How would you define art?

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
Post Reply
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Stirling ,
I too would rule out popularity as a criterion .I would also rule out market value of originals as criterion.

What you are describing 'observing the object for what it is' is what I was taught to call 'formal criticism'. The little that I can understand of this is that to criticise the form of a work with no reference to its meaning is largely to comment on human psychology. Thus, e.g. I daresay that that the human brain is inherently satisfied with golden section proportion.Or I daresay that it is inherently exciting to view intense red and intense green in juxtaposition. Then there is op-art of which red/ green vibes are a one example. Personally I dislike having my perceptions worked upon by that op art which 'makes' whirling patterns.

Perhaps you can help me to understand abstract art.That is, art from which meanings have been abstracted.

I have already said that a work of art is partly defined by the criterion of skillful making.But I also said, and I hold to this, that a work of art is also defined by the scope and depth of its truth and honesty as transmitted from the artist as interpreter of the culture to the receivers who are participators in the culture looking to the artist to interpret it skillfully, and to educate them towards new insights.

To confine my interest to abstract art is like confining my sexual interest to incest.Art is or should be about learning and not simply descriptive of inherent psychology.

While interpretative artists have always used psychological tricks such as two-eyedness, hue juxtapositions, and perspective, these have traditionally been used to convey meanings more dramatically. To this extent I am traditional. I think thta abstract art had to be done but that it is a cul de sac.
Socialist
Noshitsherlock
Posts: 93
Joined: October 21st, 2010, 10:46 pm

Post by Noshitsherlock »

#111 Pia if they never write another hit again this song is timeless and my favorite of all time.


Bitter Sweet Symphony by the Verve this song is living art. Kasper OP you ask how do you define art? the answer is you LIVE it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo

edited. ps it was written by the Stones I should have realised such talent can`t be subjugated to one hit wonders.
User avatar
Stirling
Posts: 91
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
Location: Pullman, WA

Post by Stirling »

To Belinda,

Sorry for the wait. School's still on and finals are coming up.

I think we should clarify just what we're intend when we say "meaning." For large portions of any conversation on aesthetics, the idea of the subject will most certainly sway the the inner problems, molding and remolding the problems that eventually the subject is more expressed and understood than the problem is. That is very much the problem, a problem that is admittedly very hard to get around: that what it is we ultimately say about the topic, or the thing in question, is more to describing the the subject as thing or in relation to it, than just the thing itself. Can you see the problem? If we decide to attribute "meanings" to things in argumentation, it severely limits us and ultimately bungles any attempt at coming to an objective definition.

If, on the other hand, we're consider "meaning" as "function," as what the object in question is "supposed to do" - as a hammer is made to crush nails into wood in the process of building a home, for instance - then we may understandably look at at something and think quite clearly: what is it's use? But we must still not take into consideration what we want from it, as that has no interest to the definition and function of the object as such.

And then, if we take an object as something apart from its creator, its place and so on, and see it, as it were, in an existence where there is only it, we can analyze the properties which make it what it is and move on therewith. And I do think that that would be a good place to start.

And this does not mean taking a psychological approach; more scientific than that: the subject is really not that important here.

So then, from last to first: What does the object consist of; what makes it that object? What do we use it for? And with that, what justifies its function, what justifies its definition, or what justifies its subsequent concept?

I wouldn't call it abstract art. Art is as it is without our concise understanding of it.

And I have to disagree with your statement, "[That] a work of art is partly defined by the criterion of skillful making." I think it has nothing to do with it. Most things, certainly all important things, are made with levels of skill, whether it was by intention or not. Again, it does not matter that a person has made the paper clip, but that the paper clip exists at all in its illustrious and voluptuous form. One might ask, What is a paper clip without its maker? It's still a paper clip.

And you bring up this idea of "truth and honesty" in art again. Eventually I think it will happen that we agree to disagree. Because what you're describing is in terms of truth in art is: what does it mean to me? You are after your own subjective, emotional understanding than an understanding of what the art is. I cannot accompany you there; my idea of truth in art will certainly be different than yours and a pointless argument will undoubtedly ensue.

Neither do I think an audience has anything to do with the art. Imagine an object which is art that has never been seen by someone who can be called an audience member. Is it still art? Have the attributes of the object art gone missing or left because because nobody has looked on its beauty? It is not a qualifier for art that it be adored; and that it exists is enough for it.

I similarly don't think that art necessarily needs to be about anything. Art does not require of us to be obedient students; it doesn't even require of us to be in its presence. Art is not by trade a teacher; it is also not be trade a student. It is just an object which, by the grace of its ability to be there, enjoyable. What gains and understandings we get from our enjoyment has no meaning to the art, nor to anything else, but only to ourselves and our compassionate loved ones who may by necessity spark an interest.

And I can't think how a piece of art might be honest in this case unless it means the same thing as "truth" or it means being open and expressive. One would think otherwise that to have the ability to be truthful one must be gloriously juxtaposed with the ability to untruthful. Whether art can be untruthful, and in what context, I can't be so sure yet.

From here, I must relinquish the idea that the objective is a dead end, a "cul de sac" of sorts. Rather it is a means to a definite, or so we hope. If we go into the more romantic world of the communal gasp at the newly existent world of an idea, where they say, "Ah! That is art, and nothing could surpass it"; or where one stands alone in front of the most beautiful thing in the world and we learn something about ourselves and cry at its ability to give us pleasure - and that is what gives us our understanding of the aesthetic. It is then that we have fallen into a dead end, for no real truth can come from that. Only a fine and spiritual understanding of ourselves, which means nothing to the topic of beauty.

From that I think I must submit that emotion has nothing to do with art. It's a radical stance but I think a necessary one; it has been attributed to art for so long it's hard to distinguish one from the other sometimes. And neither does it matter that it invokes emotion; for one can imagine in many cases a piece of art invoking nothing, and where it did invoke something, boredom and anxiousness are the most likely culprits - two feelings which can be invoked by anything of relative disinterest. And, again, what are feelings but a matter of one's subjective impulses.

So, what is art?

---

For those of you who are interested in what I like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ntxMbQu ... re=related
"Live slow, die eventually, leave an indifferently attractive corpse. That's my motto." - David Mitchell

"By a sarcasm of law and phrase they were freemen." - Mark Twain
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Stirling wrote
Whether art can be untruthful, and in what context, I can't be so sure yet.
I mean that untruthful art is art that is made to serve the maker's self and results in no public benefit whatsoever.

This leaves a lot of artefacts within the fold of art.In addition to benefit to others a work of art carries some deliberate message from maker to receiver.If the message that an artefact carries from maker to receiver is not deliberately put there then it is not a work of art. For instance some antique object, say a famous Victorian railway station, is intended to be functional and it's also delibeately intended to carry the message 'we are proud of railway technology and we want to celebrate it'. Therefore the station has a lot of cast iron decorative work and the whole of it looks like a cathedral in glass and iron and steel.It's a work of art.We have honest workmanship, Victorian railway age pride and optimism, and the unwitting message to people in 2010 about the nature of some Victorian values.

For instance take a house made in the deco style, an icon of the deco style, functional and clean lines, and taking some stylistics from ocean liners or from the contemporary popularity of Egyptology, this is proclaimed a work of art and worth conserving because it typifies some of what is best about the period and is also well made in the technical sense.Here we have honest workmanship, the deliberate message about the values of the nineteen thirties and the value to the admirer in 2010 of this insight into thirties values.

It's possible that there is also intrinsic beauty in these two forms that I instanced. But intrinsic beauty I guess is a psychological matter, and I have no opinion about this. Even the golden section which is well known as an intrinsic beauty of form may be beautiful due to human psychology or it may be broadly cultural.
Socialist
Iambiguous
Posts: 219
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 1:38 pm

Post by Iambiguous »

Someone once said that art helps us to explore the least untrue lies.

Sounds about right. Art is basically a subjunctive experience. And this is often beyound the reach of philosophy.

Emile Cioran:

If everything is a lie, is illusory, then music itself is a lie, but the superb lie.....As long as you listen to it, you have the feeling that it is the whole universe, that everything ceases to exist, there is only music. But then when you stop listening, you fall back into time and wonder, 'well, what is it? What state was I in?' You had felt it was everything, and then it all disappeared.
Mick
Posts: 47
Joined: December 4th, 2010, 4:38 am

Post by Mick »

Belinda wrote:Anyone can call anything a 'work of art', ther is no law against this.I am trying to define 'work of art'. I choose the criterion of truth and honesty in portraying the human condition because a work of art is a great thing that influences people to be compassionate and reasoning.
Sorry to drag up an old post, but I'm a latecomer to this discussion and Belinda said something that is similar to my own view.

I agree that a work of art is an honest portrayal of the human condition, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the portrayal should be truthful as well as honest. It is possible for two works of art to contradict each other in the alleged truth that they each portray.

Belinda used Nazi works of art as an example of something untruthful. In my own opinion, a Nazi work is still art if it is an honest expression of the artist's (false) ideology.
User avatar
Keith Russell
Posts: 897
Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm

Post by Keith Russell »

Belinda wrote:I mean that untruthful art is art that is made to serve the maker's self and results in no public benefit whatsoever.
By "no public benefit whatsoever", do you mean art that only reaches a small audience, maybe less than ten people? Or art that reaches a slightly larger audience, maybe less than fifty folks? What about art that reaches a few thousand folks?

A few thousand people isn't "the public" (the current population of the US is around 250 million).

Still, I can't imagine a work of art that isn't going to appeal to at least a few hundred folks, out of 250 million.

How many people does a work need to reach, before you'll consider it valid? (Or, can you offer an example of a work of art that has "no public benefit whatsoever"?)
Even the golden section which is well known as an intrinsic beauty of form may be beautiful due to human psychology or it may be broadly cultural.
But how would you tell the difference? Whatever "cultural" value a thing may have, could be due to the fact that our particular "cultures" could result--directly--from human psychology...
User avatar
Subramanian1956
Posts: 43
Joined: November 23rd, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Palakkad, Kerala, India
Contact:

Re: How would you define art?

Post by Subramanian1956 »

Kasper wrote:What is art?

What makes it so beautifull to us ?

And what is the purpose of art in evolutionary sense ?
Though life as a whole is an Art, when it comes to presentability on stage, poetry, paintings, literary works etc; some kind of sorting work, editing work is required. Though presentability is an individual perception, our social and religious views, our level of humour, satirism etc all come into play. It is an intricate network. It is better to leave for the viewer to define art rather than the creator trying to define Art. The appealing way of truth in a given theme rather determines the definition of Art. For example, M F Hussain might say that his paintings are full of Art, this and that but an onlooker might throw his paintings to dustbin. This is a universal situation.

From the point of any viewer, if Art reveals the true nature of life and the indwelling spirit, if he feels that the message is given within the framework of his social, moral and religious beliefs, then he considers that that Art is beautiful. A naked woman may be a beautiful artwork but if a viewer considers that it doesn't fit to his social and religious taste, then, that art may also reach dustbin.

According to me, the purpose of art in the revolutionary sense is this - does it reveal any higher dimension of life to man? Does it stir the heart of people beyond the five senses? Does it awaken the consciousness of man from mundane levels for a purposeful end?
For the last four decades I am very much influenced by the philosophy of Swamy Vivekananda. He was a true philosopher, humanist and a prophet. I only wish the world could absorb him in the truest sense.
Iambiguous
Posts: 219
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 1:38 pm

Post by Iambiguous »

Emile Cioran:

If everything is a lie, is illusory, then music itself is a lie, but the superb lie.....As long as you listen to it, you have the feeling that it is the whole universe, that everything ceases to exist, there is only music. But then when you stop listening, you fall back into time and wonder, 'well, what is it? What state was I in?' You had felt it was everything, and then it all disappeared.

Though music is the most sublime art, in my view, this applies to all mediums of artistic expression as well.

Someone once said that, "art is the least untrue lie".

Sounds about right.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Regarding Keith Russell's #125

I mean that art that benefits 'the public' is art that tells the truth to other people besides the maker of the art.I dont think it matters much how many people are benefitted because minorities often see more truth than a majority, and the majority catches up with avant garde some time later.
When I say 'the truth' I mean truths that are of concern to others besides the artist. I think of art as communication and as what binds together people into a society that shares a common culture. I believe that art has functioned like this all through recorded history, and any work that purports to be art but does not fulfil the function of expressing some common cultural value is not worth calling 'art'. Decoration, maybe.

I think that cultural values are the result of human nature interacting with whatever environment the social group finds itself in. By environment I mean climate, terrain, state of technological knowledge, public health and causes of ill health,vegetation and food animals, fertility especially of women and relations with foreign groups. The art and the religion will follow upon the basic material necessities of life and have to be invented in order for the social group to keep together in spirit.
Socialist
User avatar
Subramanian1956
Posts: 43
Joined: November 23rd, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Palakkad, Kerala, India
Contact:

Post by Subramanian1956 »

Iambiguous wrote:Emile Cioran:

If everything is a lie, is illusory, then music itself is a lie, but the superb lie.....As long as you listen to it, you have the feeling that it is the whole universe, that everything ceases to exist, there is only music. But then when you stop listening, you fall back into time and wonder, 'well, what is it? What state was I in?' You had felt it was everything, and then it all disappeared.

Though music is the most sublime art, in my view, this applies to all mediums of artistic expression as well.

Someone once said that, "art is the least untrue lie".

Sounds about right.
More than trying to define art, let us enjoy art. Isn't that enough. Let us enjoy music, poetry, literature, dance and various forms of art. Definiions can often mar the aestheic sense of man. Definitions go only upto the level of intelligence whereas pure enjoyment goes with the level of heart.
For the last four decades I am very much influenced by the philosophy of Swamy Vivekananda. He was a true philosopher, humanist and a prophet. I only wish the world could absorb him in the truest sense.
Morly33
Posts: 1
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 7:02 pm

Post by Morly33 »

hi,
friends
i am new one here.

thanks
User avatar
Stirling
Posts: 91
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
Location: Pullman, WA

Post by Stirling »

Subramanian1956,
More than trying to define art, let us enjoy art. Isn't that enough[?] Let us enjoy music, poetry, literature, dance and various forms of art. [Definitions] can often mar the aestheic sense of man. Definitions go only upto the level of intelligence whereas pure enjoyment goes with the level of heart.
I don't think this is true at all. We do, and can, enjoy music, dance, poetry and literature, and all the other forms of art - insofar as we're able - and we do further enjoy interpreting art, defining it: digging around in the flurries of the emotional connections we have with art and trying to describe these emotions (among other related properties) that we can in effect, cum compos mentis, describe our creations. And further that we can know the nature of art as such: its functions and so forth. It seems a very basic kind of inquiry.

Of course, observing the object art as opposed to observing the feeling of art are two things I wish could be separated; but they are so completely intertwined - in the creation of the given works and the subsequent showcase and audience sensum - it seems impossible to think that the object art is anything but emotion in one form or another (I lament the poetical nature of that statement). And then I would posit - and here, talking to fellow philosophers, and paying homage to our old Platonic deity - that we cannot expect to find real worth in our arts if we don't examine them - to my mind as objects of our own emotional "conceptualizations," or items of our unique "sensibilities."

This is somewhat of a turn from my (rigid) ideas before. But I cannot think of a way to answering those questions; they are beyond my abilities. So I bring my philosophy back to earth.

Belinda,
I dont think it matters much how many people are benefitted because minorities often see more truth than a majority, and the majority catches up with avant garde some time later.
How do you figure this? Can you post a study which supports this claim? I find it hard to believe that minorities - saying this in a "maximal" way, as I assume you might be - will often "see more truth" than majorities. What minorities will often see more of, I can postulate, is poverty, tragedy - unless you're talking about the minority of the rich as opposed to racial minorities. But what truth can be found in racial minorities that isn't in affect of there wanton footing in ecstasy and despair, their unfortunate incongruousness; and what truth can be found in the minority rich if not through their ignorance and "utopafantic" lust for more? I cannot think that minorities "know more" of truth just because they're minorities. However, I would be more willing to commit to the claim that more truth can be found in individual persons who take upon their lives the curiosity and will to know, to perfect; in individual persons who find in themselves the religious passion (rather, "spiritual" passion ["Breaking the Spell," Dennett]) to worship the almighty and unknown deity, Truth, than any momentous grouping of people, abetting toward one cause and another - because they need to, because they can't live without it. These individuals are, assuredly, a minority in the world - at least for those who really wish to find the truths as opposed to their own subjective truths.

For the rest of what you say, I find it feasible. How can I disagree that the function of art isn't but a matter of communication, one way or another: perhaps a spiritual, deep emotional communication; or maybe even the shallowest communication. However, I cannot submit that "truth in art" is a cultural phenomenon. I do, however, think that art is more so an individual phenomenon, and "truth in art," too, may be an individual phenomenon. (Something to consider later.)

Of course, individuals can be affected by their culture, and so their art changes; but the art may not be host to the culture which bred it, but rather to the individual which nourished it. And one may think, then, that any "truth in art" must be with consideration to the individual (including the artist) who, at least momentarily, sees the art as something unique and attractive; something that plays of preset emotional complex, individual sensibilities; something that he relates to: this is the "truth in art."

The nature of this kind of "truth," however, is inherently subjective, and one may think therefore that this "truth in art" is more akin to "personal truth in art." Except we're brought back to the function of art - which is, one may think, explicitly human. Considering this seemingly subjective notion of art, we can nevertheless say that the object "art" is something created for (1) satisfying the artist's will and (2) entertaining an audience of interested people. The subjective nature of art is essential to the object art; subjectiveness and art are, in a sense, inter opus.

But what of the artist? Might he have a say in the "purpose" of his art?

Classical music is, unfortunately but obviously, a dying genre. And yet there are those who compose it still - "intellectual" music, atonal music, chance and New Complexities (Ferneyhough, for instance). But it goes unheard: people ignore that kind of music and might even find it distasteful. But the composer doesn't; for what he has written is a sound that is - so he believes - a part of him: he's writing "the sound of his soul"; he's describing himself, his "spiritual self," in the only language he finds fitting - and so too, a language he understands, se profundis. But it nevertheless plays to no cultural fanfare; if nothing else it's a dejected whisper, beyond the far cry of Pluto. Who would want to hear this disgruntled, angry academic sounding music? But it is a persistent motion in the world of creation: and the artist its wholesome and cherishing demigod. And so the function of the music as it is - without anyone or any significant amount of people having listened to it - is restricted to the sensibilities of the composer, and the audience - those "other people" - are left in another world, as "just those other people." It is perhaps rightly so that he may have no intention whatever - given his understanding of the typical dislike of his art - that its creation is for his benefit and his benefit alone.

So what can we say, then? Is the creation that never gets heard still an "art"?- But only in the heart of its creator.- His art is "decoration" because he necessarily besets himself to fulfill his own individual function than the function of his culture - those other people that birthed him? I'm rather sure that little classical composer is making a sad panda face.

The work only heard by its creator; by the creator who only wants it to be heard by himself: What is the function of the work which is only appreciated by the sole, lonely, "powerless" demigod? That its creation is only meant to entertain the "soul" of its creator. The primary function of this work is to its master - until he wishes to have it "benefit" the rest of the world, at which time it takes on a whole new function: to the entertainment of others, and the composer.

I would say, then, that the "truth in art," with respect to its function, depends on its circumstance. At once, in the creation of the art its "truth" is with respect to its creator; and then, with its exposition, its "truth" is in the crowds.
I think that cultural values are the result of human nature interacting with whatever environment the social group finds itself in. By environment I mean climate, terrain, state of technological knowledge, public health and causes of ill health,vegetation and food animals, fertility especially of women and relations with foreign groups. The art and the religion will follow upon the basic material necessities of life and have to be invented in order for the social group to keep together in spirit.
If you are to submit that an object can only be considered "art" if it relates to the "values" of its cultural brothers, I'm going to submit that you aren't a person if you don't conform to our moral codes.- But of course, "what makes up you is more than what you do," as that odd rhymer once said.

Given the wonderful dissidence of our "cultures," to say that art is merely a virtue-born cultural thing of one "artist," or a people, how can we yet decide that art is art? Or maybe our definition - not to use that word with any seriousness - is wide enough that the global environment, of which we all share, is to be considered in the effects of the creations all of which have some emotional and psychical impact? But then, what doll and what punching bag aren't in the death-defying arena of our primal artificialis?
"Live slow, die eventually, leave an indifferently attractive corpse. That's my motto." - David Mitchell

"By a sarcasm of law and phrase they were freemen." - Mark Twain
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Belinda,

Quote:
I dont think it matters much how many people are benefitted because minorities often see more truth than a majority, and the majority catches up with avant garde some time later.
Stirling, I justify this by referrence to avant garde art generally whether it is painting pictures, novels, poetry, music, dance or whatever else we can call 'art'. The multitude does not catch on to the merits of an idiom or style until it has been around for a time and only after the more popular media have commented on it or portrayed it.
Rarely, a poet such as Wordsworth or a composer such as Bach(church music) elevated the popular art into high art, but then the hoi polloi don't associate their feelings with it any more. This is because high art cannot be understood unless it follows upon education into the idiom.

There is so much by way of illustration of this that I am puzzled to know which to select. Think of Picasso and abstract painting for instance.
Socialist
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021