On Monday, September 11, 2000 8:45 PM Jason Joel Thompson
jasonjthompson@home.com wrote:
> > >> In other words, there is no viewpoint that is being offered
> > >> here by QueenMUSE, just word games and posturing.
> > >
> > > Aha... art!
> >
> > Cute, but then you trivialize art.
>
> Yes, that's sort of what I'm doing.
>
> Or rather: showing that art likes to hide in odd places and tends to crawl
> away under observation.
I disagree. I tend to think art is something specific, but centuries of bad
analysis of the idea have led people to give up on finding out what it is.
> If art is only "word games and
> > posturing," then it takes no great skill and any charlatan is an artist.
>
> I've often thought that much art is akin to illusion: it is evocative of
> something intangible. The realistic approach to a concept or object
> involves our approaching it on a functional level, i.e: What does this
do?
> How can it help me? How can I interact with it? What information does it
> provide?
>
> You rarely look at a painting in this manner, unless you are concerned
that
> the frame might fall on you.
I disagree. People read books, watch films and plays, listen to poetry and
song, look at sculpture and painting and often ask questions that approach
these art objects as if they were real. On one level, art evokes a
realistic attitude. One gets caught up, in a good play, e.g., in the action
and the characters as if they were real. To the degree that illusion is
destroyed, often the art is less powerful, less well done.
Also, "illusion" as a concept is well defined. An illusion is
> I rarely bother to engage people who attack art as being functionally
> useless-- mostly because I agree that they are basically right... except
> insofar as that function is to attack/uplift the realm of the mind.
I disagree with "attack" here, but I think on the function of art, you are
basically right. Art works don't have a direct practical function.
Sculpture is not made to hold up houses and ballets are not strictly for
exercise. (They both can serve those functions, but it would only be
secondary and would not distinguish a ballet from aerobics.)
> Much of art lives in this realm of the mind, and as such, much of art is
> necessarily subjective. It is neither possible nor desirable to create
> absolute classifications for what does and does not qualify as art. One
> person's art is another's toilet.
Here's where I disagree. I think tastes are subjective, but art is not. To
reiterate. One can agree with a certain work being art, yet not like it.
One can also like something, yet not call it art. I like chocolate covered
almonds, but I do NOT think they are art. I do not like Salvador Dali's
paintings, yet I think they ARE art.
Also, given your views on the function of art, you seem to already be closer
to my view than to a purely subjective one.
> I would never say that someone was 'wrong' to call something 'art,' simply
> because I do not think that one can be mistaken. In this, all things are
> potentially art. (And "not"art)
I disagree here also. If you posit a mental function for art, then only
things which can serve that function would be art. You alreayd have a tacit
way of measuring art that is not subjective.
> Art happens somewhere in the space between the object and the mind of the
> observer. We do not call something -great- art because -many- people call
> it art, but rather that -discerning- people call it art. In fact, it is
> anticipated that great art is necessarily challenging and is only
> occassionally embraced by the majority.
This is really only so with Modernist Art and Postmodernist Art. While
taste vary from age to age, from person to person, it's only with the 20th
century that we get works which would only fit an elitist, authoritarian
definition of art -- i.e., "Art is what artists or the art establishment say
is art, objectivity be damned!"
> Actually, I don't really think that "great art" and "art" are really the
> same type of animal at all.
I disagree. Great art is a type of art judged by its quality. (Judgment
can also be, to some extent, freed from tastes. If I judge an art work, I
can still think it's great, yet not like it. I can also like a particular
work, yet not think it's great.)
> Actually, I don't know what art is anymore.
>
> Actually, I thought I knew, but something dribbled out, and that something
> was the knowing.
Now you're just sounding silly.
> It is anticipated that not all people are equipped with, or desire to be
> equipped with, the interface necessary to be impacted by and discerning
of,
> art. I doubt such an interface confers any practical advantage, except in
> briefly barely slightly lightly passing.
This is pure elitism. I disagree completely. In every human culture we
know of, there is art. Not everyone is an artist or a good judge of art.
Not everyone is a good chef or a dietician. This does not mean good
nutrition is totally subjective. I think the need for art is a basic human
need, though a psychological not physical need, else we would have cultures
without art.
> For this reason, I suspect many will not/never concern themselves with art
> and I can't objectively see any reason why this is a "bad thing."
See above. Almost everyone has art in their lives.
> Conversely, possession of such an interface does allow one to participate
> with reality on a different level, with subsequent subjective
> blessings/curses.
I don't think there is some special interface here. I don't think there are
a few enlightened ones who can have the power to perceive art, while the
rest muddle in the dark groping.
> > Also, there's no reason to talk about Extropian or transhumanist art.
>
> I'm not really sure what "transhuman" art is, frankly.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if one can't tell what art is, then,
logically, Extropian or transhumanist art would also be undefineable.
> > Why would emotions run so high if it were only that?
>
> Who knows? We seem to think it's important.
But why? Why would it be important? I think it's because it scratches a
deep itch.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:43 MDT