WHAT IS ART?
jerryjudy
<duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
> I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
> ART
> ARCHITECTURE
> SCULTURE
> PAINTING
> MUSIC
> FASHION
> POETRY
>
>
> THE ESSENCE OF ARCHITECTURE
> THE ESSENCE OF PAINTING
> THE ESSENCE OF SCULTURE
> THE ESSENCE OF MUSIC
> THE ESSENCE OF FASHION
> THE ESSENCE OF POETRY
>
> AND THE ESSENCE OF ART?
>
> Vidal de Sousa
Art is artifice, but it 'seems' full of truth because the artist taps into
the fundamental arithmetic relationships which we humans use to
'represent' and cursorily describe our world (pattern recognition for
survival, we experience this enhanced human ability every night in our
dreams).
'Deep structure' creators cleverly exploit the affinity that we have for
whole numbers. Using constrained ambiguity, the more adeptly they exploit
this innate affinity, the higher the significance their creations 'seem'
to have.
When I say the higher the significance they 'seem' to have, it's curious
and paradoxical that, in this case, this is the _same_ as saying 'the
higher the significance they actually have'! And this is why Art is so
different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.
Jerry
LindaGee
jerryjudy wrote in message ...
>In article <38a5...@readers.ip.pt>, "Manuel Duarte de Sousa"
><duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
>
>> I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
>
>> ART
>> ARCHITECTURE
>> SCULTURE
>> PAINTING
>> MUSIC
>> FASHION
>> POETRY
>>
>>
>> THE ESSENCE OF ARCHITECTURE
>> THE ESSENCE OF PAINTING
>> THE ESSENCE OF SCULTURE
>> THE ESSENCE OF MUSIC
>> THE ESSENCE OF FASHION
>> THE ESSENCE OF POETRY
>>
>> AND THE ESSENCE OF ART?
>>
>> Vidal de Sousa
To me, *What Is Art* is best stated as being, a presentational means for a
superlative re-representation of an artist's (referring to someone who has
already acquired the basic techniques and skills for a particular
endeavoring to achieve something of a superlative or spectacular nature
and/or status - whence compared by what is viewed to be the norm) deepest
innermost contemplations, about the subject matter that is endeavored upon.
Art is capable of displaying an artist's innermost connection with
reality/truth in relation to the subject matter endeavored upon. And upon
which others, in general, may react-to within a relatable or identifiable
sense, or not....as in being consistent or inconsistent with their own
experiential level of reality and/or of what they consider to be true for
them, or not.
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
jerryjudy
<Lind...@email.msn.com> wrote:
It would 'seem' so...
> Art is capable of displaying an artist's innermost connection with
> reality/truth in relation to the subject matter endeavored upon. And upon
> which others, in general, may react-to within a relatable or identifiable
> sense, or not....as in being consistent or inconsistent with their own
> experiential level of reality and/or of what they consider to be true for
> them, or not.
Yes, well stated!, and the way we impart and communicate this is by the
resonance of logic around the survival value of integer arithmetic. It's
complicated...
Hi Linda, (when I was ten I wanted to marry a Linda, but I never did)
Jerry
LindaGee
If it only seems so and is not as such, then in all likelihood it is not of
artistic caliber. See Aristotelian Ethics for an outline on how to determine
the difference between appearances and that which actually is.
Also, bear in mind, that Aristotle claims that fiction is more valuable than
fact; being as fact can only relay what was and/or is, whilst fiction can
extend the mind toward improvement, insofar and inasmuch as that which can
and/or ought to be, within any given tendency.
>> Art is capable of displaying an artist's innermost connection with
>> reality/truth in relation to the subject matter endeavored upon. And upon
>> which others, in general, may react-to within a relatable or identifiable
>> sense, or not....as in being consistent or inconsistent with their own
>> experiential level of reality and/or of what they consider to be true for
>> them, or not.
>
>Yes, well stated!,
Not quite. A little more like *Art-Fully* stated.
>and the way we impart and communicate this is by the
>resonance of logic around the survival value of integer arithmetic. It's
>complicated...
Been there done that. Shame on you, for not picking-up on that. But then
again, I expect that you couldn't pick-up on it, because you define art as
being equal to artifice, subsequent to the utilization of artifice as
opposed to artistry, as being your own descriptive means for devising.
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language
artifice; n. [<L. <ars, artis, art + facere, to make] , 1. skill; ingenuity.
2. trickery; craft. 3. a trick; artful device.
artifact; n. [L. ars, artis, art + factus; see FACT] any object made by
human work or skill : also sp. artefact.
The Fine Arts, by-way-of their very own nature, comprise Art Work that have
no other purpose for human endeavoring, other than for the sake of their own
enjoyment. In other words, it is quite far removed from the physical
surviving realm. However, they are critical to the purpose of enjoying
whatever survival time, we do happen to muster-out, on this lonesome planet,
that we reside and rely upon.
>
>Hi Linda, (when I was ten I wanted to marry a Linda, but I never did)
So you married a Judy instead. Good for you!
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
Coby Beck
jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:jerbidoc-130...@lc0054.zianet.com...
And when music increases its acoustic intensity, it 'seems' to be beautiful,
and it 'seems' that life is worth living. But in fact, all that is
happening is that conditioned response is causing your heartrate to increase
and automatic neural responses are triggering electical impulses in the
region of your brain that is associated with what we irrationally call
pleasure. And in fact, the most logical course of action is just to slit
your wrists while lying in a hot bath.
Coby
jerryjudy
<cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
Or, we're becoming more in tune, unconsciously, with the integer
relationships and some of their imitative cross currents.
> And in fact, the most logical course of action is just to slit
> your wrists while lying in a hot bath.
I agree. On the one to one, personal level, 'art' has little to do with
hard realities. In this arena, art will always be a let down.
Jerry
>
> Coby
LindaGee
Can we ever know who we really are?
Are the answers within-- or far beyond the farthest star?
Can we only know what the eye can see?
Or is sight more blind than the blind can be?
I see I say is to visualize
As I see with my mind what I cannot with my eyes
Images of the past we have brought with us today
Can be formed and reformed like the sculpting of clay
Who we are today may be a mystery
But tomorrow perhaps we may find the key
To unlock all our fears--- misunderstanding---
Unbind our souls-- let loose our wings
For anything at all that the mind can see
To fly like an eagle to sting like a bee
To try even harder than the hardest tree
To be like an angel and try to set man free
Of all the ways-- all the possibilities
It can stagger the mind-- make one feel ill at ease
To ponder in thought about the infinite
Can make one long-- for what is more finite
Yet the crux of the matter cannot be avoided
We can know who we are or we can choose to avoid it
In that we are what we believe we are-- yes we are, yes we are
Either a grain of sand--- or an illuminating Star!
LindaGee
MMM 1992
LindaGee wrote in message <#VeZ6xpd$GA.128@cpmsnbbsa05>...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,rec.music.classical
>Date: Sunday, February 13, 2000 6:52 PM
>Subject: Re: WHAT IS ART?
>
>
>>In article <##7#wRmd$GA.202@cpmsnbbsa05>, "LindaGee"
>><Lind...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jerryjudy wrote in message ...
>>> >In article <38a5...@readers.ip.pt>, "Manuel Duarte de Sousa"
>>> ><duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
>>> >
John Carter
feel is worth while just the same..
John Carter Barsoom
> <duart...@clix.pt> wrote:
>
> > I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
>
> > ART
> > ARCHITECTURE
> > SCULTURE
> > PAINTING
> > MUSIC
> > FASHION
> > POETRY
> >
> >
> > THE ESSENCE OF ARCHITECTURE
> > THE ESSENCE OF PAINTING
> > THE ESSENCE OF SCULTURE
> > THE ESSENCE OF MUSIC
> > THE ESSENCE OF FASHION
> > THE ESSENCE OF POETRY
> >
> > AND THE ESSENCE OF ART?
> >
> > Vidal de Sousa
>
>
>
LindaGee
John Carter wrote in message <889h9b$jsv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Something you can not eat, wear, make love to or exchange for money but you
>feel is worth while just the same..
...but of course... you can purchase gourmet, you can wear lingerie + you
can make love to an aesthetically appealing - living and breathing -
human-being!
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta
LindaGee
the endgame wrote in message
<889qh2$5ei$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>Someone once said that G*d is Art, and that by expression of the abstract
>through to the quantifiable the great G*d metaphor is slowly diminished.
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>
>
GFostel
> I´LL LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT:
>
> ART
> ARCHITECTURE
> SCULTURE
> PAINTING
> MUSIC
> FASHION
> POETRY
>
>
> THE ESSENCE OF ARCHITECTURE
> THE ESSENCE OF PAINTING
> THE ESSENCE OF SCULTURE
> THE ESSENCE OF MUSIC
> THE ESSENCE OF FASHION
> THE ESSENCE OF POETRY
>
> AND THE ESSENCE OF ART?
>
> Vidal de Sousa
Donald Knuth (big shot computer science guy) wrote a book(s) called "The Art of
Computer Programming" yet such is not in the list above. Nor is drama, film,
fiction and several other modern varients. And "modern" is relavant here. If
you go back in time, the great artists were more craftsmen than todays artists.
Michalangelo's David is great in large part because of the skill reflected by
the stone. Art in the modern era is a more metaphysical thing. A variety of
semi-technical fields are refered to as "black arts" because the good work is
not simply logically derived.
A few posters suggested that numbers, especially whole numbers, had something
to do with this. I think that is wrong. Numbers have nothing to do with it
and are antithetical to it. Art is illogical, not mathematical. There is
beauty in some mathematics, but not art. The best thing I read in the posts
was an allusion to art as being like dreams. No one yet understands dreams yet
they are vital to humans and most other mamales. Dreams are related to our
lives yet distinct and wonderful. Illogical.
Modern art has moved somewhat from craft towards inspirational illogic as logic
has invaded other parts of our lives. A Buddist might refer to the art of
living, but we are pushing that out of modern life and it pops up in our "art"
which we use to reconnect with that other part of our minds.
Hey that seems logical. (:-)
---GaryFostel---
jerryjudy
(GFostel) wrote:
Gary, you are so close to understanding art!, as opposed to science....
....and dreams!, as opposed to waking reality (which is 'brain controlled').
The integer solutions and their inter-relationships, working _under_ the
conscious mind, are the engine by which we 'appreciate' everything,
including the arts, history, and Love etc. etc. But the arts are tied
inexorably with whole numbers. Ask any musician about the reassuring
whole numbers of rhythm and harmony and form.
>
> Modern art has moved somewhat from craft towards inspirational illogic
as logic
> has invaded other parts of our lives.
As much as I must dismiss the flailings of modern art, they usually have
an unbroken link to the past, no matter how tenuous!, and whether or not
they know that they do. <grin>
> A Buddist might refer to the art of
> living, but we are pushing that out of modern life and it pops up in our "art"
> which we use to reconnect with that other part of our minds.
The 'art' of living is too 'big' for art to inform, with its best
reserve. This is a mistake that even some artists make.
Jerry
GFostel
>
>Gary, you are so close to understanding art!, as opposed to science....
>
>....and dreams!, as opposed to waking reality (which is 'brain controlled').
>
>The integer solutions and their inter-relationships, working _under_ the
>conscious mind, are the engine by which we 'appreciate' everything,
>including the arts, history, and Love etc. etc. But the arts are tied
>inexorably with whole numbers. Ask any musician about the reassuring
>whole numbers of rhythm and harmony and form.
Well, I try to understand art and science, but I appreciate the thought. I
work harder at understanding science. I still don;t get the intrinsic
importance of whole numbers, but there is a crucial difference between waking
and dreaming perception. Over the years I've given quite a bit of thought to
the issue of perception of time and I think there was a vital change that
occurred in post-Rennascance Europe and an additional change that is occuring
now.
I think it is no co-incidence that people say art is timeless. Time is a
modern yoke on many if not most people's minds and lives. In dreams time is a
fluid thing. There is a book that influenced me greatly called something like
"Pictures Children Draw" which focuses on picture drawn by children in the 2-5
year range. It is hard not to be struct by the similarity to modern abstract
art. Young children have not yet been tied to the yoke of linear time and and
have visual perceptions that adult artists struggle to recreate and some people
are able, albeit subconsciously, to recognize and it takes their minds back to
a former state of free imagery.
---GaryFostel---
Stephen Mann
: Art is artifice, but it 'seems' full of truth because the artist taps into
: the fundamental arithmetic relationships which we humans use to
: 'represent' and cursorily describe our world (pattern recognition for
: survival, we experience this enhanced human ability every night in our
: dreams).
As in counting sheep?
: 'Deep structure' creators cleverly exploit the affinity that we have for
: whole numbers. Using constrained ambiguity, the more adeptly they exploit
: this innate affinity, the higher the significance their creations 'seem'
: to have.
Very deep!
: When I say the higher the significance they 'seem' to have, it's curious
: and paradoxical that, in this case, this is the _same_ as saying 'the
: higher the significance they actually have'! And this is why Art is so
: different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.
: Jerry
Art reveals beauty; science truth. Ideals are inter-related.
Steve
P.S.: How's Juddy? Still alive?
jerryjudy
<quar...@well.com> wrote:
> In sci.philosophy.meta jerryjudy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> : Art is artifice, but it 'seems' full of truth because the artist taps into
> : the fundamental arithmetic relationships which we humans use to
> : 'represent' and cursorily describe our world (pattern recognition for
> : survival, we experience this enhanced human ability every night in our
> : dreams).
>
> As in counting sheep?
No, it's totally beneath the level of the conscious mind. We 'hear'
significance in music in an analogous way to 'seeing' that a 'dark'
tangled jungle is 'bad, yet an open woodland is 'good', swamp bad!, meadow
good! etc. The positive and negative (prejudicial) feelings we have about
landscapes, we also unconsciously have about the elements that comprise
art, and integer arithmetic is, in the main, what the elements of art are
constructed of.
> : 'Deep structure' creators cleverly exploit the affinity that we have for
> : whole numbers. Using constrained ambiguity, the more adeptly they exploit
> : this innate affinity, the higher the significance their creations 'seem'
> : to have.
>
> Very deep!
Thanks. This, and my other views on art, are an extension of an
aesthetical opinion that people in the field will never fully accept, for
obvious reasons.
> : When I say the higher the significance they 'seem' to have, it's curious
> : and paradoxical that, in this case, this is the _same_ as saying 'the
> : higher the significance they actually have'! And this is why Art is so
> : different from the sciences, and has categorically different rules.
>
> : Jerry
>
> Art reveals beauty; science truth.
Yes, but how does Art reveal to us its apparent beauty?, when we certainly
haven't been taught, and probably couldn't be taught...
Many people don't get art, because their innate affinity for integers has
been 'deluged' by 'higher-level' affinities (if that's a good phrase).
Aestheticists might call them (unfortunately) _distracted_.
> Ideals are inter-related.
I used to believe that, but appreciating science seems to be a specific
and limited subset of the human (and the higher animal) brain's experience
of art.
> Steve
>
> P.S.: How's Juddy? Still alive?
She's been called many things, but never Juddy. heh heh
She's fine, but I had to change my online handle in order to have a better
keyword for searching Deja.com. :)
Jerry
NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code,
Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, p.227, any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is
subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of
$500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.