Art and Expression

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I remember reading somewhere that a poem has to be “enchanting”. I disagree with this. I can read anything, and I won’t experience “enchantment”. I once wrote: “poetry is nothing, but something that comes from the heart”. I believe art too can be any kind of meaningful expression. It’s not about feeling. If you express yourself in a deeply meaningful way, in whatever medium, even if someone else “feels” nothing for this, it’s still undoubtedly art.

Thus, it’s hard to distinguish “art” from ordinary forms of expression. And since everything is so deeply subjective, it’s hard to say, but thereby everything, all kinds of expression is art. But not all expression is “meaningful”. So maybe that isn’t true. But what’s “meaningful expression”, as opposed to “normal” expression.

I go back to my original definition: it’s something that comes from the heart. But doesn’t everything involuntarily come from the “heart”. I mean, don’t humans necessarily act according to intuition? Or does the heart imply something undefinable and special? If that’s the case, however, the issue of aesthetics becomes mystical and pointless to ruminate about. We are treading into waters that are too deep for the human mind. Aestheticism, if we accept this is closed off.

But perhaps there’s more. Perhaps this is misleading.

I’ve lost my train of thought.

2

Frege once said, Solon would not be wise if everybody was wise. The word would lose its meaning because there is nothing there to contrast it with—and contrast (distinction) we do on a regular basis. Philosophy is good in finding distinction between things, concepts, ideas. There is such a thing as art distinct from ordinary expression of anything. There is such a thing as object of art, as distinct from ordinary object. What makes a chair an object of art as opposed to an ordinary thing we sit on is a fascinating question to ponder.

3

“So maybe that isn’t true.”

I was thinking outloud.

But I did say maybe…

interesting response whatever

4

I’m not sure if the word “heart” covers the complexototes that are invariably tied to the source of artistic exprsesion. I find myself, that artistic expression, is completely egoist in nature. Art is, in a sense, a non essential entity; nothing is in fact changed by art. “Social” or "political"art, such as the work of Diego Riveria, validates the opinion of the artist above that of the opposing opinion. it also creates a bridge between the artist and the subject, which is not one of support but one of exploitation. If one documents the plight of suffering, one does not partake in the suffering but reaps a reward and recognition while remaining at a distance.
The nature of the muse/artsit relationship illustrates this well. An artist may claim to celebrate the female but under scrutiny is conducting a well accepted mode of exploitation. In essence the female or group portrayed has nothing to gain from their depiction; the end result is that the artist is the only individual benefiting from the process, their mode of perception and the resulting work is held in greater esteem then that of their passive subject who has no significant input into the process. Through the creation of “art”, the artist also possesses the freedom to explore themselves withouut fear of retribution; moral or otherwies.
Their are no clear defintions of what constitutes “art”, and “enchanting” is an age old romantic term orignitating from teh time in which great artists possessed a gift that was sourced from the “divine”. The “aesthetic” experience is more of a reaction to something that is foreign to our own scope of expereinence (as we cannot completely partake in the exeperience of the artists as craetor and instigator) rather than a pleasurable response to what is presupposed to be beautiful. An emotive response to a work is sufficient enough to call something art, but is almost impossible to fathom as we cannot remove ourselves from the conditioning that has, in the first place, granted us with the idea of what we believe art to be.

5

“To the puritan, art is immoral; to the philistine, it
is useless; to the proletarian, it is a cruel waste.”

D.H.Parker

6

Art IMO is another of those words like faith, hope, and love, that have gradually lost their depth of meaning having become limited by enhanced egotism. The concepts are only valued to the degree that they further our emotional valuation of ourselves.

It would be reasonable for a person with a minimal knowledge of chemistry seeking to learn more to read a book on it. The understanding he has to begin with allows him to appreciate what he reads and build on his knowledge of chemistry

The same possibility exists with our potential to experience emotional quality. Normally our emotional life is limited to in some way justifying ourselves and as such is closed to the possibility of experiencing ourselves impartially and our connection to life itself.

There is another thread in progress about a “beautiful empty world.” But what is it empty of? It has a lot of materiality, life, and action. But to some, it lacks emotional depth, something that connects the depth of our being beyond our egotism to conscious life. It has been called all sorts of names like the “hole in the heart” for example. A person can have everything by cultural standards but still feel a hole in their heart, an emptiness.

Art, as it existed at one time, was the emotional equivalent to a text book. A person’s intellect could grow in knowledge through the book. Art was able to allow a person to experience a quality of emotion beyond their egotism and its limitations.

What this means was that art is a process. Art occurs when the artist capable of this quality of emotion understands how it can be mechanically reproduced in the person experiencing this art provided they are capable of some emotional freedom and willing to be open rather than judgmental. So the artist understands his medium and creates a “work of art” that has the ability to convey the quality of emotion to the recipient the artist intends. In this way it is an objective experience rather than a purely subjective one depending on the inclinations of the recipient.

The “golden section” used in ancient Egypt for example is a specific shape stimulating a quality of emotion.

ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~jbritton/go … dslide.htm

Where at one time a quality of art had the purpose of freeing one from the limitations of egotism through the experience of a higher quality of emotion, in modern times, its purpose is to reinforce these limitations for the sake of self justification, self importance, notoriety and cash.

So I really have to agree with D that in these times except for a small minority,.“it’s hard to distinguish “art” from ordinary forms of expression.”

How many artists would have such qualitative emotional experience and depth while being skilled in their medium to produce a work of art capable of providing a direct experience? How many could be open enough to be free of conditioning by critics to allow themselves the freedom to experience without preconception?

So as great a respect I have for art, I have to conclude that it’s better not to depend on the local gallery but instead visit the Sphinx for example and allow oneself to become open to it since its builders understood something about conveying emotion that is worthwhile beginning to “feel”. Then I believe, a person may begin to value art in a new way.

7

Nick_A,

Good post, though I find your evaluation of art in modern times curious. It’s like saying language has less value today than it has in the past because there’s more commercial use of it in modernity. It makes no sense. Is art any less functional today than it has been in the past?

And what exactly is a “higher quality of emotion?”

8

Hello Praxis

Before trying to reply I must first ask you how you define “quality”. Subjectively we can value something more and say it has greater quality than something else. But does objective quality exist? Is there a scale of quality that is totally unrelated to our subjective opinions?

9

Your suggesting that the aesthetic standard is currently too low? You’ll get no argument from me if that’s the case. It’s your claim that the aesthetic standard was significantly higher in the past that I find dubious. How could you support this claim? Isn’t an aesthetic standard relative to the culture it exists in?

And, in my opinion, the most interesting question: How do you raise an aesthetic standard?

10

Praxis

Water seeks its own level. Aesthetic standards may be all that they can be at this time. But an aesthetic standard is subjective. My question is if “quality” exists as an objective reality of universal structure even if man on earth no longer exists.

11

Nick_A,

Qualia? How could anyone know that with absolute certainty? I believe it’s the particular structure of a things environment/perception/mind that determines its “quality.” What’s it like to be a bat? You’d have to be a bat to answer that.

12

Nick_A wrote:

“What this means was that art is a process. Art occurs when the artist capable of this quality of emotion understands how it can be mechanically reproduced in the person experiencing this art provided they are capable of some emotional freedom and willing to be open rather than judgmental. So the artist understands his medium and creates a “work of art” that has the ability to convey the quality of emotion to the recipient the artist intends. In this way it is an objective experience rather than a purely subjective one depending on the inclinations of the recipient.

And…

How many could be open enough to be free of conditioning by critics to allow themselves the freedom to experience without preconception?”

I the paragraph above, when you talk about process and imply that the success of the art or the artist is based on how well he/she conveys the intended emotion and I’m comparing this to the second statement- in which you say that it doesn’t matter what critics think… I’m having a problem with this. Perhaps the conditioning of the critics is valuable because the criticism might help the artist to understand that he/she is not being effective. How is the artist supposed to figure this out with out discussion, and what’s the point of that discussion if the artist should ignore suggestion or criticism?

But outside of that I don’t think all art is created to convey emotion. To some degree the art is for the artist- I liked the paragraph about the artist and the muse, so true. If you’re inspired perhaps by a person or situation- a lover, they make a much better muse when admired from afar. I am relating this to my own personal life. I purposely separate myself from the object of my affection in order to feel a greater love for them and have the motivation… or rather a nervous and uncontrollable desire to fantasize and create to relieve some pressure. I can’t do this when I have comfort, when the person is there- having them is, in a sense, counterproductive- but without them at all the passion and desire wouldn’t exist in the first place. So then, in this case for me, it’s a contrived discomfort and then the personal gratification of creating the art. I don’t really think about my audience. A friend of mine says that all artists are self absorbed narcissists. She’s basing this on artists and musicians she knows personally- I guess this includes me…

So is commercial art considered “art” then, or is what you’re talking about here strictly fine art? When you talk about purpose or intent, an illustration could be drawn simply to convey information without any emotionality involved, like medical illustrations for example. So this is not art?

The aesthetic standard these days is low- I totally agree. In the case of architecture, it feels like our society (I’m referring to American society) is more interested in building quick and cheap than caring about how a structure looks. Even when architects plan to build something that’s supposed to look good, it still pales in comparison and is lacking in fine ornate detail.

13

Hi Vortical and Praxis

It is impossible to explain the objective quality of art without first understanding that man has the possibility of a change of being spoken of in all the great traditions. Since this is a Philosophy forum I’ll say that Plato’s allegory of the cave is expressing the same idea. Normally man on earth is asleep and in chains yet has the possibity of coming to the light becoming a changed man. This is real evolution.

The art of which I’ve been referring to attempts in its own way to make man aware of his situation. This art has the effect of aligning ones inner presence and in this way, experiencing a quality of emotion totally new but normal for a more conscious life where this alignment would be also normal. Hopefully a person then gets a glimpse of their “being” poterntial through their “feelings”.

Critics and experts refer to culture and their art has different standards since it is only concerned with man’s adaptation. The art I’m referring to concerns itself with man’s evolution and man’s ability to leave the cave.

14

Did Warhol’s “Campbell soup” come from the heart? Duchamp’s “Bicycle”? Kandinsky’s “Squares with Concentric Circles”?

I think Nick A is right. Art is too broad a term. Jackson Pollack has mere canvas and paint in common with Velasquez.

15

I must have flew under the radar, as that was precisely the point I was making…didn’t get that from Nick at all-

Huh…art school flashback…

16

Your suggesting modern cultures record high of commercialism and hyperbole has driven us further into the cave?

How exactly does art assist in aiding our ability to leave the cave? What is man’s evolution, or rather: what are we to become?

17

Objective quality, Plato… all sounds too mystical for me. The quality of a piece of art lies in its artistic value, that is the amount of enjoyment it offers you. So the quality of a piece of art is varied from one to another. What’s univesal, lies in the ways we percieve art, in another word, in the ways art draws out our imagination and emotion. Seeking “truth” among art is a vain attempt, because objectively, painting is no more than coloured papers, and music is no more than arranged sounds. That’s why somebody wonders: how did that pile of rubish win the Turner prize?

18

Dear all,

I really enjoyed reading this thread and discussion. What is art? is an old discussion in art theory and philosophy and there have been lots of changes in minds and points of view in the past. I’m convinced, we all can group us in one of the many existing theories. We only need to read a couple of books and will find the art theory/philosophy, which belongs to us, where we can find us reflected in and which perfecly fits to our character. I take me as an example: I like the art of the “fin de siècle”, in particular some impressionists, the symbolists, the early expressionists, the “Jugendstil” (in paticular the Vienna “Jugndstil”) and some realists very much. Many of this artists were influenced by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. I feel very familiar with them and myself close to the ideas of Schopenhauer and do not agree even with many of Nietzsches critizism on Schopenhauers art philosophy. In particular the “Platonian idea” in the 4th book of “The world As Will and Representation” Part I ( amazon.com/exec/obidos/searc … 47-7967329 ). This theories fit close to my personal view on art and aesthetics and the artists I personally like very much. But this shows, that any discussion about art and art theory/philosophy is very personnal and is often based on own aesthetic feelings. But this does not say, that I do not find the others interesting. I like to read other theories, but my choise does not change signifantly. The artist which impressed me most until now, is the etcher and painter Max Klinger, a late impressionist and symbolist, he was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer. All I wrote, is only to express my feeling and I know, that I’m not very strong in art theory. On the other hand I paint and draw since many years. Maybe the practice of own work makes me bad in theory? I will carefully continue to follow this discussion, which I really like a lot.

Regards from Old Europe

19

This is really hard to explain. I guess basically it boils down to what we normally call “art” is for the appreciation of our self created egotism and provides meaning for it in one way or another.

Real objective “Art” is for the benefit of ourselves that is not a function of our artificially created egotism and is for the betterment of the “real” within us. The hard part is that normally all we know and are willing to know is as a function of our egotism so it is very difficult to distinguish between “art” and “Art”.

20

I would say art is communication with the part of our minds that doesn’t think in symbols; the emotive part; the subconscious, if you will. Whether this communication is with ones own subconscious via aesthetic expression or communication to others is irrelevant, in my opinion, as it’s up to the individual to explore and develop themselves. In this regard anything can be seen as art, or what art actually represents. The wide range of individual sensibilities is clear, what art will assist a persons development must be relative to the individual. As with language, vary rich language will be lost on someone with poor or undeveloped skill in reading. Unsuitably simple language will not engage a more sophisticated individuals sensibilities. The engagement is the important thing, as that’s what separates the aesthetic from the anesthetic; the “Art” from the “art.”