Post Number:#62 November 25th, 2011, 11:04 pm
Post Number:#63 November 28th, 2011, 7:30 pm
Homicidal Pacifist wrote:"What is Art?"
Creative expression no matter the forum, type, or quality of content...
Or perhaps I'm reading far too much into things and taking things way too literally.
Post Number:#64 November 28th, 2011, 10:51 pm
Post Number:#65 November 30th, 2011, 9:53 am
Logic4All wrote:This is also very similar to Kant, because as Kant says, in our first moment we see something as being beautiful, once we are past this first moment it is no longer beautiful and it turns into something that we see as good. This seems true (at least from a personal stand point) because I rarely focus on art solely on its beauty, almost any philosopher would look past this and ask what is it trying to convey? All this to say that function is a key part of art, the function is to convey something beyond itself.
Post Number:#66 November 30th, 2011, 11:00 am
Post Number:#67 December 2nd, 2011, 9:52 pm
Therefore I would say that the way you use beauty is more like the good. It is fulfilling a concept that the artist has of what he feels will please people. Therefore, it will point to something, this does not mean a social effect as you said. This means that the work of art is representing something other than “this thing is a painting”
Post Number:#68 December 3rd, 2011, 3:49 pm
Post Number:#69 December 4th, 2011, 3:02 am
Logic4All wrote:I understand this is certainly not a discussion of Kant, however I’m inclined to believe your interpretation of Kant is flawed. When he describes our moments of experience what he defines as good should not be taken in a moral or ethical way. What he means by "good" is simply that it fulfills [our] views of what something should be. If a piece of art strikes us as beautiful we do not dwell in that; we try and see why we feel [it's] beautiful. The good we see in art is what you would attribute to colours, brush strokes, and form. Hence the good can be conceptualized.
In response to the statement: why can’t art be made for [beauty's sake]? It certainly can. However, by simply making this claim shows a misrepresentation of Kant’s version of beauty and yours. “... As it were, an agent of beauty?” The reason I say this is, that if beauty – according to Kant – [can't] be conceptualized, how can you make a piece of art strictly to be beautiful?
Therefore I would say that the way you use beauty is more like the good. It is fulfilling a concept that the artist has of what he feels will please people. Therefore, it will point to something, this does not mean a social effect as you said. This means that the work of art is representing something other than “this thing is a painting.”
Groktruth wrote:Biologists, looking at adaptation, see our eye for beauty to be a search for that which enhances fitness. A beautiful person is one that is healthier (More symmetric features, see the research By Robert Trivers), is likelyto produce more and healthier children. A more beautiful scene depicts a habitat where we would have the best luck finding food, shelter, or safety from predators. But, "inspired" art might also try to catch spiritually relevant fitness, truth, say, which spiritually is thought to set us free from spiritual slavery.
Post Number:#70 December 4th, 2011, 9:25 am
Post Number:#72 December 4th, 2011, 10:35 pm
Logic4All wrote:Very nice counter Stirling, I believe we are getting closer to the same idea of art. One point I would like to bring up is the idea that art is merely subjective. Your description of only humans being able to notice beauty is very similar to Kant’s; perhaps you took in more than you thought!
However, I think it is too easy to define art as being subjective. Certainly beauty is a different argument, however what we define as good art is very common. I believe that this is a case where for some reason we value everyone’s opinion when we shouldn’t.
If we were to look to Hume, and [look] over what he says about this, I think it would put a nice spin on this argument. Hume argued that there is in general, a large number that agree on what is beautiful and what is art. He argued that if people have a conflicting view it is because perhaps they are not as experienced with art, or they bring a prejudice to the experience. One must view art in the context the artist intended to view it, and in doing so one is being generous to the artwork.
I have always found it interesting that art is one of the view arguments where the claim that everyone sees it differently holds, when of course everyone’s opinion shouldn’t necessarily be valued.
Bellakristy wrote:'Art' may perhaps be understood as a human expression that reflects the nature of God that persists from within.
Post Number:#73 December 5th, 2011, 6:31 am
Post Number:#74 December 5th, 2011, 11:40 am
Post Number:#75 December 5th, 2011, 3:40 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
The November book of the month is On the Internet by Hubert L. Dreyfus. Pick it up, read it and discuss it with us as a group!