Art is anything that makes one proud to be human

catefrances

decides2dream wrote:

all is subjective eh?
as are most discussions.

beyond that, staying with the 'art IS' theory......in my mind, why not? just because it IS, doesn't mean there can't be descriptors of IT. adjectives are always welcome.

for me, i rarely speak in absolutes, all shades of grey in this wonderful existence, all various modes of thought.....rarely one *right* way to live, to think and certainly not for discussion of such malleable topics. so the statement 'art IS'.....encompasses all, and yet remains quite neutral. it IS. what of that 'IS' is up to you. so good, bad, and any other words can all be mixed in, does not in any way diminish that 'art IS.'


and round and round and round and round......we go!



btw - i don't believe in ultimate truths. perception is everything, and nothing.....and very, very subjective and insular. what is one 'ultimate truth' is someone else's false perception, ad nauseum. lots of lofty thoughts and discussions.....but all theories and ideas, so very open to various viewpoints, not definitive. very much like art.

oh i hear you. tis all subjective. i look at some Art and people rave about it and im dumbfounded. its like what the fuck are they thinking? but then i look at artists like hockney and lichtenstein, even jeffrey smart... and their work appears simple(though i know it cant be?) but for me i cant help but be drawn to it.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

btw - i don't believe in ultimate truths. perception is everything, and nothing.....and very, very subjective and insular. what is one 'ultimate truth' is someone else's false perception, ad nauseum. lots of lofty thoughts and discussions.....but all theories and ideas, so very open to various viewpoints, not definitive. very much like art.

I accept that you don't agree. I wonder, then, since numerous philosophers speak to ultimate truth beyond human perspective, do you think they are then wrong?

When you say beyond descriptors art just "is", are you saying that's just your opinion, or do you believe that is a fact or truth?

decides2dream

catefrances wrote:

oh i hear you. tis all subjective. i look at some Art and people rave about it and im dumbfounded. its like what the fuck are they thinking? but then i look at artists like hockney and lichtenstein, even jeffrey smart... and their work appears simple(though i know it cant be?) but for me i cant help but be drawn to it.

agreed.

simplicity in beauty, beauty in simplicity. never knock it. good stuff.

angelica wrote:

I accept that you don't agree. I wonder, then, since numerous philosophers speak to ultimate truth beyond human perspective, do you think they are then wrong?

When you say beyond descriptors art just "is", are you saying that's just your opinion, or do you believe that is a fact or truth?

i believe it's their opinion. if i don't believe in 'ultimate truth'...how can i say one is right or wrong? it's their own thought process to believe what they want to believe. i don't look for acceptance nor agreement. my opinion is simply my opinion, based on my own individual thoughts and experiences. i love philosophy since really it is a glimpse into another's mind and thought process, doesn't mean i have to agree or accept any of it though, nor does it at all imply i think others are right or wrong. again, i don't see most things in absolutes. my personal beliefs are just that. my. personal. beliefs.

*I* believe art just IS.......but what you or anyone else believes is your own affair. to me it is a fact, but i don't look at this as some absolute truth. things are what they are. if you want to label it, feel free....i just find no need. and i certainly do not view art and it's existence etc with some ideal truth or anything like that. while it can be entertaining to me to think and discuss such, it really is not how i personally view life and the world, so it doesn't hold much meaning to me. for me, art stems from within humanity, very much along the lines of what cate has posted. however, i do not discount one's rights to have another viewpoint. i may disagree, but in the end...it really doesn't much matter. my own perspective will be as it is.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

agreed.

simplicity in beauty, beauty in simplicity. never knock it. good stuff.






i believe it's their opinion. if i don't believe in 'ultimate truth'...how can i say one is right or wrong? it's their own thought process to believe what they want to believe. i don't look for acceptance nor agreement. my opinion is simply my opinion, based on my own individual thoughts and experiences. i love philosophy since really it is a glimpse into another's mind and thought process, doesn't mean i have to agree or accept any of it though, nor does it at all imply i think others are right or wrong. again, i don't see most things in absolutes. my personal beliefs are just that. my. personal. beliefs.

*I* believe art just IS.......but what you or anyone else believes is your own affair. to me it is a fact, but i don't look at this as some absolute truth. things are what they are. if you want to label it, feel free....i just find no need. and i certainly do not view art and it's existence etc with some ideal truth or anything like that. while it can be entertaining to me to think and discuss such, it really is not how i personally view life and the world, so it doesn't hold much meaning to me. for me, art stems from within humanity, very much along the lines of what cate has posted. however, i do not discount one's rights to have another viewpoint. i may disagree, but in the end...it really doesn't much matter. my own perspective will be as it is.

Fair enough.

So then, it sounds like you don't think it's a universal truth beyond your opinion/perception that all things are subjective.

chiquimonkey

decides2dream wrote:

ahhhhh...to bring the audio and visual arts together: wassily kandinsky! there was a painter who tried to *see* music, and express it visually through his work. art about art. and it comes full circle.


art for art's sake.


art IS.

i was *about* to mention kandinsky, i know i can count you on to represent when i'm not here cheers!

and i'm with you, art is. whatever follows that "is" is up to the viewer or the creator of said art there's no right or wrong, i think because it is such a visceral thing. it's about how it makes you FEEL, and there's no right/wrong in that

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

Fair enough.

So then, it sounds like you don't think it's a universal truth beyond your opinion/perception that all things are subjective.

you spin me round like a record baby, right round.....;)

decides2dream wrote:

btw - i don't believe in ultimate truths. perception is everything, and nothing.....and very, very subjective and insular. what is one 'ultimate truth' is someone else's false perception, ad nauseum. lots of lofty thoughts and discussions.....but all theories and ideas, so very open to various viewpoints, not definitive. very much like art.

as i said....i don't believe in the concept of universal truths. so i don't 'think' anything about it beyond it's non-existence. everything else is clearly opinion, perception...and yes....all entirely subjective. your pov to me is enitrely subjective as well, along with whatever supporting 'evidence' you have presented. you may believe it, but doesn't make it true. nor does my belief, or disbelief, make something true or negate something that is. perception is everything. you might call that a universal truth, but i just don't see things that way. and so it goes........

chiquimonkey wrote:

i was *about* to mention kandinsky, i know i can count you on to represent when i'm not here cheers!

and i'm with you, art is. whatever follows that "is" is up to the viewer or the creator of said art there's no right or wrong, i think because it is such a visceral thing. it's about how it makes you FEEL, and there's no right/wrong in that

kandinsky is the shit. :cool: i don't know if i necessarily think he was 'successful' in illustrating music thru painting. but then again, i think merely the attempt to do such, is a success....if that makes sense to you as it does to me. either way, made some gloriously beautiful paintings, and THAT is a success for the viewer, and kandinsky seemed rather pleased with his work...so sure, win-win.

i DO think of art as visceral....but i also see it as intellectual too. it can be both, one or the other....or something else entirely. see...think.....feel......question. i think all of that is what art is about for me. truly 'great' art may make me do all 4.......even maybe just 1, yet so powerfully, tis still great. i most definitely see it as human, and purely human expression. whatever *it* is......i love it.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

as i said....i don't believe in the concept of universal truths. so i don't 'think' anything about it beyond it's non-existence. everything else is clearly opinion, perception...and yes....all entirely subjective. your pov to me is enitrely subjective as well, along with whatever supporting 'evidence' you have presented. you may believe it, but doesn't make it true. nor does my belief, or disbelief, make something true or negate something that is. perception is everything. you might call that a universal truth, but i just don't see things that way. and so it goes........

Right, so you don't believe in ultimate truths. Therefore when you think all things are subjective, you see that as your personal opinion, and not an ultimate truth. Correct? I'm making sure I understand what you're saying.

This is a bit of a catch-22 that I have..

If you believe we can't see beyond our subjectivity, then we can't be sure of anything, except what we know subjectively. Therefore we can't know whether everything actually is subjective or if objectivity exists beyond what we have seen.

And for that matter, math and science are considered to be objective studies by most people's standards, in the sense that they are not subjective.

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

Right, so you don't believe in ultimate truths. Therefore when you think all things are subjective, you see that as your personal opinion, and not an ultimate truth. Correct? I'm making sure I understand what you're saying.

This is a bit of a catch-22 that I have..

decides2dream wrote:

as i said....i don't believe in the concept of universal truths. so i don't 'think' anything about it beyond it's non-existence. everything else is clearly opinion, perception...and yes....all entirely subjective.

is that not clear enough?

angelica wrote:

If you believe we can't see beyond our subjectivity, then we can't be sure of anything, except what we know subjectively. Therefore we can't know whether everything actually is subjective or if objectivity exists beyond what we have seen.

And for that matter, math and science are considered to be objective studies by most people's standards, in the sense that they are not subjective.

again, i would NEVER call ANYthing an 'ultimate truth' b/c i don't believe in 'ultimate truth'...so you can assign whatever definition/meaning to my words as YOU wish. for me, they stand on their own as is. i've said it often enough, i offer only my opinion, and see all else here as opinion as well. most especially for something such as art, meaning, etc.


as you yourself often say, we are human and cannot think/see beyond our own humanity. i know you often go on further about reaching beyond all that, etc....but i don't believe in all that. but for the purpose of discussion....we ARE human, and thus our perceptions are it. just like for a dog what he/she knows/understands.....is it. is there more to it? perhaps, maybe, of course? i think it depends on your perspective. we cannot think and know any other way except what our human minds are capable of.


as to math and science and all else. i do believe in objectivity in theory, but with we humans in the mix, there will always remain some degree of subjectivity, b/c we are confined to our own abilities.


anyhoo.....it's just not my thing, the whole 'universal truth' and all that. as i said, to a degree i find it interesting discussion but as it really holds no meaning for me....it doesn't take me far.


beyond that, yes...i see you are linking art to that and all good. for me, that is not at all what art is, or this conversation was for me......and not at all what i was interested in, so yea.....guess that's it.


i will say this though, absolutely...i don't think we can *know* anything absolute. we may think we do, or can, but i believe we are too limited to do so. so sure, we may assign lots of meaning or objectivity or whatever else, but so much of it.....does it even matter? it is amazing what we as a species have learned, accomplished, etc....but really, so what? i think it all depends what you think is important. to me, the purpose of life is simply to live. i don't assign an even greater value to it. sometimes i think the species who according to us have lower level thinking skills have it far better 'figured out'....just live. kinda like art just 'is'...for me, life just should 'be.'



btw - it is all 'catch-22'....circular convo, whatever you want to call it. thus why my little 'you spin me round' quote. you want to label it, i don't....and there it is. so i guess yes, i see it as my personal opinion.....simply because i don't have a belief in universal truths.




getting back to the subject:

Art is anything that makes you proud to be a human.

i STILL just don't *get* the pride......and even if i did, 'proud' accomplishments of humanity i do not necessarily view all as 'art.' then again, of course, that would simply be my very subjective opinion on what 'art is'.....beyond it merely being.

Rhinocerous Surprise

This thread has melted my brain, and as many as 4 other of my bodily organs.

decides2dream

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

This thread has melted my brain, and as many as 4 other of my bodily organs.

i'd be interested to know what, specifically, other organs were melted.



and more importantly, do you consider it art?



in all seriousness though, what is there to be 'proud' of being human? you ARe human, no choice, no control, no accomplishment....so why pride? i simply AM. i sorta 'get' where the author of said quote was going with it, i just find it a really poor choice of words....and definitely do not see art in such a light.


however, i think chadwick stated earlier...we all delved waaayyyy too deeply and to get over it. he's probably right. great way to pass a friday at work tho, so it's all good.

Rhinocerous Surprise

decides2dream wrote:

i'd be interested to know what, specifically, other organs were melted.



and more importantly, do you consider it art?



in all seriousness though, what is there to be 'proud' of being human? you ARe human, no choice, no control, no accomplishment....so why pride? i simply AM. i sorta 'get' where the author of said quote was going with it, i just find it a really poor choice of words....and definitely do not see art in such a light.


however, i think chadwick stated earlier...we all delved waaayyyy too deeply and to get over it. he's probably right. great way to pass a friday at work tho, so it's all good.

Come now - if my brain's gone to goo, how do you expect me to know what other organs suffered?

I think the original quote just phrased it wrong... you could make a better case for saying that art is something that makes us consider our humanity, or give us a new awareness of our humanity, or anything poxy and pretentious like that, but pride certainly shouldn't come into it.

You can be proud that a human could create a particular work of art, I suppose - as in, "Wow, imagine the dedication it took to 'do' the Sistine Chapel".

decides2dream

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Come now - if my brain's gone to goo, how do you expect me to know what other organs suffered?

I think the original quote just phrased it wrong... you could make a better case for saying that art is something that makes us consider our humanity, or give us a new awareness of our humanity, or anything poxy and pretentious like that, but pride certainly shouldn't come into it.

You can be proud that a human could create a particular work of art, I suppose - as in, "Wow, imagine the dedication it took to 'do' the Sistine Chapel".

pretty well done for a goo-brain.



yes. exactly along the lines of what i was thinking. thus i sorta 'get' her meaning, but most definitely poor word choice imho.


it IS amazing what humans can create and accomplish. also horrifying. even within art....some amazing, and some amazingly horrifying...but all still art, eh? however, i still see no sense in feeling a 'collective pride'....but i guess i just don't see things in that sense.


i don't wanna think i wanna feel.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

is that not clear enough?









again, i would NEVER call ANYthing an 'ultimate truth' b/c i don't believe in 'ultimate truth'...so you can assign whatever definition/meaning to my words as YOU wish. for me, they stand on their own as is. i've said it often enough, i offer only my opinion, and see all else here as opinion as well. most especially for something such as art, meaning, etc.


as you yourself often say, we are human and cannot think/see beyond our own humanity. i know you often go on further about reaching beyond all that, etc....but i don't believe in all that. but for the purpose of discussion....we ARE human, and thus our perceptions are it. just like for a dog what he/she knows/understands.....is it. is there more to it? perhaps, maybe, of course? i think it depends on your perspective. we cannot think and know any other way except what our human minds are capable of.


as to math and science and all else. i do believe in objectivity in theory, but with we humans in the mix, there will always remain some degree of subjectivity, b/c we are confined to our own abilities.


anyhoo.....it's just not my thing, the whole 'universal truth' and all that. as i said, to a degree i find it interesting discussion but as it really holds no meaning for me....it doesn't take me far.


beyond that, yes...i see you are linking art to that and all good. for me, that is not at all what art is, or this conversation was for me......and not at all what i was interested in, so yea.....guess that's it.


i will say this though, absolutely...i don't think we can *know* anything absolute. we may think we do, or can, but i believe we are too limited to do so. so sure, we may assign lots of meaning or objectivity or whatever else, but so much of it.....does it even matter? it is amazing what we as a species have learned, accomplished, etc....but really, so what? i think it all depends what you think is important. to me, the purpose of life is simply to live. i don't assign an even greater value to it. sometimes i think the species who according to us have lower level thinking skills have it far better 'figured out'....just live. kinda like art just 'is'...for me, life just should 'be.'



btw - it is all 'catch-22'....circular convo, whatever you want to call it. thus why my little 'you spin me round' quote. you want to label it, i don't....and there it is. so i guess yes, i see it as my personal opinion.....simply because i don't have a belief in universal truths.




getting back to the subject:

Art is anything that makes you proud to be a human.

i STILL just don't *get* the pride......and even if i did, 'proud' accomplishments of humanity i do not necessarily view all as 'art.' then again, of course, that would simply be my very subjective opinion on what 'art is'.....beyond it merely being.

Personally, I don't really resonate to the quote either.

I appreciate views that do not see this...and yet transcendent schools of thought, which have been many through time, go by the "the drop of water is also the ocean" view.

What this means in terms of transcendence, is that we all are more than physical. And by aligning with transcendent aspects of our nature, we certainly can transcend our humanness, even while being human. Upon doing so, then we, like the drop of water realizing it's oceanic nature, get to experience what is beyond our individuality.

http://perceivingreality.com/

Rhinocerous Surprise

decides2dream wrote:

pretty well done for a goo-brain.



yes. exactly along the lines of what i was thinking. thus i sorta 'get' her meaning, but most definitely poor word choice imho.


it IS amazing what humans can create and accomplish. also horrifying. even within art....some amazing, and some amazingly horrifying...but all still art, eh? however, i still see no sense in feeling a 'collective pride'....but i guess i just don't see things in that sense.


i don't wanna think i wanna feel.

I certainly don't want any part of a collective pride over a lot of "works of art" - most of 'em just inspire a blissful indifference in me.
I don't see that art should inspire any more "pride" than a well-done job of mowing the lawn, or the ability to put one foot in front of the other to move from place to place - it's all hard-wired into us to an extent.

eyedclaar

decides2dream wrote:

pretty well done for a goo-brain.



yes. exactly along the lines of what i was thinking. thus i sorta 'get' her meaning, but most definitely poor word choice imho.


it IS amazing what humans can create and accomplish. also horrifying. even within art....some amazing, and some amazingly horrifying...but all still art, eh? however, i still see no sense in feeling a 'collective pride'....but i guess i just don't see things in that sense.


i don't wanna think i wanna feel.

Agreed, and obviously artists approach things from vastly different perspectives. My art poems/prose/songs tend to point out what I believe are social ills and human problems. My art tends to be the opposite of feeling proud about being human. That's just my artistic direction.

chiquimonkey

decides2dream wrote:

kandinsky is the shit. :cool: i don't know if i necessarily think he was 'successful' in illustrating music thru painting. but then again, i think merely the attempt to do such, is a success....if that makes sense to you as it does to me. either way, made some gloriously beautiful paintings, and THAT is a success for the viewer, and kandinsky seemed rather pleased with his work...so sure, win-win.

i DO think of art as visceral....but i also see it as intellectual too. it can be both, one or the other....or something else entirely. see...think.....feel......question. i think all of that is what art is about for me. truly 'great' art may make me do all 4.......even maybe just 1, yet so powerfully, tis still great. i most definitely see it as human, and purely human expression. whatever *it* is......i love it.

i agree, not sure on the success kandinsky had but just the thought to try to make music visual....very cool. i believe there are other artists now trying to make art based on music notes, computer generated i think? i'll have to look it up when i get home

and true, it's intellectual as well! it's all part of it, i guess when i see it just broken up into pure theory then it starts to lose something, like it's being neutered in a way? i'm not doing well in expressing myself today haha it's definitely human, encompasses both good and bad, sacred and profane, just like people do

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

Personally, I don't really resonate to the quote either.

I appreciate views that do not see this...and yet transcendent schools of thought, which have been many through time, go by the "the drop of water is also the ocean" view.

What this means in terms of transcendence, is that we all are more than physical. And by aligning with transcendent aspects of our nature, we certainly can transcend our humanness, even while being human. Upon doing so, then we, like the drop of water realizing it's oceanic nature, get to experience what is beyond our individuality.

http://perceivingreality.com/

while i don't subscribe to the thinking, i HAVE read/studied a lot of it...especially back in my college days, and during my philosophy classes......so yes, i do understand what you are expressing. i merely disagree, of just don't believe, in it.

as far as the drop of the water and the ocean...to me that is not 'transcending' what you are, just feeling what you are and realizing, identifying...collectively...that you ARE just one part of the greater community. drop of water, lots of drops of water, ocean.........grain if sand, lots of grains of sand, beach/desert.......person, people, humanity. to me....still feeling a part of, not transcending it.


however, like most things......it's all perspective, eh?

i think much of philosophy is very much like art. malleable, personal, community-minded...intellectual and emotional....all a part of the human collective thought....and instinctual to the human brain. we can think and feel a great deal...we can think and perhaps feel way beyond what we are, but we ARE....simply human, and really it could all come down to ego - thinking we are so much more than we are, etc. thus why i oftentimes think.....'lower' animals, such as my doggies mentioned above.....just might be 'smarter'....b/c they simply don't bother, and appreciate life BEing. or who knows, perhaps they philosopise even more than us? thing is, no matter how 'beyond' we may think we think/feel......we can't possibly *know*...b/c it all occurs within our human minds, consciously or unconsciously.

anyhoo.....all of this craziness adds to living, and most especially to art. visual, auditory, written////so it's all good.






and chica....you say it all just fine!
i get ya though, when you start to 'intellectualize' it too much, it does lose a lot...b/c you go beyond that initial visceral reaction. i had a few college profs who would do so, and on the one hand it made your work 'seem' so much more important....but then thinking more, i'd simply think to myself, yea...perhaps....but really, it's just a picture of a chair too. haha. certain art i think almost requires you to intellectualize it, that's what it wants from the viewer, perhaps why it also leaves many wanting...whereas other works simply want you to feel and sure, we all respond to what *gets* to us more, what has more meaning and resonance. and sure, pass the codeine.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

while i don't subscribe to the thinking, i HAVE read/studied a lot of it...especially back in my college days, and during my philosophy classes......so yes, i do understand what you are expressing. i merely disagree, of just don't believe, in it.

as far as the drop of the water and the ocean...to me that is not 'transcending' what you are, just feeling what you are and realizing, identifying...collectively...that you ARE just one part of the greater community. drop of water, lots of drops of water, ocean.........grain if sand, lots of grains of sand, beach/desert.......person, people, humanity. to me....still feeling a part of, not transcending it.


however, like most things......it's all perspective, eh?

i think much of philosophy is very much like art. malleable, personal, community-minded...intellectual and emotional....all a part of the human collective thought....and instinctual to the human brain. we can think and feel a great deal...we can think and perhaps feel way beyond what we are, but we ARE....simply human, and really it could all come down to ego - thinking we are so much more than we are, etc. thus why i oftentimes think.....'lower' animals, such as my doggies mentioned above.....just might be 'smarter'....b/c they simply don't bother, and appreciate life BEing. or who knows, perhaps they philosopise even more than us? thing is, no matter how 'beyond' we may think we think/feel......we can't possibly *know*...b/c it all occurs within our human minds, consciously or unconsciously.

anyhoo.....all of this craziness adds to living, and most especially to art. visual, auditory, written////so it's all good.

I hear what you are saying

I always see and agree with all subjectivity, for the record.

Peace.

Heineken Helen

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa, hold the phone a second You saw Pavarotti singing Nessun Dorma?

Something I'll never get to do :(

And yeah, it's about the princess character from the opera decreeing that none of her subjects shall sleep until they discover the name of some prince who wishes to marry her, otherwise they shall all be beheaded or some shit. The whole of Turandot is incredible. I have now idea why I always shied away from opera until recently. I can imagine hearing that piece sung live must have been amazing.

Nah, it wasn't pavarotti :( BUT in Italy they don't take opera lightly... the guy singing was, to my untrained ear, as good as pavarotti. I don't think it matters who sings it once their voice is able for it... it's just an absolutely amazing song.