing values and art that
parallels changes in dominance from spirit to mind to body in man. But but
each cycle will be different in fact than the previous one,but same in
principle, just as Western art is now different from Roman Art, from which it
grew.
Hart: Could the underlying concepts of art have exhausted the exploration in
one direction, and is unsure of which new set of "values" to assign them?
Trinitine: Beyond the spiritual is the rational, beyond the rational is the
sensual, beyond the sensual is the emotive in art and in values. The emotive
"Dark Age" of art can be avoided only by returning to the spiritual.
Hart: Could we now be into the idea of art without the human ingredient?
Trinitine: Look at what is dominantly called "Art" today. Does it have much
human ingredient in it?
TRINITINE
Gyre Hart
>questions.
I wish.
Oh, and I am interesting in this as I consider myself an artist. This
is SO fascinating... <smile>
>Hart said in effect: You defined aesthetic emotion as a state that has no
>reflection beyond experience. If true, where does inspiration come from?
>Example: An individual has an experience that produces an inspiration, or a
>perception and concepts. He says, "I see this. It makes me think." I can't see
>this in your description of aesthetic emotion.
>
>Trinitine: True, because "I see this" is neutrally objective. "It makes me
>think" is rational. Both are non-emotional and cannot be the aesthetic emotion.
Bad choice of words on my part -
I sense this, it forms this sensation. Art is no different for me in
that. I sense [see] art and I have sensation [emotion]. And part of
sensation, for me, can be the sudden moment of thought [instinctive
withdrawal from image which in turn forms a concrete conceptial opinion
based on sensual experience - ie I am forced to think about something when
confronted with it visually] This make sense?
How does this fit into the aesthetic emotion?
>Hart: This seems to be saying that art is about ideals, rather than ideas.
>Conceptual idealization is nowhere to be seen.
>
>Trinitine: True again about art being about ideals. Conceptual idealization is
>rationalization, not emotionalization
Really?
A conceptual idealization existing free of emotion? Umm. I would not
see that, or better put - I don't get it. What happened to the emotion of
"god"? What emotive response is necessary to say emotion plays a part of
the process?
>Hart: If an individual paints an image of a plant, so as to express the
>sensation and emotions it evokes within the artist, where is the ideal?
>
>Trinitine: The sensations and emotions in his painting make his painting more
>ideal than the real.
Really?
You know you constantly surprise me... <smile>
I have never personally thought that. I might admit to idealizing the
emotional responses I had to the image, but I am trying to translate them
from self formed idium to a more common form that allows others to gather
the same impression by overstating the effect. I might sqew the image to
produce the emotional/conceptual response I had in another [as in I look
at something, unsure that others will have the same response I overstate
the response in a painting so that others are drawn to the same sorts of
conclusions/responses].
But this is not... well might be more ideal than the real...
Oh shit. Ok, point. I get the point. Ack.
>Hart: Some artists reflect the world around them, and love the imperfections,
>the sense of how things are, not as they should be?
>
>Trinitine: Did you ever love anything that was imperfect? Love is for the ideal
>perfection, as seen in the mind of the viewer. Three artists paint the same
>portrait. All the portraits are different. Each saw a different beauty that was
>in the mind of the beholder.
Yes. Man. Myself. Existence.
Idealization includes the concept, for me, that there be a level of
perfection either attainable or inherent. I do not see that in many
things, and personally I revel in that fact. It means, oddly enough, alot
to my comfort of mind.
Beauty, in your last statement, is slipping close to an actual
definition. Was that intentional?
All portraits are different because no two individuals can arrive at
the same place simultaniously. Or from the same physical perspective.
Art in and of itself reflects the mutability of existence to the almighty
Variable.
And unfortunately we have a major disagreement in fundamentals, here.
I love some things for being what they are, not what I wish them to be.
Some things are simply amazing to me as part of existence, and this
includes many things from Nature to acts of humans. <shrug> And I like
what I precieve [as in see] and usually find those moments of aesthetic
joy come from the moments where my personal biases of interpretation are
as limited as I am able to get them.
<shrug>
>Hart: What if the idea of using art to reflect on concepts of what the artist
>perceives in his life, in effect, in Nature?
>
>Trinitine: Beauty can be of the soul, the mind, the body, or of Nature. These
>make moral, intellectual, sensual, and natural concepts that are ideal. The
>artist's life revolve around these ideal concepts acquired in his life, and he
>seeks to concretely image what his mind abstracts as ideal.
I don't know. I'm sorry to be so dense.. but I just have a problem
with ideal being used so much. For me art is about concepts, sometimes
dealing in ideals, but not always.
Or are you saying that one can have an ideal of something less than
perfection? The perfect inperfection?
>Hart: I think that the individual is never separated from Nature, so how can
>the two be divorced within the realm of art?
>
>Trinitine: The individual's body cannot be separated from Nature, but his mind
>and spirit can be separated. That is why the mystic, ideal and the concretely
>real are different. The mystical is transcendent, the ideal is mental, and the
>real is natural (Physical).
Can be, but are they? Or could it be, as I have occassionally wondered
: that which can be imagined must, by definition of being conceptualized
within a natural setting of mans body, be natural? Where does one draw
the line? <ouch... sorry about the pun>
>Hart: Is art supposed to be pleasing, as you imply , or is it something else?
>Example: I view "Drowning Soldier" that is offensive and disturbing. I love the
>image, call it art, as it challenges me to look at something on the merits of
>the evocation of emotion, rather than the quality of the emotion evoked.
>
>Trinitine: Pleasing is a relative term. A dominantly religious person looks at
>a dying Jesus on a crucifix and feel a sad aesthetic emotion that is felt for a
>perfect God. An intellectual person looks at a Renaissance painting and feels
>the aesthetic emotion at the geometrical forms, proportions and symmetry he can
>see in the painting. A dominantly sensual person looks at a nude painting and
>has an aesthetic emotion because of its affect on his senses. Looking at
>"Drowning Soldier" (I haven't seen it) could evoke ideals that are opposite to
>what is seen as offensive, like ideals of the sanctity of human life.
Relative term - so is art, and aesthetic response.
And the immediate joy of the painting, for me was along the lines of :
joy at the skill of an individual to create such a viseral, immediately
[in the room with you] response, how wonderful to choose a subject that
would hide the overall amazement of skill directly before people, and
subject response [as in the normal feelings of revulsion for a gruesome
death, etc]. Does this consistute ideal? Or an appreciation of skill,
which while not what I personally possess, nor would I directly want to, I
can literally appreciate?
>Hart: Could art now be turning toward other figures outside of ,man?
>
>Trinitine: Does a Pollock painting picture anything visual about man? Does
>"Modern Art", showing a plain white canvas, or the squirls of an elephant's
>trunk, say anything of man? Of course, they do infer that man is now in a
>no-valued, non-art phase of his society.
Pollock is completely "man" oriented. It is the destruction of the
human perspective, which [of course] leads to something that means that
"non human" art is impossible. Art produced by a human is inherently
about the perspective of the human, and as such much reflect that human in
some way - either for or against.
Acutally, they infer to me the idea that man is possibly looking beyond
his own importance, his own arrogance of self ideology. <Shrug> Gut
reaction.
>Hart: Could not nature be presented without the expressed valuation created
>within a human culture?
>
>Trinitine: Why paint a mirror image of nature, with no human valuation, when
>the real thing is just the same or better?
Again, the point of art, for some, is the process of thought. In many
respects I do feel that art is part of the philosophical process of
thought. I feel that in many respects it attempts to develop and
articulate thought - and if the value system changes from human-centric
thinking, than looking outside of "self" [in the species sense] must be
reflected back within the base culture so all can view and process.
>Hart: Could it be that man is now looking beyond self, to mere observation
>without the bias of the watcher? Would this not exclude the concepts of soul,
>mind, and body?
>
>Trinitine: If so, then man is a now a zombie with no feelings, no aesthetic
>emotions, and no need for art. It would exclude the use of man's
>soul-mind-body.
Well, I put THAT badly.
I mean is there not a level where valuation of viewed objects [as in I
see this, and I like it] could be eliminated and people begin the process
of attempting observation without bias? Without expectation of valuation
- not a "Good" storm, not a "Bad" storm, but a storm worthy of viewing
because it exists... no more, no less.
Could we not be about to possibly try to find a real "value" for
existence, and not for what we precieve we see of existence? To exist is
"good".
Exclude soul-body-mind? Or maybe it is just expanding the playing
field and the tools to explore self?
>Hart: Could the underlying concepts of art have exhausted the exploration in
>one direction, and is unsure of which new set of "values" to assign them?
>
>Trinitine: Beyond the spiritual is the rational, beyond the rational is the
>sensual, beyond the sensual is the emotive in art and in values. The emotive
>"Dark Age" of art can be avoided only by returning to the spiritual.
<smile> I would prefer a detour to rational spiritual.
>Hart: Could we now be into the idea of art without the human ingredient?
>
>Trinitine: Look at what is dominantly called "Art" today. Does it have much
>human ingredient in it?
>
>TRINITINE
Actually, what bothers me most about art today is that it is too full
of man. It is designed for and by man. It is created to salve his
interior design problems, and nothing more. It is souless in itself
because it never attempts to be more than an image, not art. And I think
this stems directly from the fact that people are encouraged to find the
codified versions of thought around them [go read this to get a job, read
that to get a man, watch that to figure out how you shoudl feel on this
issue.. and buy this art to pretty up your life]. Nowhere in that is a]
thought, b] art.
So I guess I would agree art is souless right now... But I then also
think it's unfortunately been taken over by a whole society and suffers at
the hands of "mob mentality".
-Gyre
didiactuallytypethatmuch
--
To reach me directly : ha...@hivnet.ubc.ca
TRINITINE
and is linked with society, and reflects it, then it says we are looking in the
mirror of our society.
Trinitine: I fully agree. All the arts parallel the human values of society.
This is obvious if one lines up the dominant portraits and paintings thru the
Medieval-Renaissance-Modern- Post modern Ages of Western history. Art in these
ages parallel the phases of religious- intellectual, hedonistic-emotive
values. Said anaother way, art parallels moral-ethical-hedonistic-emotive
values. These parallels are the mirror of art and society. In fact, avante
garde art usually predicts the art and human values of the next generation.
Alison: Traditions of art have been abandoned and deconstructed by Feminists
and Post-moderns. The philosophy of modern aesthetic is entirely under the
pressure of redefinition.
Trinitine: What else could it be when the Feminists are dedicated to reversing
values that endured thousands of years, and the post-moderns admit to having no
concept of truth, morality, justice, beauty, or philosophy.
TRINITINE
this can be a thought (Instinctive withdrawal from image that forms a concrete
conceptual opinion based on sensual experience; i.e., I'm force to think when
confronted with it visually. How does this fit into the aesthetic emotion?
Trinitine: First, if you had an "emotion", you had a 素eeling", not a
"sensation", which is thru the senses. This changes your experience: To
paraphrase you: I see art. I feel it. Then I think of it. This reflects three
of your mental function: Seeing-Feeling-Thinking. There is a balancing change
between these three functions. As you "saw", you weren't feeling or thinking
much. When you "felt", you lost seeing and thinking. When you "thought", you
lost seeing and feeling. Art appreciation is relative to one's dominant nature.
The dominantly spiritual would have stayed longer on his feeling. The sensual
person would have stayed longer on his sensations. You, who are probably
dominantly rational, quickly went to conceptual thinking. This infers that the
aesthetic emotion applies to all persons, but the degree and quality of this
emotion is relative to the person being dominantly spiritual, rational, or
sensual..
Hart: This seems to be saying that art is about ideals rather than ideals.
Conceptual idealization is no where to be seen.
Trinitine: True of ideals, but conceptual idealization is rationalization, not
emotionalization.
Hart: A conceptual idealization existing free of emotion? I don't get it?
Trinitine: For the dominantly spiritual person, it is about feelings (Emotion)
and the transcendent; for the rational, it is about conception and the ideal,
for the sensual it is about sensation and the real. All of these feel the
aesthetic emotion but to a differenct degree and quality.
Hart: What happened to the emotion of "God"?What emotive response is necessary
for emotion to play a part in the process?
Trinitine: Again, the dominantly spiritual person would have a greater degree
of the emotion over an art about God, than the dominantly rational or sensual
person.
Hart: If an individual paints an image of a plant, to express sensations and
emotions, where is the ideal?
Trinitine: Seeking positive emotions and sensations, would the individual paint
the flower in anyway but the best he could in all aspects? Is not the best you
can think of an ideal of perfection?
Hart: I have a problem with the ideal being used too much. For me art is about
concepts, sometime dealing in ideals, but not always. Or are you saying an
ideal can be less than perfection? The perfect imperfection?
Trinitine: Ideals and conceptions are rational. You keep returning to these,
yet you say you want to see and feel the natural and the real. This infers how
we are all spirit-mind-and body, but dominant on one of these. So all of us can
be seekers of the altruistic, the ideal, or the real; but all of us will seek
what is relative to our dominant nature. On this principle, the rational
idealist will look at ideal perfection, while the dominantly sensual person
will look at what is less ideal and perfect, but will call it perfect and
ideal. We know ourselves when we know what our dominant being is. You seem to
be in conflict between the ideal and real, which means you are asking, "Am I
dominant rational or sensual? Socrates said,"Know thyself". As a Socratic
questioner, you leave too much to answer, which I will answer your other
questions in another report.
TRINITINE
Hart uses too many words and parentheses. I had to paraphrase most of his
paragraphs to make sense of them. Hopefully, my translations are what he meant
them to be.
Hart: I think the individual is never separated from Nature, so how can the
two, as you say, be divorced within the realm of art?
Trinitine: Man's body can't be separated from Nature, but this mind and spirit
can be. The body follows the laws of nature. The mind follows the law of logic.
The spirit follows intuition. The body extends outward toward nature. The
spirit is only inward. The mind balances between the spirit and nature, i.e.,
reason balances between intuition and observation. The senses see nature as it
is in reality. The spirit feel nature. The mind perceives nature by how the
spirit changes it to be ideality or ugliness. So the individual who is in
meditation or contemplation will be divorced from nature.
Hart: I have wondered: that which can be imagined, and is conceptualized in the
natural setting of the natural body, must be natural.
Trinitine: The natural is material and observable. The concept is abstract and
rational. Th spirit is abstruse and emotive. So spiritual Medieval art hardly
showed the tree .Renaissance art showed the geometrical idealistic tree (As
being 礎etter" than Nature). The sensual Modern artist shows the "real" tree.
Hart (Revised and not sure if it is what Hart meant): So art and the aesthetic
response are relative. While viewing "Drowning Soldier". The joy of painting,
for me, was at the skill of the artist to create a visceral response in me. How
wonderful of the artist to choose a subject that would hide his overall skill,
and before people who have a revulsion for gruesome death. Does my joy
constitute an ideal response? Or is it an appreciation of a skill that I lack,
nor would want, yet I appreciate it.
Trinitine: Judge for yourself: Which ideal feeling was dominant in you:
Appreciation of the colors and their harmony (Sensual)? Appreciation of
technical skill (Rational)? Impact of feeling at the reality death in the
painting (Spiritual). Philosophical analysis (Rational)? A "Visceral" feeling
is sensual. If pleasant, then it's a sensual ideal. If revulsion, then it's
spiritual in feelings about death.
Hart: Pollock's art is "man" oriented (Man-made?). It is the destruction of
the human perspective in art. It leads to some saying that"non-human art" is
impossible. Art by humans is about humans; as such, it is for or against
humans. So Pollock's (Modern) art infers that man is looking beyond his own
importance.
Trinitine: True, Pollock displays nothing of Nature, except when he (Man) makes
ideas of Nature. Yet he paints nothing of man. So he eliminates nature and man
as he looks beyond his own importance, to make man unimportant.
Hart: For some , the point of art is the process of thought, part of the
philosophical process. Art attempts to develop and articulate thought. So if
the value-system changes from human-centric thinking, and looks outside of
himself, then it must be reflected back into the culture, where all can view
and do the process.
Trinitine: Art does change with human thought as verified by history. If art
turns away from human values, this is reflected back to society which views and
practices it, to turn away from human values. That's why the values of avante
garde become the values of the next generation..
Hart:Can evaluations of a viewed object in art be eliminated in order to
eliminate all bias? For example: Can it be, not a "Good" or a Bad" storm, but
just a storm that exists and is worth viewing.
Trinitine: You could not view that storm without a reason for viewing it鉾ood,
bad, or indifferent. If it's good reason, you'll have the aesthetic emotion. If
bad, you won't have it. If indifferent to it, you won't be existing. All
evaluations are not biased. An emotional opinion is a bias. A rational bias is
an evaluation, a judgement, not a bias.
Hart: Could we try to find a real "value" for existence, and for what's in it?
To exist is "good". Should we exclude soul-mind-body? Or maybe expand the
playing field to explore the self?
Trinitine" To just exist is not good. What you do in your existence is good or
bad. Exclude the spirit-mind-body from your existence and you're, not
existing--you're dead.
Hart: It bothers me that art today is designed for and by man, to salve his
interior design problems. Art is soulless, for it an image, not art. This is
because people live by codified versions of thought. They do what they read and
hear, with no though of art. It's a "mob mentality".
Trinitine: I hope you make sense of this. I had a difficult time translating
what you said, then rewording it to make sense to me, then trying to write an
answer consistent with your translated meaning. I understood your previous
articles more easily.
A.A. Raimes
>Alison: Traditions of art have been abandoned and deconstructed by Feminists
>and Post-moderns. The philosophy of modern aesthetic is entirely under the
>pressure of redefinition.
>
>Trinitine: What else could it be when the Feminists are dedicated to reversing
>values that endured thousands of years, and the post-moderns admit to having no
>concept of truth, morality, justice, beauty, or philosophy.
>
minorities, homosexuals ??? need I go on. Change is the driving force of
the arts. We are currently in the midst of a redefinition which is
comparable to the Renaissance - the problem is we are unable to distance
ourselves historically to clearly observe this. The term *post-modern*
is premature - modernity has not yet run its true course.
--
Alison A Raimes
c_o...@my-dejanews.com
> Trinitine: First, if you had an "emotion", you had a 素eeling", not a
> "sensation", which is thru the senses. This changes your experience: To
> paraphrase you: I see art. I feel it. Then I think of it. This reflects three
> of your mental function: Seeing-Feeling-Thinking. There is a balancing change
> between these three functions. As you "saw", you weren't feeling or thinking
> much. When you "felt", you lost seeing and thinking. When you "thought", you
> lost seeing and feeling. Art appreciation is relative to one's dominant
> nature. The dominantly spiritual would have stayed longer on his feeling. The
> sensual person would have stayed longer on his sensations. You, who are
> probably dominantly rational, quickly went to conceptual thinking. This
> infers that the aesthetic emotion applies to all persons, but the degree and
> quality of this emotion is relative to the person being dominantly spiritual,
> rational, or sensual..
<smile> Correct for most of the time, occassionally not. There
are two factors here that you have not taken into account. Both are part of
me, both physically and mentally. One: I was diagnosed as bi-polar, but a
more accurate description of the effect would be something similar to autism.
I recieve stimulous, and on a constant basis have reactions to that
stimulous, rarely instinctively. Or I should say - quickly. Most of what I
precieve of the world is conscious - as in I am aware of the process much
more acutely than I would suspect some are. This also leads to a blurring of
lines - when I sense something it literally means that - I have a physical
reaction to emotional states. Pain is not limited to some sort of prefab
box. <shrug> I wish that I could say that the body and mind are separate
enough to have purely emotional responses... it would be much easier on me if
it were. BUT it is not... for me. I cannot say that I "hurt" emotional and
it is not processed in such a way as to involve a physical sensation. Not to
say "pain" of a cut, but rather a "Real" sensation. Two: the assumption is
that I work under rather standard principals of perception. Most of which
are slowly being broadened. I experience sound as a sensation that also
encompasses color, texture, emotion, and occassionally taste. All senses
overlap to an extent that at times it is next to impossible to relate the
specific experience to an individual without alot of imaginative explanation.
What does "cobalt" mean to you? When viewed it is a coolness, a taste of
cold water, a slowness of motion, and a deep hum - bass. <shrug>
Impressions, but then sensory impressions - my point - are generally not
singular. And for me cannot, therefore, be split into precise lines of
"reaction". How would you fit these sorts of things into what you have said?
Or do they and would it then be called "misunderstood" or "confused"
evalutation on my part? Seriously - not meant to sound like I'm sure it
does...
> Hart: This seems to be saying that art is about ideals rather than ideals.
> Conceptual idealization is no where to be seen.
>
> Trinitine: True of ideals, but conceptual idealization is rationalization, not
> emotionalization.
>
> Hart: A conceptual idealization existing free of emotion? I don't get it?
>
> Trinitine: For the dominantly spiritual person, it is about feelings (Emotion)
> and the transcendent; for the rational, it is about conception and the ideal,
> for the sensual it is about sensation and the real. All of these feel the
> aesthetic emotion but to a differenct degree and quality.
Again I don't understand the division. I don't really believe that
there is a "wholly spiritual/rational/sensual" individual. I do believe in
dominant... but dominant does not preclude the idea of multiresponse
preception. How would you account for "whole person" responses of varying
mixtures of response?
> Hart: If an individual paints an image of a plant, to express sensations and
> emotions, where is the ideal?
>
> Trinitine: Seeking positive emotions and sensations, would the individual paint
> the flower in anyway but the best he could in all aspects? Is not the best you
> can think of an ideal of perfection?
Noooo..... Look, I work under the assumption, from personal
experience, that mankind and its senses are imperfect. Therefore I believe
what I imagine as an "ideal perfection" is realistically : "an flawed attempt
at conceptual perfection". I can concieve of perfection, but I cannot
imagine it. The only ideal here would be to say that I hope to present the
best respresentation of my senses responses to a particular object/subject.
But that is about the skill and not the product. Or is it?
> Hart: I have a problem with the ideal being used too much. For me art is about
> concepts, sometime dealing in ideals, but not always. Or are you saying an
> ideal can be less than perfection? The perfect imperfection?
>
> Trinitine: Ideals and conceptions are rational. You keep returning to these,
> yet you say you want to see and feel the natural and the real. This infers how
> we are all spirit-mind-and body, but dominant on one of these. So all of us can
> be seekers of the altruistic, the ideal, or the real; but all of us will seek
> what is relative to our dominant nature. On this principle, the rational
> idealist will look at ideal perfection, while the dominantly sensual person
> will look at what is less ideal and perfect, but will call it perfect and
> ideal. We know ourselves when we know what our dominant being is. You seem to
> be in conflict between the ideal and real, which means you are asking, "Am I
> dominant rational or sensual? Socrates said,"Know thyself". As a Socratic
> questioner, you leave too much to answer, which I will answer your other
> questions in another report.
<lol>
This then must be the problem... I cannot see being dominant "any". I have
a problem with static responses - as in I will only have a rational/sensual/or
spirtual response to all stimulous. I cannot see a way to divide them into
specific categories and say that they do not color each other.
<pause>
Is that bad?
-Gyre
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
c_o...@my-dejanews.com
> Trinitine: Occam said: the simplest way is the easiest way to express truth.
> Hart uses too many words and parentheses. I had to paraphrase most of his
> paragraphs to make sense of them. Hopefully, my translations are what he meant
> them to be.
Ouch.
But another possible idea is that the simpler the concept the hard to
explain. I try, unfortunately.
> Hart: I think the individual is never separated from Nature, so how can the
> two, as you say, be divorced within the realm of art?
>
> Trinitine: Man's body can't be separated from Nature, but this mind and spirit
> can be. The body follows the laws of nature. The mind follows the law of logic.
> The spirit follows intuition. The body extends outward toward nature. The
> spirit is only inward. The mind balances between the spirit and nature, i.e.,
> reason balances between intuition and observation. The senses see nature as it
> is in reality. The spirit feel nature. The mind perceives nature by how the
> spirit changes it to be ideality or ugliness. So the individual who is in
> meditation or contemplation will be divorced from nature.
Mind follows the laws of logic? Or is it that the mind follows the laws of
nature and develops tools to interact with nature - one of which is logic?
How is intuition separate from the body?
> Hart:Can evaluations of a viewed object in art be eliminated in order to
> eliminate all bias? For example: Can it be, not a "Good" or a Bad" storm, but
> just a storm that exists and is worth viewing.
>
> Trinitine: You could not view that storm without a reason for viewing it–good,
> bad, or indifferent. If it's good reason, you'll have the aesthetic emotion.
> If bad, you won't have it. If indifferent to it, you won't be existing. All
> evaluations are not biased. An emotional opinion is a bias. A rational bias is
> an evaluation, a judgement, not a bias.
False. I could experience my environment pure as my environment. I
do not have to have specific intent to have stimulous to recieve it.
Evalutation, or creating an value assessment of good or evil, is a process
that is placing something ontop of the experience. This is a bias. You
argue from the stance of good and evil existing. I argue from the stance
that it is a created bias, a mental fabrication. Obviously there will be
little to no correlation of impressions here. <shrug>
> Hart: Could we try to find a real "value" for existence, and for what's in
> it? To exist is "good". Should we exclude soul-mind-body? Or maybe expand the
> playing field to explore the self?
>
> Trinitine" To just exist is not good. What you do in your existence is good or
> bad. Exclude the spirit-mind-body from your existence and you're, not
> existing--you're dead.
Existence, in and of itself is nothing - neither good nor evil. But
in this particular discussion it needs some sort of place on the
conversational map. Good will do. What you do in your existence is
validated against personal choices of codes - either good/bad scales of
others, or religions, or self imposed codes. The question remains - what is
so great about human existence that it must at all times be part and parcel
of the observation of those things not human? Cannot art attempt a discourse
of this perspective - the concept that that which is precieved is of
importance or value simply by existing on its own, and not for a humanistic
purpose?
> Hart: It bothers me that art today is designed for and by man, to salve his
> interior design problems. Art is soulless, for it an image, not art. This is
> because people live by codified versions of thought. They do what they read
> and hear, with no though of art. It's a "mob mentality".
>
> Trinitine: I hope you make sense of this. I had a difficult time translating
> what you said, then rewording it to make sense to me, then trying to write an
> answer consistent with your translated meaning. I understood your previous
> articles more easily.
Rephrase:
HART: It bothers me that art today is designed for and by man, without
consideration for the process and meaning of art, rather to salve his
interior design problems. Art then is soulless for when it is an image it is
not necessarily art. Because of codified thought - as in they read/view/hear
much on any particular experience - the individual no longer takes the time
to contemplate art as art. Instead they use art as a blankly defined object
that can be placed within a personal space without meaning. Basically - the
more people are told what certain things mean, the more they assume they mean
those things, and no personal evalutation is done. And in that is the death
of art as art, becoming decoration.
Well, I've obviously written this to death, as well. My apologies.
TRINITINE
Hart in response to Trinitine.
Hart: Mind follows the laws of logic? Or is it that mind follows the laws of
nature and develops tools to interact–one of which is logic?
Trinitine: You said it. Mind perceives rational order in nature, and
conceptualizes this logical order, and expresses it verbally to make logical
and scientific laws that define art or the environment.
Hart: How is intuition separate from the body?
Trinitine: It is not separate. Mental functions are a balancing trinity of
intuition-reason-observation, based on the trinity of spirit-mind-body. A
trinity is a unity of diverse parts that cannot be separated. It's like the
inseparable parts of the atomic trinity, or of night-dawn-daylight. There is a
balancing change between parts of a trinity so that as one part is dominant,
the others are subordinate. As perception differs in night-dawn-daylight, so
does theperception of art and the environment by intuition-reason-observation.
Hart: I experience my environment as my environment. I have no specific intent
to have a stimulus in order to receive it.
Trinitine: I agree, and I doubt if anyone will say, "My intent is to have a
stimulus from the environment so I can receive it." The stimulus of the
environment just IS as we move around it. If we have an intent, we have a
reason for looking for a stimulus from the environment. But that which we
generally perceive, as IS, in the environment will be relative to which of our
trinity of beings happens to be dominant. Thus, the same person in a spiritual
church will view his environment differently while in a rational classroom, and
at a sensual party. That same person will view the same art differently
relative to whether he happens to be dominantly spiritual, rational, or sensual
at the moment. These different perceptions, by the way change during the day:
one is generally more intuitive on arising, more rational at noon, and more
sensual in the evening.
Hart: Evaluation, or creating a value of good or evil, is a process that places
something on top of an experience. This is a bias. You argue from good and
evil existing. I argue that good and evil are a created bias, a mental
fabrication.
Trinitine: Good and Evil are moral terms. Evaluating the environment or art
should be in relative terms of Better or Worse compared to an ideal in the mind
of the viewer. A bias is a one-sided view of anything. Seeking a value of
Better or Worse is a two-sided rational judgement. If this judgement is not on
top of the one's view of art or the environment, it says the view is one-sided
or biased.
Hart: What you do in your existence is validated against personal choices of
codes that are either good/bad scales, religious, or self-imposed. So what is
so great about a human existence that is always about the observation of
non-human things? Can't art have a discourse of the perspective of the concept
that that which is perceived is important, or has value, simply by existing on
its own, and not for any human purpose.
Trinitine: One can't give "importance" or "value"to what exists alone. To have
harmony is to be in rhythm with something, whether it be with religion, our
inner self, or with nature. One cannot dance in harmony without going backward
and forward to let a partner dance backward and forward. Without harmony on any
level of environment, there will be a clashing, destructive conflict. Applied
to art, if the art work is not in harmony with the culture, it can expect to be
rejected by the culture as unimportant for having no value. If the artist finds
harmony only within himself, then he is the artists whose paintings will rot in
a damp attic with no one to view them.
Hart: It bothers me that art today is designed for and by man, without
consideration for the process and meaning of art, but only to salve his
interior design problems. Art then is soulless, for when it is an image, it is
not necessarily art. Because of codified thought, the individual no longer
takes time to contemplate art as art. Instead they use art as a blankly defined
object without meaning, to be placed in a personal place.
Trinitine: What does the process and meaning of art mean to you? What is art
with soul? What do you gain by contemplation of art? If you cannot define it,
even if only in terms of receiving a feeling, is not art soulless to you? The
answers, it seems, would contradict much of what you say.
Hart: Basically, the more people are told what things mean, the more they
assume they mean those things, and no personal evaluation is done by them. This
is becoming art as decoration, the death of art as art.
Trinitine:I agree, especially in this world of publicity agents, advertisers,
and propaganda, all for the purpose, for the intent of achieving a political,
social, or economic gain that is not related to the artistic, creative intent
of the artist.
Your writing was much clearer this time, and much easier to answer without
paraphrasing it..
TRINITINE
Gyre Hart
>harmony is to be in rhythm with something, whether it be with religion, our
>inner self, or with nature. One cannot dance in harmony without going backward
>and forward to let a partner dance backward and forward. Without harmony on any
>level of environment, there will be a clashing, destructive conflict. Applied
>to art, if the art work is not in harmony with the culture, it can expect to be
>rejected by the culture as unimportant for having no value. If the artist finds
>harmony only within himself, then he is the artists whose paintings will rot in
>a damp attic with no one to view them.
You cannot place "value" on existence alone. But it is not impossible.
I have no interaction with most of the world around me, yet I value it
as much as if I had a specific interaction and intent for interaction. It
is, and has as much "importance" as I - what really is the difference
between my existing and something else existing? For me : nothing.
Harmony? You bring this into the discussion, but who said that there
must be harmony? You say there will be "a clashing, destructive
conflict", but I say what of respect? Harmony is not necessary, at least
from my perspective, but an understanding that SELF is not paramount [as
in alone] is all that is required. Conflict comes from assuming
importance of SELF or SELF IDEAS over that of another - nature, culture,
whatever. "Harmony" as you put it has nothing to do with it. Violence
and conflict can have harmony within itself. Conflict can contain almost
every form of words we can throw at it - respect, harmony, etc. None of
these things will, alone, guard against conflict.
IMO
>Hart: It bothers me that art today is designed for and by man, without
>consideration for the process and meaning of art, but only to salve his
>interior design problems. Art then is soulless, for when it is an image, it is
>not necessarily art. Because of codified thought, the individual no longer
>takes time to contemplate art as art. Instead they use art as a blankly defined
>object without meaning, to be placed in a personal place.
>
>Trinitine: What does the process and meaning of art mean to you? What is art
>with soul? What do you gain by contemplation of art? If you cannot define it,
>even if only in terms of receiving a feeling, is not art soulless to you? The
>answers, it seems, would contradict much of what you say.
The answers you arrive at. <smile>
Art and the process is creative and encompasses many facets of
existence - as a mirror, a discourse, as an arguement, and so on. By "by
and for man" I mean it excludes the thoughts and world of perceptions
around man. For and by man means the focus of self importance and of
present trend of "we know already everything we need to, and if we don't
it is only by applying what we have". Exploration.
Art with soul is the search. That simple. It looks and it looks to
see. Not to "be". It is to question. As simple as a person wishing to
see conflict of light and shadow. At the base of it there is a search.
Both of us, by the way, are attributing/assigning defintions to
something neither of us can trully define. Motivations for others beyond
ourselves. The motivations of "all artists". <shrug> I admit a level of
discomfort for doing this..
If art invokes anything in me, this in part informs me that art has a
soul. And I can define art, but are you willing to step into my head and
interpret directly what it means? I have no words for the explanation,
but that in and of itself does not mean I have no definition. For that
defintion is one of the reasons I am in this discussion.
And so far I see no condratictions. But then maybe I am too close.
But then... maybe you are too close? Who knows?
-Gyre
TRINITINE
agree with most of what he wrote which was clear, professional, rational, and
even artistic in its expression. But I have a few comments on a few things
said.
Verdigris said in effect: The work is complete when the artist is satisfied
with it, but whether this can be described as seeking perfection is doubtful.
Rather, the artist seeks to resolve the problems which arise in the process of
creation. The resolution may often be less than perfect. In striving for a
unique and powerful expression, the artist may produce imperfect forms.
Trinitine: Are not the creation problems, that the artist seeks to resolve,
problems of being better, of making something more perfect relative to his
intent, whether beautiful or ugly? Perfection is what is sought for; but
rarely, if ever, achieved. Because an art is imperfect does not necessarily
mean that perfection was not sought.
Verdigris: Experience is processed in the imagination of the artist and
expressed in his artistic productions. Imagination feeds on these to generate
new forms from old ones....This process will not be inhibited, in the long run,
by philosophers and uncreative esthetes who seek to capture the essence of the
process.
Trinitine: Theology seeks for the essence in an ultimate God. Philosophy seeks
the essence in the ultimate truth. Science seeks the essence in the ultimate
matter. All of these seek for essence in the ultimate perfection of a unity.
The same principle applies to the perfect female beauty, the perfect athlete,
and the perfect utopia. Should Aesthetics and its arts, as a branch of
philosophy, be immune to seeking for the essence of perfection?
Verdigris: Medieval cathedrals were built by a host of people. Great
architecture in Modern cities are hardly different. Global events, such as
Olympic Games, and international film exhibitions are great artistic
productions involving many workers.
Trinitine: Did any artist consciously create the Medieval cathedral? Or did
individual artists consciously created its individual arts?
Verdigris: Even the most independent and original artists are creatures of
their times and participate in whatever values are most pertinent to their
society...Artists are barometers of the times. The values expressed in art,,
whether pleasant or not, hold a mirror to society.
Trintine. I fully agree, but I add that what the artist paints relative to
society is relative to whether he is a dominantly spiritual, rational, or
sensual person, and whether his society is dominant in one of these sets of
values.
Verdigris: Prissy notions about harmony, perfection, and idealism are quite
insufficient to encompass the scope of the arts which must reflect the society
from which they spring.
Trinitine: Harmony, perfection, and idealism in art are made in reference to
feeling the "aesthetic emotion". This refers to the reaction to the beauty in
God, man, and, nature; to the beauty of soul, mind, and body; not to their
ugliness as seen in much of scatological and pornographic "art" today (Like the
crucifix in urine and photos of sexual genitals as sexual parts). When there
is no distinction between beauty and ugliness, then there is no distinction in
what is art and non-art, can there be anything called "Art"?.
Verdigris: It is the artist who finally determines what constitutes art.
Trinitine: The fact that there is a difference in "Medieval", "Renaissance",
and "Modern Art" suggests that what the artist creates is consistent with the
values of his time. Did art create their social values, or did their social
values create their art?
Verdigris: Neither the individual artist nor even an age of artistic production
can exhaust the potentiality of art. The potentiality can only be exhausted
when human expressions have been exhausted. Setting up canons of artistic taste
will never stem the tide of human creativity.
Trinitine: A dominant Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic art came and went
with their civilizations. The same principle is applying in the West. Each
civilization progressed from religious, to intellectual, to sensual, to
emotive, to non-art. The artists creativity was stemmed for awhile in "Dark
Ages" This makes it seems as if the artist creates what the canons of artistic
taste determined in these societies..
TRINITINE