But the relationship is one way. Logic leads to an informed opinion. Lots of opinion does not create logic.Grunth wrote:Logic is not something that is separate from opinion, which is why there is opinion based on logic (say, as apposed to opinion more based on emotion).LuckyR wrote:
You are entitled to you opinion and likely many would likely share it. Yet it remains an opinion, not logic.
-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 2:34 pm to add the following --
It is, in fact, illogical to separate the two.
What is Art?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is Art?
-
- Posts: 793
- Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm
Re: What is Art?
In your initial response to my opinion you did not address whether as to how it could be not 'informed' as opinion. You merely stated it was opinion and not logic without stating where and why it apparently had no logic. So, so far your opinion of my opinion has yet to display a logic to it.LuckyR wrote:But the relationship is one way. Logic leads to an informed opinion. Lots of opinion does not create logic.Grunth wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Logic is not something that is separate from opinion, which is why there is opinion based on logic (say, as apposed to opinion more based on emotion).
-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 2:34 pm to add the following --
It is, in fact, illogical to separate the two.
The vacant floor first revealed by yourself is still yours, at my invitation, in order to occupy. In other words, by all means, actually make your point. Merely calling something a name is not informed opinion.
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: What is Art?
I think the first onus is on the presenter of an opinion to show the logic. If the showing fails, then the critic has no obligation to point out where and why the opinion was unlogical. (Not illogical, please note the difference.)Grunth wrote: In your initial response to my opinion you did not address whether as to how it could be not 'informed' as opinion. You merely stated it was opinion and not logic without stating where and why it apparently had no logic.
To wit:
Illogical argument:
Kathy is a woman. Abel is a man. Therefore Abel is equivalent to Kathy.
Unlogical argument:
Kathy is interested in classical music. Abel is writing his mother asking for more money. Therefore the captain is 28 years old.
As you can see in these two examples:
- an illogical argument breaks the rules of logic.
- an unlogical argument does not violate the rules of logic, but is irrelevant as to the rules of logic. This irrelavancy is NOT the job of the critic to point out; but the job of the presenter to prove that there is relevancy where there seems to be none.
Please proceed accordingly in your debate.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is Art?
OK, let's back the truck up. There is no universally accepted logic based reason why a Classic artist's work is "superior" art to a Modern artist's work. Though it is a common opinion that Classic art is superior to Modern art. The reason for this is likely because Classic art is more understandable and thus more relatable. Anyone can justify their opinion with some post hoc rationalizations, and there is nothing to stop this person from claiming that these rationalizations are in fact "logic". Yet they remain opinion not logic, despite the rationalizations.Grunth wrote:In your initial response to my opinion you did not address whether as to how it could be not 'informed' as opinion. You merely stated it was opinion and not logic without stating where and why it apparently had no logic. So, so far your opinion of my opinion has yet to display a logic to it.LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
But the relationship is one way. Logic leads to an informed opinion. Lots of opinion does not create logic.
The vacant floor first revealed by yourself is still yours, at my invitation, in order to occupy. In other words, by all means, actually make your point. Merely calling something a name is not informed opinion.
-
- Posts: 793
- Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm
Re: What is Art?
I had done this at post #447 which LuckyR has not challenged, except to say it was opinion and not logic. To merely say my opinion is not logic or logical does not tell me, or anyone, where or how it lacks logic.Renee wrote:I think the first onus is on the presenter of an opinion to show the logic.Grunth wrote: In your initial response to my opinion you did not address whether as to how it could be not 'informed' as opinion. You merely stated it was opinion and not logic without stating where and why it apparently had no logic.
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: What is Art?
Well, one just might add that superior has two qualities: it is relatable and it is hard to produce. This can be viewed as premisses in the argument. The logic then would state that Classical art is more relatable, and it is harder to produce than abstract art. QED, Classical art is superior to modern art.LuckyR wrote: OK, let's back the truck up. There is no universally accepted logic based reason why a Classic artist's work is "superior" art to a Modern artist's work. Though it is a common opinion that Classic art is superior to Modern art. The reason for this is likely because Classic art is more understandable and thus more relatable. Anyone can justify their opinion with some post hoc rationalizations, and there is nothing to stop this person from claiming that these rationalizations are in fact "logic". Yet they remain opinion not logic, despite the rationalizations.
One might disagree with the premisses; but that is not one's only point of logical disagreement. One might also say that producing modern art is just as hard, if not harder, than to produce Classical art. One's supporting statement may be that while Classical artists only needed to copy reality, the modern art producing artist has to depict scenes from the depth of his soul, he has to depict the very ESSENCE of events and objects, with or without any likeness to reality; and that is definitely harder than producing slavishly lifelike images of immediately observed reality.
-
- Posts: 793
- Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm
Re: What is Art?
Only two artist's work were involved in your and my discussion. Da Vinci and Pollock. Not every 'Classic' artist vs every 'modern' artist. In no way have i said or implied that all forms of 'classic art' is superior to all forms of 'modern art'.LuckyR wrote:
OK, let's back the truck up. There is no universally accepted logic based reason why a Classic artist's work is "superior" art to a Modern artist's work. Though it is a common opinion that Classic art is superior to Modern art. The reason for this is likely because Classic art is more understandable and thus more relatable. Anyone can justify their opinion with some post hoc rationalizations, and there is nothing to stop this person from claiming that these rationalizations are in fact "logic". Yet they remain opinion not logic, despite the rationalizations.
You have backed the truck up beyond where it started, perhaps to before said truck rolled off the production line at Ford. I only became aware of truck one post prior to my opening post on this particular subject.
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: What is Art?
I understand that. That is not his job, though. It is your job to show where the logic lies.Grunth wrote: I had done this at post #447 which LuckyR has not challenged, except to say it was opinion and not logic. To merely say my opinion is not logic or logical does not tell me, or anyone, where or how it lacks logic.
-
- Posts: 793
- Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm
Re: What is Art?
The logic lies in my presented logic, thus far. My presented logic thus far has not been challenged by LuckyR, except to say every word of it is not logical.Renee wrote:I understand that. That is not his job, though. It is your job to show where the logic lies.Grunth wrote: I had done this at post #447 which LuckyR has not challenged, except to say it was opinion and not logic. To merely say my opinion is not logic or logical does not tell me, or anyone, where or how it lacks logic.
If you present an aspect of an argument on the subject of the British Empire, and I reply by saying "what you said is nonsense", then is it unreasonable that you ask "what is the nonsense of my post?"?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is Art?
I think you are onto some thing here. How many times have we overheard "my 4 year old could have painted that" from someone viewing abstract art? So while I personally would never use the difficulty of the production of an art piece as a criteria for it's appreciation, I can see that I am likely in the minority on that. Relatability is likely an unspoken and unacknowledged criteria. I certainly brought it into the conversation, but it was as a psychological retrospective explanation for the observation that many "feel" that Classic art is superior to Modern art. Yet while I bet I am right, I doubt many who use that as their reasoning would admit it. Rather my prediction is that those who try to pit one style against another from a superiority standpoint use the sort of post hoc rationalizations that classic rock and roll fans use against hip hop or dance music.Renee wrote:Well, one just might add that superior has two qualities: it is relatable and it is hard to produce. This can be viewed as premisses in the argument. The logic then would state that Classical art is more relatable, and it is harder to produce than abstract art. QED, Classical art is superior to modern art.LuckyR wrote: OK, let's back the truck up. There is no universally accepted logic based reason why a Classic artist's work is "superior" art to a Modern artist's work. Though it is a common opinion that Classic art is superior to Modern art. The reason for this is likely because Classic art is more understandable and thus more relatable. Anyone can justify their opinion with some post hoc rationalizations, and there is nothing to stop this person from claiming that these rationalizations are in fact "logic". Yet they remain opinion not logic, despite the rationalizations.
One might disagree with the premisses; but that is not one's only point of logical disagreement. One might also say that producing modern art is just as hard, if not harder, than to produce Classical art. One's supporting statement may be that while Classical artists only needed to copy reality, the modern art producing artist has to depict scenes from the depth of his soul, he has to depict the very ESSENCE of events and objects, with or without any likeness to reality; and that is definitely harder than producing slavishly lifelike images of immediately observed reality.
-
- Posts: 793
- Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm
Re: What is Art?
Renee wrote:the modern art producing artist has to depict scenes from the depth of his soul.......
The difficulty of producing a complex art piece, the act of making, the intensity required, the mastery, could be seen AS the 'depth of one's soul'........in action!LuckyR wrote:So while I personally would never use the difficulty of the production of an art piece....
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is Art?
Grunth wrote:The logic lies in my presented logic, thus far. My presented logic thus far has not been challenged by LuckyR, except to say every word of it is not logical.Renee wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
I understand that. That is not his job, though. It is your job to show where the logic lies.
If you present an aspect of an argument on the subject of the British Empire, and I reply by saying "what you said is nonsense", then is it unreasonable that you ask "what is the nonsense of my post?"?
Where are you getting nonsense from? If you feel that an opinion (yours) is somehow downgraded or insulted because it is, in fact an opinion, then the tone of the rest of your postings becomes more understandable.
As it happens, there is nothing nonsensical about having an opinion. I even acknowledged that your opinion that my example of a Classic artist (da Vinci) being "superior" to my example of a Modern artist (Pollock) is likely way more popular than it's opposite. So hurray, there are your props. Whoo hoo. Good for you! OTOH, it remains an opinion (yours and lots of other folks, likely a majority of folks as I stipulated).
-
- Posts: 793
- Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm
Re: What is Art?
The 'nonsense' is a different discussion to yours and mine, at that stage within this topic.LuckyR wrote:Grunth wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
The logic lies in my presented logic, thus far. My presented logic thus far has not been challenged by LuckyR, except to say every word of it is not logical.
If you present an aspect of an argument on the subject of the British Empire, and I reply by saying "what you said is nonsense", then is it unreasonable that you ask "what is the nonsense of my post?"?
Where are you getting nonsense from? If you feel that an opinion (yours) is somehow downgraded or insulted because it is, in fact an opinion, then the tone of the rest of your postings becomes more understandable.
Ah, no I did not feel my opinion was downgraded or insulted. It just wasn't addressed in a logical manner. It was only addressed with effectively two words, "not logic".
I used the "what is the nonsense" analogy to also represent an example of a response that would not be logical in manner.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is Art?
Very true, though the basis for what you quoted from me is that to me art appreciation is in the audience (viewing side) not the artist (or the production side)Grunth wrote:Renee wrote:the modern art producing artist has to depict scenes from the depth of his soul.......The difficulty of producing a complex art piece, the act of making, the intensity required, the mastery, could be seen AS the 'depth of one's soul'........in action!LuckyR wrote:So while I personally would never use the difficulty of the production of an art piece....
-
- Posts: 793
- Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm
Re: What is Art?
There is no art for audience to be appreciated unless there are artists appreciating art and their own work. Audience of art and artist are not mutually exclusive.LuckyR wrote:Very true, though the basis for what you quoted from me is that to me art appreciation is in the audience (viewing side) not the artist (or the production side)Grunth wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
(Nested quote removed.)
The difficulty of producing a complex art piece, the act of making, the intensity required, the mastery, could be seen AS the 'depth of one's soul'........in action!
Artists generally trash their own work if they do not appreciate it themselves first. Artist and audience are both, in effect, the audience of the same work.
An artist is always criticizing/critiquing his production and process. An audience critiques and criticizes the product of the artist's process (and also, therefore, the material outcome of the artist's self critique).
Also, the artist very often utilizes or uses feedback from his work's audience toward his ongoing creative processes.
Art work generally taps into the degree with which an audience is themselves creative - an audience's own creativity or potential creativity (the creativity to find their own story within a work - "it speaks to me").
The art form is a conversation between each of these two players.
As to the subject of 'the depth of (the artist's) soul' in his work, this too is as subjective as any other form of analysis as to levels of appreciation in an audience. For example, I happen to think Pollock's art is crap. So, to me, the 'depth of his soul' that I see in his paintings would be one of a shallow depth.
I am therefore not feeling much appreciation for an expression of a shallow depth of soul which I perceive to be the case in a painting by Pollock.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023