Definition of art
TRINITINE
imperfection.
Synthsky responded in effect: We were not speaking of perfection in art, we
were speaking of aesthetics in art. Aesthetic is the study of art, and art can
be ugly or beautiful,. We are not talking about good art as opposed to art in
general, but about art in general.
Trinitine responds: One cannot talk about any aesthetic value in general terms,
but only by a standard of comparison to make it good or bad art. My dictionary
says aesthetic is the study or or theory of beauty and of psychological
responses to it. Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with art and its
creative powers, forms, and effects. Beauty is defined as: what ever pleases
the sense or mind , as by line, color, form, texture, proportion, rhythmic
motion, tone (These are qualities of beauty, not ugliness). Art in general is
defined by my dictionary as: Human ability to make things. The creativity of
man as distinguished from the world of nature. Creative work that displays
form, beauty, and unusual perception. "Form" is perfection in Plato's ideal of
beauty and the good. The ideal is equivalent to perfection. All these
definitions are consistent with my original definition ideal or good art as
opposed to bad art.
Trinitine said: Art is defined in terms of ideal perfection, as opposed to
non-art that is real and imperfect.
Synthsky: You are saying that the real cannot be art, and (Real) art cannot be
ideal. I disagree.
Trinitine responds: The ideal in art is like an ideal painting of a person in
ideal love as opposed to the painting in real art of a persons in pornography.
The ideal, like a Renaissance portrait that is portrayed better than the
reality that nature made. Cosmetics art turn facial reality unto an ideal of
perfection that is better than Nature's product.
Trinitine said: Anything that is not man-made is made by nature.
Synthsky: Everything that exists is part of nature, including man-made, and
non-man-made. A skyscraper is as natural as a beaver dam. I don't think nature
makes things.
Trinitine responds: See the dictionary definition above about man and nature.
Everything is a product of nature, but man creates or makes something from
these products. Man can build a dam or a skyscraper or anything else, but an
instinctive beaver can only build a dam, not a skyscraper. Only man can
consciously create what his mind imagines.
Trinitine said: Man's ideal beauty, or art, is consciously created; while
Nature's ideal beauty is determined to be so by man. So Nature's beauty is not
consciously created. So by definition it is not art.
Synthsky: Yours is not the only definition of art. All things can be looked at
aesthetically. So, nature, if unobserved, can't be considered beautiful, for
beauty is an evaluation of consciousness. But all things can be evaluated by
consciousness from an aesthetic perspective. Ansel Adams said, "I have never
seen a bad subject, only bad photographs."
Trinitine responds: My definition is a coherent one that has endured since
Plato, 2500 years ago. Nothing unobserved can be beautiful or even known. Man
sees beauty in nature only because he is conscious of it. Ansel Adams only took
pictures of the beauty in nature, so naturally he photoedf no bad subjects. He
took no pictures of the ugly in nature, like land-slides, earth quakes,
tornados, etc. . Note how he distinguished between good and bad photos, between
good and bad art.
Trinitine said: All ideal man-made things are art.
Synsky: Earlier you said the ideal is not real, and only the ideal can be art,
so "art" by that definition is not "real".
Trinitine: I said only ideal, or perfect art, could be good art , while the
real and imperfect is not good art.
Trinitine said: Aesthetics is the feeling from perceiving differences between
beauty and non-beauty. One can't say that black and white are the same thing.
So white is more ideal and aesthetic is black as a symbol in art.
Synsky : A color itself cannot be seen. Collr have value only when seen against
other colors. There is no standatrd of values that says on ecolor is superior
to any other vcolore.Withoiut contrast there is no art.
Trinitine responds: Doesn't white contrast against black? As symbols, colors
are superior or inferior. Have you ever seen a black-garbed angel, or a
white-garbed devil? Have you seen Jesus in black garments? Recall that good
cowboys wear white hats, and bad one wear black hats.
Trinitine said: Only the exceptional person would look at feces and call it
aesthetic art that has ideal beauty and perfection.
Synthsky: But feces (in "art") were designed by people within the limit of
their function. Why should the feces not have aesthetic value?
Trinitine responds: If feces are said to be aesthetically ideal and perfect
beauty, then what would you have left to call imperfect and ugly? With no
standard there is no good and bad art. There is no art.
Trinitine said: When such a person sees beauty in feces ,while the world see
ugnliness in it, then that person's mind in is not normal.
Synthsky: Normal is not always superior, nor inaccurate.
Trinitine responds: We're referring to one who calls feces good art.
Trinitine said: All ideal art is beautiful, and only works that express the
ideal can be called art.
Synthsky: That is a circular argument.
Trinitine responds: I'm saying: art is beautiful and the beautiful is art. It's
not circular. It just reaffirms a truth in different words, like saying: Six
of one and half-a-dozen are the same thing in different words.
There may be art that is superficially ugly and horrid, but if beneath the ugly
surface it portrays an ideal like altruism, then it could be called art.
Synthsky: I find nothing aesthetic or ideal about altruism.
Trinitine responds: Then your ideal must be the antithesis, which is: you see
the aesthetic and ideal in caring only for yourself, and not helping any other
man, or sacrificing for a greater good. I would say that most wisdom, that has
endured the test of time, would say that altruism is the better ideal for man
and humanity.
Trinitine said: "Art" that portrays ugliness for ugliness's sake is garbage
taken out of the garbage can and called "art" by a deluded and hallucinating
mind.
Synthsky: Yet you call it art. It may not be good art, but you agree it is art.
Which was my whole point.
Trinitine: Is there any philosopher who has not said that all values are within
the limits of moderation. They all say good art has harmony, proportion,
symmetry, coherence, form, unity, balance, etc. In lacking these in degree
there is bad art. To have none of these is non-art. I began this whole debate
to distinguish between good and bad art. I guess we finally agree that there is
a difference between good and bad art.
TRINITINE
us speaking of feces, and yet you quoted me as doing so.
Trinitine responds: You must have not recalled it. I said feces first. Here is
your responding quote, word for word: "But feces were designed by people, who
made choices about how they should look, within the limits of their functions.
Why should a fence (Sic) not have aesthetic value?"
Synthsky: There is good and bad art, and I have never stated otherwise. But bad
art is just as "real" as good art, yet you maintain that good art is ideal, and
bad art is real. This is not true. What is "real" exists, and bad art exists,
and is real, as surely as good art also exists.
Trinitine: I, too have also said there was good and bad art. I still maintain
that good art is ideal and bad art is real. I never said either one doesn't
exist. I say they both exist and both exists as art, but my whole debate
revolves around the fact that one kind of art is good and one is bad. The
ideal is good relative to the real that is compared withit. Let's get our terms
straight. Both the ideal and real exist in art. But the ideal is based on
abstract ideas, and the real is based on concrete things. Both the abstract
ideal and the concrete thing exist in art, but the ideal is not real. But it
still exists. The abstract ideal is on a higher plane than the concrete real.
That difference makes the degree of good art that separates it from bad art
that is real.
Synthsky. Altruism is self-sacrifice, and I agree completely with Ayn Rand's
opinion on that subject. I find the ideal of self-sacrifice offensive,
immoral–evil.
Trinitine responds: Tell that to all the immigrant parent in this country
before welfare laws were made. If they didn't sacrifice themselves for their
children, how many of their children would have had an education beyond grammar
school?.How many children would have died if parents considered their own
interest before their family? We see the results in today's disintegration of
the family and the destruction of children because of non-altruism in parents.
The immigrant parents lived in an age of self and social survival. You and
parents today live in an age of self-indulgence and self-fulfillment where
others don't depend on you as in the past. So your negative philosophy on
altruism conforms to the decadent times that eventually will mean the downfall
of you and your selfish, egoistic society. Changes in "good" and "bad" art
parallel changes in social values and philosophies. What was once good art is
now bad, vice versa. In today's non-altruistic age of the self, the "Me
generation", each person decides for himself what is good and bad art. So there
is no common or social standard of what is good and bad art as there used to
be. Without standards there can be no values, only chaos, in art and all its
paralleling values.
TRINITINE
art no longer equalizes beauty. Then we'll be able to perceive that hence there
remains something of a mystery with beautiful things that up to now have not
yet been fathomed.
Trinitine responds: If we recognize that art no longer is equal to beauty, then
what is art equal to? If it's a mystery, then it is unknown and doesn't exist
to the senses. Without sensual beauty, there can't be beauty's antithesis of
non-beauty. There can be no value of good and bad in art; there can be nothing
that appeals to one's aesthetic feeling. The same principle would apply to all
the arts, whether of music, drama, dancing, etc. The results in all the arts is
apparent today as anything is exhibited as "art",but mostly on the vulgar,
pornographic, scatological side. The Classical Greeks set the rational
standards that have defined art for 2500 years, In the last fifty years, we
accept stupidity as intelligence and denied classical standards and values of
art that endured for centuries to make man cultured, civilized and humane.