"Art"
precentor
Friends & Philosophers;
I humbly request your assistance.
I am researching the concept of Art. Not a specific form, but the concept in
general. I'm having a unanticipated amount of difficulty finding any record
of a specific philosophy of Art other then the work of Dr. F. A. Schaeffer.
I'm sure it is out there, I just need to look harder.
I have located a book by Anthony Storr titled "Music and the Mind" (The Free
Press, Macmillan, Inc., 1992 ISBN 0-02-931621-9), an interesting treatment of
the psychology of music. In it, he describes the conscious making of music
as peculiar to humanity. I perceive this to be true of Art in general.
I would be interested to learn:
1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
an example: A bear takes a dump in the woods. Someone accidentally drops a
camera. Upon striking the ground, the shutter trips and preserves the moment
on film. Is this (could this be) "Art"?
.4) Can you suggest any resources?
I will be out of town (hiding) for the week-end (the annual festival of
Alcohol and Fire), but will be interested to find any responses upon my
return.
Thank you.
--
Daniel Montgomery (prec...@juno.com)
"That I can be taught affirms to me some level of intelligence.
That I can learn, my existence."
anglicus
On 2 Jul 1998 19:46:39 GMT, "precentor" <prec...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>I would be interested to learn:
>1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
Loosely, that which is done with more regard to its form than to its
function.
>2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
To make life worthwhile. To ennoble our existence. There is no other
purpose, and no other goal.
>3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
> an example: A bear takes a dump in the woods. Someone accidentally drops a
>camera. Upon striking the ground, the shutter trips and preserves the moment
>on film. Is this (could this be) "Art"?
No. In my opinion, art must be a subtle blend between design,
accident, intention and inspiration. Anything which does not partake
of all of these cannot be art. For example, if a man sits down and
simply decides to draw a grid of crisscrossing lines, in a predefined
pattern, this to me is not art, because it lacks the element of
spontaneity and inspiration. On the other hand, if a man just sits
down at a canvas and flings paint at it, letting his "inner feelings"
guide where the paint falls, this cannot be art either, since it lacks
any design at all...it's just chaos. (Jackson Pollock gets no respect
from me.)
However, it is really dificult to be precise about this, and to know
where to draw the line. Despite my distaste for extremely abstract or
nonrepresentational artists, I can't help but have a bit of sympathy
for something like Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain, by R. Mutt" (a urinal
mounted on pedestal). I think the weightiest things on my list are
intention and inspiration. As long as the artist has a real *goal* in
mind, as well as the inspiration driving him, the result will be art
in some form. While, if they pretentiously sit at the canvas and say
"this is so avant-garde, what I'm doing...." and just doodle, without
any purpose at all in mind, and even without feeling any inner
compulsion to *create*, it is nothing but trash that they are
producing.
-anglicus
<angl...@earthlink.net>
<http://home.earthlink.net/~anglicus>
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/8965>
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
precentor wrote in <01bda5f1$37a36b40$186478cf@lt01>...
>I would be interested to learn:
>1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
The externalisation of what is in a (human) mind, in such a way, that other
minds can recreate what "was" in the externalising mind (whatever this was).
>2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
It is to enhance communication, and to create a common basis of experience
among humans, thus establishing the identity of humanity.
>3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
> an example: A bear takes a dump in the woods. Someone accidentally drops a
>camera. Upon striking the ground, the shutter trips and preserves the
moment
>on film. Is this (could this be) "Art"?
No. There is no process of mind to be recreated by others. It is just a
new experience.
Mozart's Requiem is art. It permits me to experience the same vitality and
accepted intolerance of death as Mozart did.
>.4) Can you suggest any resources?
Bach, Mozart, Rembrand, John McEnroe, Shakespeare, Lawrence ,Newton, Glenn
Gould, etc.... ;-)
serious: "Music, the open question" by Leonard Bernstein.
I'll here from you.
--
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl
M.R.M. Parrott
It's good to hear from you again!
precentor wrote
:1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
:
Art is that which results from the intentional communication of a
subjectivity both with itself, and with what it takes to be the world. Art
is therefore an expression, both *of* and *from*, subjectivity.
:2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
:
Role? In society, or the individual? Both? Well, its role within the
individual is in its expression of the subject. In society, its role would
be to communicate effectively that expression, using both recognizable
formations, as well as comprehendable deviations from those formations.
:3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
:
See above.
: an example:
:
It is not Art, as I have defined it, because of the lack of
intentionality. There has to be some design to a "work" in order to be
called Art.
:4) Can you suggest any resources?
:
"Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial
Representation" by E.H. Gombrich, ISBN 0-691-01750-6 pbk. He has many
volumes available as well....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Author=Gombrich%2C%20Ernest%20H./002-0081
669-2568850
Talk to you later,
Mark
www.rimric.com
JRE
precentor wrote:
> 1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
> 2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
I believe Art has a profound impact on the individual that
creates it and on humanity itself, for it serves to express not only a
concept in the mind of the creator, but the underlying element of
humanity by which that concept is formed... I try to believe in an
objective universe composed of the universal precepts by which humanity
can be defined (don't ask what they are, I really have no idea -- a while
ago I just decided I needed to have faith in something, so...), and I
believe art serves as a gateway to that realm. Problem is, an artist was
in a certain state when he created his art, and for the art to have an
impact the audience must be able to appreciate that state.. some art
(flinging paint wherever the heart directs) expresses with purity the
artist's current emotional state yet is so pure and so specific that it
usually appears meaningless to the audience.
The great thing about (good) literature as an art is that by
"replicating" experiances it sets the reader into the correct context to
appreciate the ideas presented.
> 3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
> an example: A bear takes a dump in the woods. Someone
>accidentally drops a camera. Upon striking the ground, the shutter
>trips and preserves the moment on film. Is this (could this be) "Art"?
I suppose, if the individual who looks at it can find meaning in
it, than it could be considered art from his viewpoint. However, so far
as I know bear excrement is not among the archetypal emotional and mental
concepts which make up a human being, thus I don't consider it art.
> .4) Can you suggest any resources?
read the "Manifesto de Surrealism" by Andre Breton and Paul
Eluard.. although it deals specifically with (you guessed it) Surrealism,
it provides some interesting ideas on the nature of art and expression,
and if nothing else serves as an insight into one influential period of
art history. I got it from my drama teacher, but I bet you could find it
on the web.
Bob Schraeder
From your reading of Schaeffer, you have probably noted his connection of
art and philosophy more generally. Effectively he contends that since Art is
a form of expression it eventually mirrors the philosophical directions of
the era.
Given this starting point might I suggest investigating the tie between Art
and intellectual life in the period.
Which, by the way, provides an answer to your dropped camera question.
RJS
----------
In article <01bda5f1$37a36b40$186478cf@lt01>, "precentor"
<prec...@juno.com> wrote:
>Friends & Philosophers;
>I humbly request your assistance.
>
>I am researching the concept of Art. Not a specific form, but the concept in
>general. I'm having a unanticipated amount of difficulty finding any record
>of a specific philosophy of Art other then the work of Dr. F. A. Schaeffer.
>I'm sure it is out there, I just need to look harder.
>
>I have located a book by Anthony Storr titled "Music and the Mind" (The Free
>Press, Macmillan, Inc., 1992 ISBN 0-02-931621-9), an interesting treatment of
>the psychology of music. In it, he describes the conscious making of music
>as peculiar to humanity. I perceive this to be true of Art in general.
>
>I would be interested to learn:
>1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
>
>2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
>
>3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
> an example: A bear takes a dump in the woods. Someone accidentally drops a
>camera. Upon striking the ground, the shutter trips and preserves the moment
>on film. Is this (could this be) "Art"?
>
>.4) Can you suggest any resources?
>
>I will be out of town (hiding) for the week-end (the annual festival of
>Alcohol and Fire), but will be interested to find any responses upon my
>return.
>
Frank T. De Angelis
Daniel M:
Although, as I have already stated (in my last/first post), I believe
that this task --you request-- is just too broad, I suggest that the
discussion begin by contrasting the technique and process of art in
contradistinction to science.
In other words, the method and procedural attitude of science versus
that of art - per se (implying genius, spirit-ed-ness, and talent), is
probably the best way to begin the analysis...after defining and
delineating the two. After all, almost everything has an art and
science, no?
The *art of logic* - for example, may also be complemented by the
*science of logic" (science in the very broad sense of rigor). The
imagination, creativity and *feel* (asthete) for something is quite
distinct from --although not necessarily in contradistinction to, or
mutually exclusive of...-- more objectively laid-out rigorous steps.
Perhaps the art of logic - for example, may reflect more of a
genius-like approach to various informal means of argumentation, while
the science of logic might be more restrained to formal methodology, no?
Food 4 thought,
Frank
Frank T. De Angelis
precentor:
*Art* refers to the attitude and approach of an individual, sinking as
much of one's creative individuality into it, as opposed to a rote
regime of laid-out steps. Obviously, the latter is more objective and
much more routine and rigorous in *duplic-ability* than the subjective
personal touch (*feel* - asthetik/asthete, spirit, genius, soul,
*English,* etc.) of individuals. Therefore, there is an *art of
loving,* rather than a *science of loving,* unless you can control the
process via cause-and-effect with some sort of *love potion* or
*aphrodisiac.* ("<")
Philosophy of Art (and Beauty, Love, and Sex) is quite a broad area,
usually referred to as Aesthetics, from the Greek asthete, *to feel.*
It is not one of my areas of specialty, but I have an extensive
background, both at the undergraduate and graduate level of philosophy,
in aesthetics. Art - per se, beauty, love/sex, etc.- in particular (and
of particular/*fine* arts), along with definition, production,
style/genius-form-content, judgment -- criticism-censorship -- and many
other categories and dividions, makes it an enormous subject to begin
talking about, intelligently.
Unique and standard philosophies of art range from Plato and Aristotle
to Kant, Hegel and Heidegger, from Schiller to Schelling, from Croce to
Sartre, from Freud and Fromm to Lukacs to Marcuse, etc.
I recall my many texts used for Aesthetics:
(The main text and anthology) PHILOSOPHIES OF ART AND BEAUTY, by Albert
Hofstadter and Richard Kuhns (Modern Library)
(This includes the classics on art theory and practice, producing and
judging, censorship, etc. - from Platos Republic and Aristotle's Poetics
to Kant's [3rd] Critique of Judgment, etc. On beauty. love, and sex - in
particular, Plato's Symposium is the first classic in the history of
aesthetics.)
Laocoon, by Gotthold Ephriam Lessing (Noonday)
Freud: On Creativity and Unconscious (Harper /Torchbooks)
Last Lectures, by Roger Fry (Beacon Press)
Principles of Art History, Wölfelin (Dover)
Schiller's Schriften zur Ästhetik (? in English ?)
(One of my mentors, Herbert Marcuse, is famous for his unique theory of
art, aesthetics - especially in his...)
EROS AND CIVILIZATION (Vintage Books), ART AND REVOLUTION, and many
other classics, such as One Dimensional Man (The Beacon Press), etc.
(One of Marcuse's contemporary New Left art critical philosophers, an
expert on literature - in particular, is...)
Georg Lukacs... THE THEORY OF THE NOVEL, SOUL AND FORM, WRITER AND
CRITIC, STUDIES IN EUROPEAN REALISM, REALISM IN OUR TIME, SOLZHENITSYN,
etc.
(Others of note):
Poetry, Literature, Thought,by Martin Heidegger (Harper/ Colophon Books)
Art and Literature, by Jean-Paul Sartre
The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm (Bantam Books)
Marxism and Form, by Frederic Jameson
Eros, Agape, and Philia, by Alan Soble (Paragon House)
(Another general text) The Philosophy of Art, by Neill & Ridley (Mc
Graw-Hill)
Good Luck,
Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
precentor, James M.:
Oh yes; how silly of me to forget to add John Dewey to the
quintessential philosophers of art listing.
Dewey's *Art as Experience* and *Reconstruction in Philosophy* are
superb (and dialectical/pragmatic)!
Praxis,
F.T. De Angelis
Barbara Noble
Art is creating. Barbara Noble
Iplaypoker
What is art?
I would say that anything and everything could be considered art. Could it
have been made without the artist's hand? Could a television commercial be
art? If you're walking in the country and suddenly see a beautiful mountain
scene, is that art? I would say that the answer to all of these questions
could be "yes". However, just because it is art certainly doesn't mean that
it's "good" art.
If you and I define art differently, does that mean one of us is incorrect?
Mark Thompson
Iplay...@aol.com
Minneapolis, MN USA
Rex Bennett
precentor wrote in message <01bda5f1$37a36b40$186478cf@lt01>...
>Friends & Philosophers;
>I humbly request your assistance.
>
>I am researching the concept of Art. Not a specific form, but the concept
in
>general. I'm having a unanticipated amount of difficulty finding any
record
>of a specific philosophy of Art other then the work of Dr. F. A. Schaeffer.
>I'm sure it is out there, I just need to look harder.
Look under aesthetics. There are quite a few books on that topic.
>
>I have located a book by Anthony Storr titled "Music and the Mind" (The
Free
>Press, Macmillan, Inc., 1992 ISBN 0-02-931621-9), an interesting treatment
of
>the psychology of music. In it, he describes the conscious making of music
>as peculiar to humanity. I perceive this to be true of Art in general.
>
>I would be interested to learn:
>1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
Art is the human activity to create an end product that is aesthetically
pleasing, or by the use of an artistic medium, to create a product that
is thought provoking or stirs the emotions and is thus entertaining.
It is meant to enhance or enrich our lives by its presence.
>2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
To enhance and enrich our lives. It is an extension of culture that
adds a higher level of existence to our lives over our physical animal
being. It separates us from the lower animals, and as such, raises
us in our own eyes.
>
>3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
> an example: A bear takes a dump in the woods. Someone accidentally drops a
>camera. Upon striking the ground, the shutter trips and preserves the
moment
>on film. Is this (could this be) "Art"?
First comes aesthetics. Is it pleasing to see, touch, hear? Is it stirring
emotionally? Is it thought provoking? If it is none of these, then it is
not art, or else it is very BAD "art."
>.4) Can you suggest any resources?
Barnes & Noble. Don't forget to look under aesthetics. After all, art
is an category of aesthetics.
>I will be out of town (hiding) for the week-end (the annual festival of
>Alcohol and Fire), but will be interested to find any responses upon my
>return.
Are you helping to put out forest fires?
Rex
Frank T. De Angelis
Iplaypoker wrote:
>
> What is art?
> <snip>
> I would say that anything and everything could be considered art. > Mark Thompson
> Iplay...@aol.com
> Minneapolis, MN USA
***********************************************************************
There may be an art to playing poker, but if *anything and everything*
is art, well, then there is no possible logical meaning to art, is
there?; that is, if everything is art, then there is absolutely nothing
with which to contrast it with, is there? In other words, art is just a
meaningless word --a grammatical stopper-- that can replace the, that,
thing, etc.
F.T. de Angelis
precentor
all of your responses. This week has been catch-up so reciprocal replies
were postponed.
As Frank suggested, I am beginning to perceive that I have over-extended the
subject. However, I am finding it increasingly fascinating.
Some of you spawned new questions, and of course, that is the point. To keep
the dialogs straight, I will respond individually to those post most relevant
to my interest, but I found all to be interesting.
Thank you all;
precentor
precentor
: >I would be interested to learn:
: >1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
: Loosely, that which is done with more regard to its form than to its
: function.
:
: >2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
:
: To make life worthwhile. To ennoble our existence. There is no other
: purpose, and no other goal.
How does 'form over function' 'ennoble our existence'?
: In my opinion, art must be a subtle blend between design,
: accident, intention and inspiration. Anything which does not partake
: of all of these cannot be art.
It is the element of accident that most intrigues me in this. Do I
understand that all 4 must be present in each endeavor? How does accident
come into play? To the point of inspiration, possibly. But, in my
experience although the initial conceptualization can be and often is
spontaneous (is this the 'accident', I can see it), the execution and
crafting of a piece rarely is.
: I think the weightiest things on my list are
: intention and inspiration. As long as the artist
: has a real *goal* in mind, as well as the inspiration
: driving him, the result will be art in some form.
This is my priority also. The deliberateness of the artist and his "inner
compulsion to *create*" that fascinates me most. What is the catalyst or
root of this compulsion?
Thank you, anglicus.
precentor
precentor
: It's good to hear from you again!
Yes, it's been too long. How's the book doing? I must carve out some time
to get to Columbia.
: Art is that which results from the intentional communication of a
: subjectivity both with itself, and with what it takes to be the world. Art
: is therefore an expression, both *of* and *from*, subjectivity.
But how is this different for any other form of communication, say birds
chirping, or writing an address down?
: :2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
: :
: Role? In society, or the individual? Both? Well, its role within the
: individual is in its expression of the subject. In society, its role would
: be to communicate effectively that expression, using both recognizable
: formations, as well as comprehendable deviations from those formations.
It is interesting that you delineate between expression and communication.
Is this intentional?
: :3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
: :
: See above.
An accurate/effective expression/communication?
Thanks;
precentor
precentor
Yeeoow!! And Holy Cow (to quote Ghandi)! Do you have any idea what you've
done to my library budget?? :-D Seriously, thank you for the bibliography.
It will take me a while to get through it, but I'll try.
I understand your point on the breadth of the subject. I am specifically
interested in the artistic drive of the species as opposed to technical
excellence. I've not considered a connection between love/sex and Art
before, other then the stereotypical importance of etchings in the sexual
hunting rituals of the American male in the 60-70's. Aesthetics are a
significant part of sexuality, but I've never thought of this relationship as
necessarily reciprocal, outside of Freud, of course.
I don't know how long the subject will hold my interest (right, as if that is
the responsibility of the subject), but I suspect that the answers to the
specific questions I am trying to identify, are influenced by the broader
study.
So, to work...
precentor
precentor
: >1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
:
: The externalisation of what is in a (human) mind, in such a way, that other
: minds can recreate what "was" in the externalising mind (whatever this
was).
:
: >2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
:
: It is to enhance communication, and to create a common basis of experience
: among humans, thus establishing the identity of humanity.
This sounds like a more complex form of simple mechanical communication.
What is it that drives humanity as a species to be creative in these forms,
music and visual representation particularly? These expressions seem beyond
what is necessary for mere survival or propagation. What is communicated is
often deeper then mere interaction. As a musician, why *must* you play?
Simply for intellectual pleasure or is it a deeper compulsion?
: >3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
: > an example: A bear takes a dump in the woods. Someone accidentally drops
a
: >camera. Upon striking the ground, the shutter trips and preserves the
: moment
: >on film. Is this (could this be) "Art"?
:
: No. There is no process of mind to be recreated by others. It is just a
: new experience.
: Mozart's Requiem is art. It permits me to experience the same vitality and
: accepted intolerance of death as Mozart did.
Interesting. Is this type of empathy definitive to Art?
Thanks;
precentor
precentor
: precentor wrote:
: > 1) From your philosophical position, how do you define the term "Art"?
So, if I see particularly odious situation and to express my disgust and
disdain flip the antagonist the 'bird', this is art? I'm not really trying
to be flippant (ouch), but to clarify.
: I believe Art has a profound impact on the individual that
: creates it and on humanity itself, for it serves to express not only a
: concept in the mind of the creator, but the underlying element of
: humanity by which that concept is formed... I try to believe in an
: objective universe composed of the universal precepts by which humanity
: can be defined (don't ask what they are, I really have no idea -- a while
: ago I just decided I needed to have faith in something, so...), and I
: believe art serves as a gateway to that realm. Problem is, an artist was
: in a certain state when he created his art, and for the art to have an
: impact the audience must be able to appreciate that state.. some art
: (flinging paint wherever the heart directs) expresses with purity the
: artist's current emotional state yet is so pure and so specific that it
: usually appears meaningless to the audience.
Schaeffer proposes "that the artist makes a body of work and this body of
work shows his world view." He also suggest that if an artist makes no
attempt to use a common 'symbolic vocabulary' at all, although not immoral, a
certain dimension is lost.
: > an example: <snip>
: I suppose, if the individual who looks at it can find meaning in
: it, than it could be considered art from his viewpoint. .... I don't
consider it art.
Art is specified by the audience?
precentor
precentor
: perhaps the foundation for creating is boredom.
I hope not. I would have to be incredibly bored and not know it.
Of course, discomfort toward a proposition does not refute it.
precentor
precentor
: Oh there are many views of art out there in philosophy. That's what the
: catagory aesthetics is for in philosophy ( yes, it is the philosophy of
beauty,
: but art is usually grouped in there).
Yes. I am not for the moment concerned with defining beauty or it's
attraction, but more specifically the drive to create it. Most animal
species have preferred environments, but only humans attempts to create their
own adornments (I think). Particular forms can be dictated by
society/culture. But
what is the 'drive' to create out of nothing but the desire to create itself.
In this realm, even the form can be created to fit the specific content.
: "And if there is still one hellish, truely accursed thing in our time, it
is
: our artistic dallying with forms, instead of being like victims burnt at
the
: stake, signaling through the flames."-Antonin Artaud.
This is an interesting quote. Is Artaud saying that we should be
passive/submissive toward form?
precentor
precentor
: Answers and Questions
:
: ad 1) my philosophical perspective defines: 'Art is a proces'
: in which case you can add 'creating' or even 'destroying'
: In seeing Art as a proces in itself you can play a little
: Q&A-game.
:
: Q: what is Art?
: A: Art is not the material manifestation, the result of a proces, but
: the proces itself.
This is a fascinating derivation. Then what is it, if anything, that
separates Art from mechanical manipulation (casually stirring leaves or
piling sand)?
: ad 2)
:
: Q: what is the role of Art?
: A: the proces is more important than the actual result.
: In which case the artist and the incidental spectator should
: have more out of Art than the one who buys 'Art'.
Why _should_ the artist and, particularly, the incidental spectator get more
then the patron?
: Art gives a direction (just like a 'proces') Art starts a thread
: just like news-messages.
: So you're an artist. The 'role' is occasional.
: Politcs/Philosophy/Science etc.
: It might help to see Art as a proces of reaction rather than a
: proces of action. Most often
: the techniques used are already common.
My interest is specifically for those instances in which these techniques are
either not in common use or are used in new and creative ways (the movement
from one form school of painting to another, realism to expressionism).
: ad 3)
:
: Q: is an accidental photo Art?
: A: It's almost impossible to do it again. You can drop you're camera
: thenthousand times
: without more result than that you need a new camera.
: Is a broken camera in that case to be considered Art?
: Of course there is something of a 'accidental proces' captured in a
: moment but it might be
: impossible to get it out of the photo. Who would believe it, or pay
: for it? The local
: newspaper?
: Some artists don't even get their work in the local newspapers, so
: what does that say?
: When you have a collection of accidental photo's you could get them
: into a museum or a
: gallery an then of course they are ART.
I would have a hard time defining art strictly by its commercial or societal
acceptability. I speak here, of course, more of the choice of form, rather
then the content. Good Art may have questionable content.
Thank you;
precentor
precentor
: Art is the human activity to create an end product that is aesthetically
: pleasing, or by the use of an artistic medium, to create a product that
: is thought provoking or stirs the emotions and is thus entertaining.
: It is meant to enhance or enrich our lives by its presence.
I like the definition, but I'm having trouble with it the entertainment
aspect. I think of entertainment as that which holds the attention with
something amusing or diverting. I have experience Art that although
interesting, even intriguing, I would consider neither amusing and nor mere
diversion.
How does the presence of art enrich our lives? A question you have already
answered:
: It is an extension of culture that
: adds a higher level of existence to our lives over our physical animal
: being. It separates us from the lower animals, and as such, raises
: us in our own eyes.
But from what fount does it flow?
precentor
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
>This sounds like a more complex form of simple mechanical communication.
A different form. Complexity is not necesary.
>What is it that drives humanity as a species to be creative in these forms,
>music and visual representation particularly? These expressions seem
beyond
>what is necessary for mere survival or propagation. What is communicated
is
>often deeper then mere interaction. As a musician, why *must* you play?
>Simply for intellectual pleasure or is it a deeper compulsion?
As a musician, you must not play. As an artistic musician, you must be an
artist, be it in music or whatever. I think the compulsion lies in the need
to connect with humanity. To establish humanity so to speak. It is in
having a mind that needs to be externalised for the sake of others, that
artistry shows. It is in succeeding in letting others recreate (certain
aspects of) that mind, that the artist becomes a genious. Mozart struggled
with bringing his experiences to others. In that he showed his artistry.
In succeeding, he showed his genious.
The compulsion is a simple one: let others experience what you do, knowing
(or just assuming) that they don't, and knowing (or again just assuming)
that your experiences will enhance their being. And therefore enhance
humanity. Where the most social animals can just take their fellows along
with them to let them experience the same thing. Humans experience things
that can not be shared as such. Yet, they are social animals. So we find
other ways of sharing this: "art".
Note that the parts between the brackets above, give some psychological
entries to the subject!
>Interesting. Is this type of empathy definitive to Art?
I think it is. Among other things that can be communicated by art.
>Thanks;
>precentor
You're welcome,
--
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl
ps: Zarathustra went down from the mountain, towards the people because he
became so full of wisdom, he started to overflow with it. This means he was
an artist (whether a genious or not).
precentor
: As a musician, you must not play. As an artistic musician, you must be an
: artist, be it in music or whatever.
Good point. Technician/artisan vs. artist.
: I think the compulsion lies in the need
: to connect with humanity. To establish humanity so to speak. It is in
: having a mind that needs to be externalised for the sake of others, that
: artistry shows. It is in succeeding in letting others recreate (certain
: aspects of) that mind, that the artist becomes a genious.
Very nice.
To clarify, it is not as much a struggle for self-identification, but to
extend communication for the sake of connection with these other identities?
: ps: Zarathustra went down from the mountain, towards the people because he
: became so full of wisdom, he started to overflow with it. This means he
was
: an artist (whether a genious or not).
This is interesting. So you would not qualify an artist by his work, but by
his expression?
precentor
Rex Bennett
>Hi, Rex;
>
>: Art is the human activity to create an end product that is aesthetically
>: pleasing, or by the use of an artistic medium, to create a product that
>: is thought provoking or stirs the emotions and is thus entertaining.
>: It is meant to enhance or enrich our lives by its presence.
>
>I like the definition, but I'm having trouble with it the entertainment
>aspect. I think of entertainment as that which holds the attention with
>something amusing or diverting. I have experience Art that although
>interesting, even intriguing, I would consider neither amusing and nor mere
>diversion.
Hmmmm. Is not the theatre art? Was Shakespere not an artist?
Is not the cinema art? Does it not amuze? Does it not enrapture?
Is the end result not pleasing? Does it not stir your emotions?
Does it not make you think? Does it not carry your mind far away to
different horizons, different times, different worlds?
Are not cartoons art? Many a cartoon artist would be displeased if
we said "not." Do they not amuze? Do they not divert? Do they
not entertain? Do they not inform? Do they not mirror the human
condition?
Art does not have to be 'highbrow' to be art. It merely needs to do
its job.
>How does the presence of art enrich our lives? A question you have already
>answered:
>: It is an extension of culture that
>: adds a higher level of existence to our lives over our physical animal
>: being. It separates us from the lower animals, and as such, raises
>: us in our own eyes.
>
>But from what fount does it flow?
Now you ask too much! I am not an artist! Hummm...or am I? (g)
Rex
precentor
: Hmmmm. Is not the theatre art? Was Shakespere not an artist?
: Is not the cinema art? Does it not amuze? Does it not enrapture?
: Is the end result not pleasing? Does it not stir your emotions?
: Does it not make you think? Does it not carry your mind far away to
: different horizons, different times, different worlds?
:
: Are not cartoons art? Many a cartoon artist would be displeased if
: we said "not." Do they not amuze? Do they not divert? Do they
: not entertain? Do they not inform? Do they not mirror the human
: condition?
:
: Art does not have to be 'highbrow' to be art. It merely needs to do
: its job.
Absolutely. To all of the above.
You said, "Art is the human activity.... to create a product that is thought
provoking or stirs the emotions and is thus entertaining." I took from this
that you propose the end goal of Art to be entertainment. Although, it is
often a (desirable) effect of Art, it can be merely a side-effect and not the
main intent. All cartoons employ the use of graphic representations, and
this is one definition of the word 'art'. But to define the concept by the
use of graphics is to deny other form. So, no. At the risk of offending
cartoonist everywhere, I will say that all cartoons are art (drawings,
graphic representation), but not all cartoons are Art. As much as I like
Charles Schultz' fine work, I will not equate it with that of Gauguin. And
as a performer, I will emphatically extend this to theater and cinema (Did
you see any of the "Police Academy" movies. Entertaining, hardly Artistic.)
I have much more to be stirred then pleasure. And I would hate to limit any
one's expression to just one emotion. I saw little to amuse me in 'Citizen
Kane'. Even Herb Gardener's play 'A Thousand Clown's', although comical,
left me more in thought then in light humor.
An element, not an imperative.
: >But from what fount does it flow?
:
: Now you ask too much! I am not an artist! Hummm...or am I? (g)
Maybe I should just ask the Muses. ;-)
precentor
M.R.M. Parrott
quite challenging...
precentor wrote
How's the book doing? I must carve out some time
:to get to Columbia.
:
I'm working on the B&N signings for the fall...everything seems to be
okay, though.
:: Art is that which results from the intentional communication of a
:: subjectivity both with itself, and with what it takes to be the world.
Art
:: is therefore an expression, both *of* and *from*, subjectivity.
:
:But how is this different for any other form of communication, say birds
:chirping, or writing an address down?
:
Oops, I was, hierarchically speaking, already down on the lower rung.
I need to say that the key is within that "intentional communication
with itself", and that within that, the self, in just writing down an
address, is communicating, but not intentionally. This means that I have
to unpack the term "intentional" and point to a part of its meaning.
Intentionality refers in this light to a notion of beauty, a way we speak
to ourselves with the intent of making something beautiful out of it.
:It is interesting that you delineate between expression and communication.
:Is this intentional?
:
Yes, and in a double sense. I intended to say we express ourselves in
many ways, but we need to communicate that expression to the outer world,
and I see both the expression and communication as an act of
intentionality, as above.
:: :3) Upon what criteria do you personally identify/judge "Art"?
:: :
:An accurate/effective expression/communication?
:
Yes. This, of course, leaves aside the question of taste, which can
never be settled.
Mark
www.rimric.com
p.s. check out the new additions to the "rimric" and "webcast" subsites...
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
>To clarify, it is not as much a struggle for self-identification, but to
>extend communication for the sake of connection with these other
identities?
For hell and for sure, yes. (enhanced self-identification is a side effect)
>: ps: Zarathustra went down from the mountain, towards the people because
he
>: became so full of wisdom, he started to overflow with it. This means he
>was an artist (whether a genious or not).
>
>This is interesting. So you would not qualify an artist by his work, but
by
>his expression?
The artistry is not allways in his work i would say, since the work is a
physical expression. If this would be his only expression, then there is
nothing else to qualify the artist by.
But for a genious, the work and the expression coïncide. The work permits
the audience to recreate the inner thing that the artist wants to express.
There are artist that only express, but have no work (i mean like certain
opera singers). There are artists that only have work, no expression (like
certain modern composers). Then there are those that have both, yet not in
coherence with eachother (like certain piano players). Then there are those
that have it all in coherence, like Bach or Mozart, or John McEnroe, or ....
well to many...
See you Precentor,
Rex Bennett
> Yes. This, of course, leaves aside the question of taste, which can
>never be settled.
>
>Mark
>www.rimric.com
>
>p.s. check out the new additions to the "rimric" and "webcast" subsites...
I just did visit again. I read part of the first chapter of your new book.
I would have read more, but the print is so small on your html that it
was hurting my eyes. I like your writing style. While complicated in
texture, it flows smoothly. I didn't get far enough for the characters
to develop. I hope you develop them well. I think you will - if what I
have read is a sign.
I will go to Barnes and Noble and get it this weekend. I want you to
know that this will be the first book of fiction that I have bought
(or read) in many, many years! I have so much non-fiction to read
and so little time to read it that I don't usually make room for fiction.
But -- you are such a dedicated participant here, how can I refuse? (g)
Rex
Alison A Raimes
>This is my priority also. The deliberateness of the artist and his "inner
>compulsion to *create*" that fascinates me most. What is the catalyst or
>root of this compulsion?
>
>Thank you, anglicus.
>precentor
Hope you don't mind me joining in here, friends.
It is such an interesting question - and of course there is no answer is
there ? Lots of opinions but no formulas or solutions. Art and
Philosophy are one, few can deny this. Art is a continous investigation
and a reflection on its time in history but as for the catalyst for the
compulsion to create - phew - thats like asking what infinity is.
Creation of line and form is unquestionably intrinsic to human beings
and like all pursuits that give individuals the experience of pleasure
(and often pain) it can become compulsive and obsessive. Just another
pursuit of the search for Happiness !
regards
Alison A Raimes (London)
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Hartley Millar
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hope you don't mind me joining in here, friends.
>It is such an interesting question - and of course there is no answer is
>there ? Lots of opinions but no formulas or solutions. Art and
>Philosophy are one, few can deny this.
good for, I say it is like art.
>Art is a continous investigation
>and a reflection on its time in history
which also seems to me to be true of philosophy.
>but as for the catalyst for the
>compulsion to create - phew - thats like asking what infinity is.
>Creation of line and form is unquestionably intrinsic to human beings
>and like all pursuits that give individuals the experience of pleasure
>(and often pain) it can become compulsive and obsessive. Just another
>pursuit of the search for Happiness !
>regards
and a contribution to a civilised society.
(see http://www.kbd.co.uk/ph-prod.htm)
Hartley Millar
hmi...@hillhous.demon.co.uk
Jack
jumping on the bandwagon, I fear.
> 1) From your philosophical position,
> how do you define the term "Art"?
May I start by suggesting what Art is not. These are by no means absolute
statements, they are just some thoughts. Firstly, it is probable that Art
is not necessarily a form of communication. In many instances the artist
does require the audience to interpret his or her creation, but not every
artistic creation must have this function. Neither must the creation give
its audience /aesthetic/ pleasure. An example would be *that* sheep in
formaldehyde. As it stands, the object has little (if any) visual aesthetic
value yet it is conceptually very interesting. Neither is an object which
possesses beauty inherently artistic. An example would be a flower. As an
aethiest I would suggest that the flower had no creator. There was no
intention behind its creation. And here we come to what, perhaps, Art is :
Art is /anything/ which is exhibited with the intention that it be viewed in
an artistic way. As an example :
> A bear takes a dump in the woods.
> Someone accidentally drops a
> camera. Upon striking the ground,
> the shutter trips and preserves the
> moment on film.
>
> Is this (could this be) "Art"?
At that moment, the image created on the negative has no artistic value.
But, if the owner of the camera develops the film and then exhibits it, then
it becomes art.
> 2) What do you think is the role of "Art"?
From a low level, Darwinian point of view, it has no role. Here we are, the
products of a heartless process. A system which just creates things and
lets them fight it out in the real world. Mother Nature doesn't give a toss
about Art. As long as we go on to propagate, we will get our pat on the
back from Ms Nature. What evolution did was to evolve a highly complex
brain which could navigate the world and communicate with others. But the
complexity of the brain is so great that other characteristics have emerged.
Consciousness, perhaps. Artistic appreciation. The list goes on.
From a sociological, high level view, Art has many functions. Primarily, it
is to give audiences and artists pleasure. That pleasure need not be
derived directly from the art. Art movements give people a slot in society.
"Where do you belong?"
"Oh, I'm a postmodernist abstract ceiling painter. I'm with him over
there."
Conceptual / intellectual art gives people food for thought which they may
return to in their own mind many times after first observing the art.
It gives us head-scratchers an excuse to indulge in a very enjoyable
discussion.
It _can_ provide a form of communication or of expressing subjectivity
(different things). But it does not _have to_ communicate.
I would suggest that not having an obvious role is one of the many beauties
of art. It is pure indulgence. To suggest it has a "role" is to take away
an important attribute of Art - that it has no role. That it is a spurious
off-shoot of society and humanity, just as consciousness is.
Again, please forgive my rather rude entrance to this debate.
Many thanks,
Jack.
Alison A Raimes
<hmi...@hillhous.demon.co.uk> writes
>But few understand it, either. When trying to explain what philosophy
is good for, I say it is like art.
>
>>Art is a continous investigation
>>and a reflection on its time in history
>
>which also seems to me to be true of philosophy.
>
>>but as for the catalyst for the
>>compulsion to create - phew - thats like asking what infinity is.
>>Creation of line and form is unquestionably intrinsic to human beings
>>and like all pursuits that give individuals the experience of pleasure
>>(and often pain) it can become compulsive and obsessive. Just another
>>pursuit of the search for Happiness !
>>regards
>
>and a contribution to a civilised society.
>
>(see http://www.kbd.co.uk/ph-prod.htm)
>
>
>Hartley Millar
>hmi...@hillhous.demon.co.uk
>
society - society maybe - civilised ?? Hmmmmm.
However, aside from that, how do you (being anyone out there) account
for the millions of artists all over the world, working in isolation,
who have absolutely no interest in displaying their work to any form of
society. We see only a tiny percentage of the work produced by artists
and general ideas on contemporary art are based on this. For instance
two of my closest friends, one of whom is on death row and the other who
never exhibits but works incessantly, are no less artists because of
their conditions. What contribution do you think they are making ? Is
their work irrelevant if they are not making a *contribution* or is it
any less *serious* ? (Of course Hartley, I am not accusing you of
saying these things, just trying to open up the discussion !)
That brings me to another recurring concern, as an artist - *who* is
responsible for the writing of art history ? We accept that great minds
lead us in philosophy even if we dispute their greatness at times, but
today we are unclear about what *great* is in art. Should the commercial
concerns of say Saatchi be responsible for the writing of art history ?
Best to you
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Leon Hoeneveld
>: A: Art is not the material manifestation, the result of a proces, but
>: the proces itself.
>
>This is a fascinating derivation. Then what is it, if anything, that
>separates Art from mechanical manipulation (casually stirring leaves or
>piling sand)?
Maybe it can't be undone. Or at least difficult. An then again why should
the 'mechanical' manipulation not be Art? Because it's mechanical? Is it?
Can animals make Art? Or cranks? Or the weather? Art seems to have
a human factor.
>: ad 2)
>:
>: Q: what is the role of Art?
>: A: the proces is more important than the actual result.
>: In which case the artist and the incidental spectator should
>: have more out of Art than the one who buys 'Art'.
>
>Why _should_ the artist and, particularly, the incidental spectator get
more
>then the patron?
That is, if you believe that Art has a role to play. Speaking for myself I
always
need time to find out if the *Artform* has something to say to me. After a
while
things tend to get subjective. If you're close to the proces *may-be* you
can be
most objective to what its all about.
>: Art gives a direction (just like a 'proces') Art starts a thread
>: just like news-messages.
>: So you're an artist. The 'role' is occasional.
>: Politcs/Philosophy/Science etc.
>: It might help to see Art as a proces of reaction rather than a
>: proces of action. Most often
>: the techniques used are already common.
>
>My interest is specifically for those instances in which these techniques
are
>either not in common use or are used in new and creative ways (the movement
>from one form school of painting to another, realism to expressionism).
InterArt? Of course this is a major question. In epistemology Kuhn wrote
about
paradigmas as an abstraction for 'the Art and Way things go'.
>: ad 3)
>:
>: Q: is an accidental photo Art?
>: A: It's almost impossible to do it again. You can drop your camera
>: thenthousand times
>: without more result than that you need a new camera.
>: Is a broken camera in that case to be considered Art?
>: Of course there is something of a 'accidental proces' captured in
a
>: moment but it might be
>: impossible to get it out of the photo. Who would believe it, or
pay
>: for it? The local newspaper?
>: Some artists don't even get their work in the local newspapers,
so
>: what does that say?
>: When you have a collection of accidental photo's you could get
them
>: into a museum or a gallery an then of course they are ART.
>
>I would have a hard time defining art strictly by its commercial or
societal
>acceptability. I speak here, of course, more of the choice of form, rather
>then the content. Good Art may have questionable content.
>
Me too, so thats why I don't ask myself the question to use my *opinion*.
Again you need to know what is subjective (about a subject?) and objective
(about an object?)
Good luck,
Leon Hoeneveld
stru...@wxs.nl
Bjarke Buurgaard Talamona
filters. The filters are the problems we have.
The problems make lies so we don't have to deal with them.
The lies make illusions about the world as it is.
Everybody can see the world as it really is. But it's just a question about
dealing with the enemy/friend.
Myself.
Bjarke Buurgaard Talamona
tala...@vip.cybercity.dk
Hartley Millar
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk> writes
>>which also seems to me to be true of philosophy.
>>
>>>but as for the catalyst for the
>>>compulsion to create - phew - thats like asking what infinity is.
>>>Creation of line and form is unquestionably intrinsic to human beings
>>>and like all pursuits that give individuals the experience of pleasure
>>>(and often pain) it can become compulsive and obsessive. Just another
>>>pursuit of the search for Happiness !
>>>regards
>>
>>and a contribution to a civilised society.
>>
>>(see http://www.kbd.co.uk/ph-prod.htm)
>>
>>
>>Hartley Millar
>>hmi...@hillhous.demon.co.uk
>>
>Seems then we are in complete agreement - except for the civilised
>society - society maybe - civilised ?? Hmmmmm.
>
As in the reference, I contend that a society which purports to be
civilised has to have space for philosophers and artists.
I may agree with you that the jury is out on whether there is enough
space.
In particular, I find it irritating to have to keep addressing the
pseudo-issue "but what use is it?", since I do not see why philosophy -
or art - needs to claim any usefulness as a justification for existing.
>However, aside from that, how do you (being anyone out there) account
>for the millions of artists all over the world, working in isolation,
>who have absolutely no interest in displaying their work to any form of
>society. We see only a tiny percentage of the work produced by artists
>and general ideas on contemporary art are based on this. For instance
>two of my closest friends, one of whom is on death row and the other who
>never exhibits but works incessantly, are no less artists because of
>their conditions. What contribution do you think they are making ? Is
>their work irrelevant if they are not making a *contribution* or is it
>any less *serious* ? (Of course Hartley, I am not accusing you of
>saying these things, just trying to open up the discussion !)
As you say, Alison, I would not wish to reserve the word "artist" for
those who choose to exhibit. And yet again (though analogies can easily
be taken too far) the situation with philosophy is similar. Much
philosophical thinking is done alone and the thinkers may be reluctant
to share it. I would not disqualify it as philosophy.
>
>That brings me to another recurring concern, as an artist - *who* is
>responsible for the writing of art history ? We accept that great minds
>lead us in philosophy even if we dispute their greatness at times, but
>today we are unclear about what *great* is in art. Should the commercial
>concerns of say Saatchi be responsible for the writing of art history ?
You don't sound as if you want to "rule the world" but the trouble with
this concern is that it tends to be voiced by those who think
a) that someone should "be responsible"
b) that the current situation does not give the responsibility to the
"right" person
But if one knows who is the "right" person (or even that the current
person is wrong) then one is implicitly taking on the role of "god" and
wishing to prescribe an answer in the area concerned.
Personally, in philosophy, I would not wish to see such a thing as the
definitive history. It would be rather boring. I also feel that as in
your original posting, the philosophy which is written about in a
particular historical period is a reflection of the preoccupations of
that period. We may still be able to understand these preoccupations and
be able to derive something from the philosophy. However a history which
tells us how important some philosophical insights were felt to be at a
given time, is merely a history. If we try to see how relevant these
insights are for us, then we are doing additional philosophy - in the
present.
There are of course many theories of artistic and literary criticism but
I would have thought that an analogous approach to art would make some
sense - i.e. it may have been important once, but is it important now?
As for Maurice Saatchi, I wish he laid out as much money on philosophers
as he does on art ;-)) But seriously, there will always be "patrons"
and their enthusiasms will in some sense distort the market. However, as
you say one is not working for the market, and I personally am not sure
how I would recognise a market which was not "distorted" in some way.
Greetings
Hartley
PS can I take it you don't like the same things Maurice Saatchi does?
DLyte99720
>filters. The filters are the problems we have.
>
>
Or raather it is about understanding exactly where these 'filters' come into
play. There are some determinates, or what some may consider problems, that we
cannot just step around and avoid.
>Everybody can see the world as it really is. But it's just a question about
>dealing with the enemy/friend.
>
>Myself.
I do believe you've hit a very curical point here, Dr. Watson! It all begins
and ends with our own self and the paths we choose towards enlightenment.
Dee
Alison A Raimes
>You don't sound as if you want to "rule the world" but the trouble with
>this concern is that it tends to be voiced by those who think
>
>a) that someone should "be responsible"
>b) that the current situation does not give the responsibility to the
>"right" person
>
>But if one knows who is the "right" person (or even that the current
>person is wrong) then one is implicitly taking on the role of "god" and
>wishing to prescribe an answer in the area concerned.
courts since I wanted to rule the world !
The *responsibilty* you speak of is exactly what I am disputing and
suggesting that the current contemporary art world is in the grips of
this *god*. In both art and philosophy we are presented with ideas that
we can argue or reject or use as a catalyst for more ideas and for
healthy debate. There will always be great minds in both that will
influence us in one way or another. My recent concern is that the art
world is in the grips of a corporation - a commercial magnet is
distorting the truth in art and in its historical position and seducing
young artists. Now you may well argue that this is a reflection of the
world we are producing in - and I would argue that this is disrupting
the agenda of the majority. Motivated by fame and fortune the
contemporary art scene has become a fashionable venue with a corporate
image backed by the all powerful Saatchis, a force that is difficult to
argue against - where money talks.
>Personally, in philosophy, I would not wish to see such a thing as the
>definitive history. It would be rather boring. I also feel that as in
>your original posting, the philosophy which is written about in a
>particular historical period is a reflection of the preoccupations of
>that period. We may still be able to understand these preoccupations and
>be able to derive something from the philosophy. However a history which
>tells us how important some philosophical insights were felt to be at a
>given time, is merely a history. If we try to see how relevant these
>insights are for us, then we are doing additional philosophy - in the
>present.
Exactly. My overall argument is that the filtering of contemporary art
into the corporate world is disrupting the history. The more alarming
historical evidence of this is in the hegemonic structure of twentieth
century art that has excluded the marginals from the modernistic
dialogue. I suspect there is evidence of this in philosophy too. Should
we be content with this exclusion ? This is my major concern of today's
art and philosophy.
>There are of course many theories of artistic and literary criticism but
>I would have thought that an analogous approach to art would make some
>sense - i.e. it may have been important once, but is it important now?
>
>As for Maurice Saatchi, I wish he laid out as much money on philosophers
>as he does on art ;-)) But seriously, there will always be "patrons"
>and their enthusiasms will in some sense distort the market. However, as
>you say one is not working for the market, and I personally am not sure
>how I would recognise a market which was not "distorted" in some way.
>
>Greetings
>
>Hartley
>
>PS can I take it you don't like the same things Maurice Saatchi does?
I question the Saatchi morals - in London, Charles Saatchi has elevated
Goldsmith's to the higher level that it now purports to be. Patronage?
Seems we are going full circle as this century comes to an end. This
time last century the art world was shaking off the influences of having
money as the all powerful controlling factor. Are the Saatchi's
motivated by a genuine concern for the development of the arts ? Are
they a charity ? I think not ! Make no mistake as to how much the
Saatchi collection is worth or to how much revenue it generates.
Better stop now or this will turn into another dissertation !
Best to you.
Hartley Millar
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Better stop now or this will turn into another dissertation !
Yes, probably from both sides and we may be a bit off topic. We will no
doubt meet in some other hyperplace, or even here if some others re-
kindle the issue.
All the best
__O__
|_
__| |_
Hartley