Art is anything that makes one proud to be human

angelica

I'd like to add that this metaphysical realm, again, doesn't follow our laws..for example of time and space....so it's not "off somewhere"...rather it's everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It's not up in the sky...it's within and around us and at the same time not around us, in each moment. And yet, at that level of reality, "moments" do not even exist. This "realm" just Is. It is ongoing Isness.

Heineken Helen

cutback wrote:

totally agree....there's a lot of "great art" out there that frankly does nothing for me....i understand why it should but that doesn't mean it will connect to me emotionally....

Same here... I've been to some of the great art museums... the louvre... the uffizi...and found it all kinda blah to be honest

I believe art is an expression of the artist and their interpretation of their thoughts and feelings. I can only interpret this in my own way... but a canvas is no longer blank when it's full of somebody elses expressions. You can never know what the original interpretation was actually supposed to be. Music is one of the only forms of art that I can feel... but I think sound differs greatly to vision. I would much rather go out and look at a field or a beach than look at what was going on in somebody elses life at any particular time.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I personally feel that the forms...the archetypes can exist beyond humans, yes. All potential everything...By that I mean without human existence they can still exist, yes.

In David Bohm's science theory, it's the non-physical plane - the implicate order - from which the explicate order unfolds from.

What most people can't grasp is this otherworldly realm because it does not have correlates that we comprehend. It doesn't follow our laws of physical matter.

The key 'problem' in your question, is you are asking "if something is created by humans, without it's creator can it exist?" I am not saying it is created by humans. I am saying it exists as form prior to human existence, or human comprehension of it's potentiality. I see that it exists as a "form" in a metaphysical/Divine realm. I don't see it that humans create art or truth. I believe art and Truth come from the Source of all, and humans then manifest this pre-existing potenial.

Where we differ in is who we attribute the creation to, apparently.

but Art isnt a form angelica. by definition a form can have only one property. as im sure youre aware Art is an amalgam of more than one form(though not exclusively) coming together through its creator to manifest as ONE work of Art. yes it is humans that create Art, however i never said the forms used in that creation came from humans.

Jeremy1012

Heineken Helen wrote:

Same here... I've been to some of the great art museums... the louvre... the uffizi...and found it all kinda blah to be honest

I believe art is an expression of the artist and their interpretation of their thoughts and feelings. I can only interpret this in my own way... but a canvas is no longer blank when it's full of somebody elses expressions. You can never know what the original interpretation was actually supposed to be. Music is one of the only forms of art that I can feel... but I think sound differs greatly to vision. I would much rather go out and look at a field or a beach than look at what was going on in somebody elses life at any particular time.

Why do you NEED to know what the original interpretation was supposed to be to appreciate it though? Art is an act of communication between the artist and the audience, a mutual one, not a didactic one. You clearly appreciate visual aesthetic beauty in beaches and fields so why not in a painting?

I guess a lot of visual art is self-conscious and contrived but even in the most self-conscious art you can find accidental or hidden beauty in it that perhaps even the artist never saw. That's what I find interesting and exciting about it. I've also been left totally underwhelmed by supposed masterpieces but profoundly affected by the most seemingly insignificant part of another. I love that

Of course, as you say, there's nothing particularly interesting to gain from just learning about where the artist was at the particular point, emotionally or whatever, from their art. Art should never be documentary.

libragirl

chadwick wrote:

i'm with ya
i'm not feelin that quote either
in fact
i think it's the words of someone trying very hard to be intellectually sound
and failing

yep

Heineken Helen

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Why do you NEED to know what the original interpretation was supposed to be to appreciate it though? Art is an act of communication between the artist and the audience, a mutual one, not a didactic one. You clearly appreciate visual aesthetic beauty in beaches and fields so why not in a painting?

I guess a lot of visual art is self-conscious and contrived but even in the most self-conscious are you can find accidental or hidden beauty in it that perhaps even the artist never saw. That's what I find interesting and exciting about it. I've also been left totally underwhelmed by supposed masterpieces but profoundly affected by the most seemingly insignificant part of another. I love that

Of course, as you say, there's nothing particularly interesting to gain from just learning about where the artist was at the particular point, emotionally or whatever, from their art. Art should never be documentary.

because I'm generally not interested in taking a moment from somebody elses life and making it my own. I want to know the inspiration of the piece and how it came to be what it is... but that's just me and my inquisitive nature.

I generally don't believe that the best art is created for the audience... but that the best art comes from within the artist and, for whatever reason, is something they just have to do.

I'm not saying all art is crap but I don't see the big deal in a lot of it. And again, what often makes a piece of art 'a masterpiece' is the history of it, the reason for it and the search for the answer to the mystery surrounding it. BUT there is a huge difference between beauty in nature and beauty in art :eek:

catefrances

Heineken Helen wrote:

because I'm generally not interested in taking a moment from somebody elses life and making it my own. I want to know the inspiration of the piece and how it came to be what it is... but that's just me and my inquisitive nature.

I generally don't believe that the best art is created for the audience... but that the best art comes from within the artist and, for whatever reason, is something they just have to do.

I'm not saying all art is crap but I don't see the big deal in a lot of it. And again, what often makes a piece of art 'a masterpiece' is the history of it, the reason for it and the search for the answer to the mystery surrounding it. BUT there is a huge difference between beauty in nature and beauty in art :eek:

i agree.

so..about your visit to the uffizzi... did you see botticelli's judiths return from the enemy camp? that is my favouritest painting. streets ahead of the moaning lisa if you ask me. oh to see it in real life.

Jeremy1012

Heineken Helen wrote:

because I'm generally not interested in taking a moment from somebody elses life and making it my own. I want to know the inspiration of the piece and how it came to be what it is... but that's just me and my inquisitive nature.

I generally don't believe that the best art is created for the audience... but that the best art comes from within the artist and, for whatever reason, is something they just have to do.

I'm not saying all art is crap but I don't see the big deal in a lot of it. And again, what often makes a piece of art 'a masterpiece' is the history of it, the reason for it and the search for the answer to the mystery surrounding it. BUT there is a huge difference between beauty in nature and beauty in art :eek:

I totally see where you're coming from and kind of agree but I'm not sure that to get something out of someone's creative expression of their life, you have to make it your own. There's a lot of music and art that I greatly appreciate but would sure as hell never want to live through There's a lot to be said for admiring from a distance

As for the huge difference between beauty in nature and beauty in art, of course you are right. I like that sometimes you find overlaps though

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

i agree.

so..about your visit to the uffizzi... did you see botticelli's judiths return from the enemy camp? that is my favouritest painting. streets ahead of the moaning lisa if you ask me. oh to see it in real life.

I've no idea what I saw Cate I'm pretty sure I just spent the entire time wondering why I was wasting time walking around this building looking at pictures when I should REALLY be in the pub

catefrances

Heineken Helen wrote:

I've no idea what I saw Cate I'm pretty sure I just spent the entire time wondering why I was wasting time walking around this building looking at pictures when I should REALLY be in the pub

hmm. were you travelling with people?

Jeremy1012

Oh and Cate, while we're on the subject of art, love your signature. Yeats is one of my favourites

catefrances

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Oh and Cate, while we're on the subject of art, love your signature. Yeats is one of my favourites

it was apt when i discovered it. interestingly enough my da returned from a trip to ireland recently and he told me hed bought me a book. it was a book on yeats.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

but Art isnt a form angelica. by definition a form can have only one property. as im sure youre aware Art is an amalgam of more than one form(though not exclusively) coming together through its creator to manifest as ONE work of Art. yes it is humans that create Art, however i never said the forms used in that creation came from humans.

I see art as a form in the sense I am using the word form - as an archetype, concept or potential. This, for me is illustrated by the word "art" that encompasses all ways of manifesting that which is the one thing....art.

Again, the metaphysical realm is not phsyical. It is meta, or beyond physical. It is beyond the "definitions" you cite about form only having one property. In this realm, Love, for example, doesn't need enough room to house all the love in the world, because this is a dimension beyond time/space, or "room".

edit: these forms or the form of art can also be understood as an "essence". The essence of art as a whole is the essence of art as a whole. Just as the essence of reality is the essence of reality. Even though such essences manifest in myriad ways, physically.

"What becomes most prominent in the middle dialogues is the idea that knowledge comes of grasping unchanging forms or essences, paired with the attempts to investigate such essences." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

hmm. were you travelling with people?

well I was with a friend who's from Pisa. She was showing me around.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I see art as a form in the sense I am using the word form - as an archetype, concept or potential. This, for me is illustrated by the word "art" that encompasses all ways of manifesting that which is the one thing....art.

Again, the metaphysical realm is not phsyical. It is meta, or beyond physical. It is beyond the "definitions" you cite about form only having one property. In this realm, Love, for example, doesn't need enough room to house all the love in the world, because this is a dimension beyond time/space, or "room".

oh theyre not my definitions... theyre plato's, you should know that. and the basic premise behind forms is that they do have only one property. thats their beauty and it is this property that they are known for. it is unchanging, though it can be manifested in different ways.

i dont see love as a form. . it follows no rules. it is too intangible a thing for that.

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

i dont see love as a form. . it follows no rules. it is too intangible a thing for that.

Much like art

angelica

catefrances wrote:

oh theyre not my definitions... theyre plato's, you should know that. and the basic premise behind forms is that they do have only one property. thats their beauty and it is this property that they are known for. it is unchanging, though it can be manifested in different ways.

i dont see love as a form. . it follows no rules. it is too intangible a thing for that.

Art has only one property. The property of art.
It doesn't have the property of apple pie for example. Or the property of happiness. It has the property of art.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

i dont see love as a form. . it follows no rules. it is too intangible a thing for that.

Essences tend to be intangible.

Platos forms are interchangeable with essences. If you continue to understand these concepts through physical laws, you will not understand the concepts.

angelica

Heineken Helen wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i dont see love as a form. . it follows no rules. it is too intangible a thing for that.

Much like art

Very nice!

Jeremy1012

catefrances wrote:

i dont see love as a form. . it follows no rules. it is too intangible a thing for that.

Heineken Helen wrote:

Much like art

I DEFINITELY agree with these