What is the point of art?

It’s the same as letters and words. You’re just trying to transfer ideas from one brain to another.

Good art transfer ideas better than bad art. Detailed art transfer detail. Abstract art is usually interpreted in terms of shapes and forms or as symbols of the culture it was depicting. Graphics on food transfer ideas of brands. You wouldn’t buy a blank bottle with no label on it. A bottle with a picture of a dead rat on it would probably be something to avoid. etc. etc.

Music transfers feelings. Slow isolated notes make you feel sad and alone. Fast rhythmic music makes you energized. etc.

Fashion transfers utility, or wealth, cultural background, etc. Similar idea with architecture.

Film and media transfer stories the same as a book about whatever.

I’ve done art for years. People in the business spend months deciding on everything from color, to wardrobe, to font styles to communicate a message. Art used to be very practical. Medical science owes a lot to artists for instance. Now you just plot a couple lights in a room and whip out an iphone to send the same information but with millions of times more detail.

No, it was the part I quoted, the main last part that I was referring to. I said why I believed it also.

I mean, darwinism has a simple answer to why this pattern is not an issue in general for surviving species.

But that doesnt’ mean that is what it is for. If we are coming at this as Darwinian’s there is no ‘for’. And for the individual it may not be that function or it may not be the main function of the creativity for him or her. No teleology in Darwinism. But individuals can have reasons. A trait may survive even if it is not helpful, as long as it doesn’t damage the inviduals (too much). It comes along for some random reason. It sticks because it is useful or is a byproduct of something useful - in fact it may only be useful in certain environments and bad for moderns, like some genetic diseases which were useful in certain environments but are a problem when people can live a long time and are not in that environment. One the trait is carried along, individuals may expand and coopt the trait for their own purposes. Hence artists may have all sorts of motivations and people who have good imaginations or creative skills may use the trait in art or may use it elsewhere or may not use it or use it well.

If you are saying it’s not in reach, you have, well, a problem. And I don’t mean cause you don’t know stuff, but because you are saying you do. I mean, think of all the truths you have to accept to say we haven’t reached truth. And if you think being ‘agnostic’ evades acception a variety of truths, this is also not the case. At the very least you are claiming sel

OK that seems not too controversial and fits with what you say next.

I tend to agree. I was wrote ‘just because something makes sense it isn’t necessarily the truth.’ precisely to cut off any full conclusions on our part. I also meant it specifically in relation to Darwinism. I think darwinism is incomplete. I think there are teleological factors. So to honor your question, which seemd to be presuming some form of darwinism, I answered as I think a Darwinist would, staying within their parameters. It made me feel dirty and debased, hence the run to the shower, and I wanted to put a disclaimer at the end. Here I was confidently reeling off a darwinian answer. I think that answer while clever and fitting in Darwinism and not a bad fit with what we know, is still incomplete and misleading. I want to honor the question you put without trying to get into teleological stuff, since it is a tangent here, but not add to the problem of the current reduction of EVERYTHING to genes and natural selection.

So you think art serves to attract others to us? Particularly, to attract members of the opposite sex? This would obviously apply to both the artist and those who appropriate art. I mean, what else is fashion but ordinary people consuming the products of designers? They make art, and others adorn that art, which is like the peacock’s feather in that it attracts people, including potential mates.

About the artist himself though, I might ask: is it the art itself which attracts, or the demonstration of talent? Personally, I think it would be both of course, but what do you think, Jakob?

I think as a survival tool, art can certainly serve this purpose–a picture is worth a thousand words they say–but this depends on the value of what’s being communicated. A map of the terrain drawn in the sand for example would be very useful to a primative tribe trying to wrap their heads around their environment. But I don’t think a song that conveys feelings of sadness, for example, though certainly communicating emotions, would have much survival value–as though we’d all die if we couldn’t take in a certain aura of sadness from a song.

You mean investing too much into useless habits/features?

Yes, you mentioned it before: art hasn’t been around long enough for its survival value to be put to the test.

I agree that the only place where teleology plays a roll is when it comes to people’s choices and motives. I agree that people can choose to put their inherited traits to whatever purpose they want. But when Darwinians talk about the “function” of a certain trait or behavioral tendency, they typically don’t mean that there is any teleology involved. For example, when they say that the function of the heart is to pump blood, they don’t mean it was designed for this purpose–as though it were an essential part of God’s blueprints for man–but that this is what the heart does for us that keeps us alive. The “function”, in other words, of a trait or behavioral tendency is what it did for us in the past, or whatever it continues to do for us now, that helps us survive. Function, in other words, is not teleological but an unintended side effect that happens to be conducive to our survival.

Yes, well, you certainly did a bang up job of staying within the Darwinian parameters. Kudos, Moreno! :laughing: And like I said, I think you offered an excellent response to my question: art simply hasn’t been around long enough to say it serves some kind of survival function (although I think it does anyway: a social function).

But as you know (or maybe you don’t), I don’t mind if threads go off on a tangent, so long as they continue to produce interesting discussion. So what is the teleological variable that you think is left out of most Darwinian accounts of biological evolution?

Yes. Too much investment, in this case, would mean investing so much in art that their genes are not carried forward or their kids cannot survive. Even someone like Gaughan, running off to Tahita, had his children’s genes back in Europe so the genes got to go on even though he was an abandoning artist jerk, at least for that family. He probably threw some genes into Tahiti also.

I am sure a few poor people do overinvest in art and they lose to natural selection. But overall focusing on art is a luxury. So it won’t happen so often when resources are poor. People will focus on food, shelter, etc.

BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY. Those very people, scrabbling to survive will use the faculties I described earlier to help them survive and these very faculties are necessary for art. They will get passed on even if in this particular life a family had to focus on more basic needs.

  1. it’s not a binary issue. It certainly could have been weeded out by natural selection. And if it is weeded out, say in 200,000 thousand years or more, that will not mean the trait was bad. It might simply mean it no longer fits what will then be the current environment. 2) Further the traits that underly art making have been around a long time.

OK, fine. But then hearts are one thing and minds are another. The latter is flexible in ways a heart is not. A heart cannot even act like a liver. But the brain of Stone Age people and was used to organize groups of hunters, say, can now be used to consider issues in topology, play Go, discuss the Jungian symbolism in The Magus, argue that dasein influences all perception and so on. And you can’t pull art out of that. Like here is the art organ. It is for art.

[/quote]
Ever read Rupert Sheldrake. I believe some of his stuff. But actually I think there is consciousness and choice in matter and what comes next often has to do with beliefs about what is good, what is bad, what the mistakes of the past were. Unfortunately all mind has unconscious facets and both these and the conscious facets often make bad interpretations of what is good,w hat the problem was, what would be better and so on. But I think there are many headings, as in this heading in that direction and that heading in that direction withintention to get away or get towards. This affects things but not perfectly. It works within the limitations of the forms present already and also is similar to our control of many things: iow not fully. We (life, everything) try to create certain outcomes. First we have mixed feelings about our goals and then second there are trends we must work with and last we are not totally in control. So we try and this has effects - rather than just random mutation and the results of that - but the whole process is lurching, struggling, confused also.

For individuals, yes. For the species as a whole, and over a long period of time, the environment is far less forgiving. Suppose, for example, we had an artist who was able to make enough money through his art to get by–not much, but enough to survive; now comes a recession. The artist is put out of work. He’s making no money. He’s on the streets. People in other jobs like engineering, law, doctors, are also feeling the crunch but their jobs are too highly valued to be put out of work.

The point is that, yes, to much time and energy invested in artistic pursuits may be detrimental to the individual, but even the individual artist who puts in a lot of hard work and takes care of himself and (perhaps) his family, focusing his energies on trying to make ends meet, is going to have his artistic skills put to the test when the environment becomes harsh and unforgiving. This is why it requires time to see if a certain trait or behavior can do anything for us in terms of survival. The environment has to be given plenty of opportunities to test that trait or behavior, to put it through a few trials, see if it will pull through or get screened out.

That being said, it depends on what kinds of tests are thrown at us, how the environment changes. Rather than a recession, for example, we might see a shift in the economy where art becomes highly demanded, and other professions like engineering, law, medicine, etc. become low in demand (I can’t imagine such a scenario, but it’s not unthinkable in principle). In other words, a trait or behavior really ought to be seen as neutral insofar as it’s not having much of an effect on our survival either way, and it only becomes “good” or “bad” once we enter a new environment that either requires it or is incompatible with it, and there’s no telling what kind of environment that will be.

Yes, if art is something more like a “side effect” of certain genes that permit more basic strategies for survival, then they will be passed on even if those genes are only used for those basic strategies. The key here, I think, is that the organism knows when to use those genes for basic survival strategies and when to use them for more luxurious pursuits like art.

Longer than art itself, you mean?

No, there is no art organ, but it’s definitely a recognizable tendency that runs through all human societies. There’s a whole network of things within us that gives rise to art: certain organs I’m sure contribute a small part (the brain contributing a huge part), but there’s also hormones and other neurotransmitters, there’s neural wirings, there’s genes, there’s life experiences, and so on. But they all culminate in what we recognize as the creation of art (in some people). The function of art is not to be attributed to a particular organ but to the end product, to the tendency, the behavior. The question of function is: what does art do for us that helps us survive? And there may be no answer to this (yet). Though I gather from what you’re saying that this may be the wrong question to ask. Maybe a better question is: what does imagination do for us? Or maybe abstract thinking? If art is a side effect of these, and one that we can control to the extent that we can put it aside when we need to focus more on basic survival strategies, then it’s not art that serves a function but these other abilities instead (though as I said, I think art does serve a function, and it can still be put to the test in future environmental changes).

I’m going to start with this. The rest seems overly packed with information and I think I need to be clear on this first before attempt to interpret the rest. I can hop on board with matter being conscious and having choice, but when you say it comes to beliefs of what is good and what is bad, and what the mistakes of the past were, are you talking about memory?

Art is another means to say the truth or the lie. If science fails (and at last it always fails), then art can be used instead of it (although it can also fail); if philosophy fails (and at last it always fails), then art can be used instead of it (although it can also fail). Art is a mirror of a society and its forms and institutions; art shows the fitness of a society, how a society is in form; so art can be used for analogies.

|=>

Arminius,

Are you speaking of the written word here or paintings or photographs?

I know it all too well. Girls fawning over mediocre or garbage artists shitting out the same, repetitive shit. I might as well put a paint can in my anus and spawn it all over a bar to get laid, its like clockwork, but not just orange, its multicolored.

Gib, this one is deep in hormones , every subject he touches is about evil females. Look back at his posts. I am done with this one.

That one wasn’t about evil females, but females with no taste and men who have no skill.

But I am just getting started with you.

you mean like this guy?

Yeah, I know, I’ve had many encounters with Trixie. Trixie thinks of herself as a he, I think of her as a she, and in reality he/she/it is a beautiful mix of both.

Easy now, Tiger.

Trixie thinks of herself as an entity. I embrace feminity and masculinity. Masculinity is objectively better than feminity, feminity is subjectively better than masculinity. Women are evil, only masculine women are not evil. Evil men are simply not being masculine. Take for instance Illuminati men, they expose their buttholes for satan. The funny thing about feminity, is it feels like it is good, even though it is evil, kind of like how it feels good to be a bitch on her period or how laziness or schizophrenia feels good. That is why people like Kriseaast get so mad, because they feel good even though they are evil, and it is downright hilarious.

As for a tiger I wanted to be one as a child but on further thought they are too endangered so the gods decided such a thing would be risky.

Yes, ultimately, that’s what I think too. I would call you “it” but I’m not sure you’d like that. So I settle for she.

What about this one:

Do you think Siegfried and Roy abuse their tiger?

Check out that sexy chest:

siegfried and roy - sexy chest.jpg

Gods dont have control over the spawn cycles youd just spawn as a random tiger in a given country. the location cannot be narrowed to cities, only countries.

that guy has a sexy chest but his face is not my type neither is the other guy his face looks meaty and gross. i like guys with feminine faces but i dont like fags because they look gross. For example link from zelda has a feminine face but he doesnt look faggy. like the guy who sings californication looks gay and faggy in his music video and its not attractive.

Thats like calling deamons its. Deamons are heshes, or boyladies, not its. Its are like asexual robots

You are a fucking liar.
I said not all females are evil, only all women are evil.

Girls are not women. Tomboys are not women. Ladies are not regular women, krissouth.

Boys and girls are almost the same, boys are slightly more violent and intelligent than girls.
The girls get more of the devil hormone, estrogen, most of them become women.
Girls can handle estrogen in small quantities but in excess they lose their minds.
Why do you think people on periods act like bitches?
Why are pregnant girls more likely to end up in an insane asylum?
Because estrogen is the devils hormone.
Testosterone is also a bad hormone, it makes males succumb to the charms of women.
Both are victims. But estrogen is inherently evil and testosterone is not as evil.
Estrogen causes women to have endless guilt trips and walks with the devil, so many guilt trips that
they start to enjoy the guilt, and enjoy the evil.
Men never enjoy being evil, they hate the effects of testosterone and it makes them angry.
Thats a big difference.
Men hate being treated badly, women love being treated badly.
Thats a big difference.
Women are inherently evil, men are not. Men are just more rude and violent, but they are not downright evil. Only non-masculine men are evil.

Hope that clears things up.

Girls are not women.
Tomboys are females which act like young boys.
Ladies are women which have matured and have culture and intelligence.
Women are the most common category of adult females, and are pure evil.

It seems to me you, Kris, are borderline woman because you don’t seem to know what the word woman is, because it is the embodiment of traits that make the 100 percent woman.

Geez, you really got this God thing figured out, huh?

You mean Anthony Kiedis from the Red Hot Chili Peppers:

He looks kind of ugly for my tastes, but I wouldn’t say faggy.

Sure, but “it” is all that’s left when you’ve ruled out “he” and “she”. I suppose we could use the pronoun “ze” which the feminists are trying to push.

He looked gay in the californication video, that is not the californication video.

The god thing is just random bullshit i made up to counter your notions that I could simply become a tiger.