What is an Artist?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
I've seen many historical accounts of why Romanticism came to be. One of them is that the "romantic spirit" was a reaction to industrialization, science and the whole Enlightenment project, from the war trenches of bourgeois idealism. That reaction is still going on today, as the "romantic spirit" prevails in most of our culture. As you can witness in this forum, the prevailing notion about art is that it is all about provoking emotions. Leaving aside if we agree or not, let's first acknowledge that there are other more rational notions of aesthetics and its advocates have held a long dispute against the romantics and their aesthetics of the ineffable.
It's sometimes helpful to nail one's colours to the mast. My interest in this thread is to try to balance " As you can witness in this forum, the prevailing notion about art is that it is all about provoking emotions. " with what I can suggest of objective insight into how this prevailing Romantic feeling is historical and not everlastingly true of the nature of art. While taking cognisance of the fallacy of periodisation.

Regarding periodisation, the genesis of Romanticism is older than what we agree are the attitudinal bastions of the industrialisation process. Chretien de Troyes in the twelfth century is recorded as the portrayer of independent-minded proponents of chivalry who engaged in independent quests for truth and goodness. The independence of the individual is Romantic. I'm on the side of individuality and personal feelings and that is why I support tertiary education for all so that individuals are aware of the hard work and dangers that are the inevitable companions in the quest for freedom from authoritarian rule. The Romantic spirit in art as in work and industry is not well served by ignorance of its historical base.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Belinda wrote:
It's sometimes helpful to nail one's colours to the mast. My interest in this thread is to try to balance " As you can witness in this forum, the prevailing notion about art is that it is all about provoking emotions. " with what I can suggest of objective insight into how this prevailing Romantic feeling is historical and not everlastingly true of the nature of art. While taking cognisance of the fallacy of periodisation.
Those like me, who put all efforts in understanding cultural practices from a materialistic point of view, generally acknowledge that aesthetic ideals, or the functions assigned to cultural practices, or the modes of producing and consuming cultural products, are not outside of history. But at the same time agree on the possibility of identifying certain typologies as universal categories. I wouldn't mind paying some respect to Eugenio D'ors idea of the Baroque as a philosophical attitude, as a category on itself. The same would be for Classicism, Romanticism, etc., understood as distinctive approaches to art, regardless of time and social context. But that, of course, as mere abstractions of concrete cultural practices, which will always remain historical and dependent of social context, and not as autonomous platonic essences or Hegelian dialectical movement of The Spirit.
Belinda wrote:Regarding periodisation, the genesis of Romanticism is older than what we agree are the attitudinal bastions of the industrialisation process. Chretien de Troyes in the twelfth century is recorded as the portrayer of independent-minded proponents of chivalry who engaged in independent quests for truth and goodness. The independence of the individual is Romantic. I'm on the side of individuality and personal feelings and that is why I support tertiary education for all so that individuals are aware of the hard work and dangers that are the inevitable companions in the quest for freedom from authoritarian rule. The Romantic spirit in art as in work and industry is not well served by ignorance of its historical base.
I think individuality is one of the essential constituents of Romanticism, as well of the main ideologies of bourgeois society, but not all individuality is Romanticism or bourgeoisie.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Those like me, who put all efforts in understanding cultural practices from a materialistic point of view, generally acknowledge that aesthetic ideals, or the functions assigned to cultural practices, or the modes of producing and consuming cultural products, are not outside of history. But at the same time agree on the possibility of identifying certain typologies as universal categories. I wouldn't mind paying some respect to Eugenio D'ors idea of the Baroque as a philosophical attitude, as a category on itself. The same would be for Classicism, Romanticism, etc., understood as distinctive approaches to art, regardless of time and social context. But that, of course, as mere abstractions of concrete cultural practices, which will always remain historical and dependent of social context, and not as autonomous platonic essences or Hegelian dialectical movement of The Spirit.
I too can appreciate "Classicism, Romanticism, etc., understood as distinctive approaches to art, regardless of time and social context. " But what is the point of talking about it if it's so understood? I mean, it is the subject of the experience who abstracts it, unless it's indeed Platonic or Hegelian.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Belinda wrote: I too can appreciate "Classicism, Romanticism, etc., understood as distinctive approaches to art, regardless of time and social context. " But what is the point of talking about it if it's so understood? I mean, it is the subject of the experience who abstracts it, unless it's indeed Platonic or Hegelian.
The point will be, I guess, to singularize that which you can appreciate in Classicism, Romanticism, etc., and see how it can be applied to the problems you face as a producer or consumer of cultural products.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Belinda wrote: I too can appreciate "Classicism, Romanticism, etc., understood as distinctive approaches to art, regardless of time and social context. " But what is the point of talking about it if it's so understood? I mean, it is the subject of the experience who abstracts it, unless it's indeed Platonic or Hegelian.
The point will be, I guess, to singularize that which you can appreciate in Classicism, Romanticism, etc., and see how it can be applied to the problems you face as a producer or consumer of cultural products.
Please bear with me.

Does your "singularize" effectually mean that I'd claim for instance, which incidentally happens to be the case, that I'd say I enjoy those thin- textured piano pieces of Chopin which include those leaping intervals in the melodies? Or for instance that Beethoven in his noisy mood appealed more to me when I was younger?

If I've made it clear what I'm asking, would you perhaps supply an illustration or two of your own?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

Belinda wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Belinda wrote: I too can appreciate "Classicism, Romanticism, etc., understood as distinctive approaches to art, regardless of time and social context. " But what is the point of talking about it if it's so understood? I mean, it is the subject of the experience who abstracts it, unless it's indeed Platonic or Hegelian.
The point will be, I guess, to singularize that which you can appreciate in Classicism, Romanticism, etc., and see how it can be applied to the problems you face as a producer or consumer of cultural products.
Please bear with me.

Does your "singularize" effectually mean that I'd claim for instance, which incidentally happens to be the case, that I'd say I enjoy those thin- textured piano pieces of Chopin which include those leaping intervals in the melodies? Or for instance that Beethoven in his noisy mood appealed more to me when I was younger?

If I've made it clear what I'm asking, would you perhaps supply an illustration or two of your own?
By the way, here is a nice lesson in e.g.what someone has commented was "Beautifully balanced" about a Mozart piece:

http://www.learnclassical.com/the-cours ... -themes-2/
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Belinda wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Belinda wrote: I too can appreciate "Classicism, Romanticism, etc., understood as distinctive approaches to art, regardless of time and social context. " But what is the point of talking about it if it's so understood? I mean, it is the subject of the experience who abstracts it, unless it's indeed Platonic or Hegelian.
The point will be, I guess, to singularize that which you can appreciate in Classicism, Romanticism, etc., and see how it can be applied to the problems you face as a producer or consumer of cultural products.
Please bear with me.

Does your "singularize" effectually mean that I'd claim for instance, which incidentally happens to be the case, that I'd say I enjoy those thin- textured piano pieces of Chopin which include those leaping intervals in the melodies? Or for instance that Beethoven in his noisy mood appealed more to me when I was younger?

If I've made it clear what I'm asking, would you perhaps supply an illustration or two of your own?
I think you're pretty close to grabbing the concept I tried to convey up there, although perhaps you still emphasize your particular subjective experience and that which distinguishes one artist from another (which is OK for me), while I'm more interested right now in pointing at the recognizable patterns that one can find in a series of works and can be subsumed in a broader category, may it be a school or style. I've already mentioned the Baroque, of which you can identify in music distinctive elements and common formal strategies. Let's say many notes and ornaments, which can be contrasted to the formal rules of "classical" styles, where economy of means, perfect harmony and order is achieved. And then you have architecture resembling the same dichotomy: the Baroque having lots of ornamentation and the classical styles reducing the architectural elements to the purest forms. These formal contrasts, of course, apply to the 17th and 18th century, but you can read architecture and music from other centuries with the same criteria, for example: Bauhaus vs. Art Deco or Art Nouveau. In that sense, in simple terms, classicism and baroquism can be understood as general categories of art. But you can also contrast the use of melodic counterpoint in Baroque music vs. the use of harmony in the so called classical style. You then go to the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony and find scratching your head about what is going on there in relation to counterpoint and harmony, and realize that surely Beethoven was scratching his head too when composing it, thinking of the masters before him facing similar problems.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

@Conde Lucanor.

I was flummoxed about the difference between harmony and counterpoint and looked it up.


I think the difference you would hear would be the difference in the direction and rhythm of the lines. Counterpoint would fill in the melodic "gaps" rhythmically and harmonically. Basic harmony often lines up with the melody. Counterpoint frequently goes opposite the melody, thus its name. Listen to some Baroque music, where counterpoint was used heavily (Bach is great for this). Later periods of music still used it, but didn't rely on it so much as in the Baroque.
( I used to play 'Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring' on the piano, and I guess that this piece illustrates counterpoint pretty well, do you think?

After you explained your reference to "singularize" I understood what you meant about those trends in the arts which we can label. I think perhaps we would want to label those broad trends in the arts so that we can see how they are the meaning of a period in the development of civilisation. If this is the case the function of the artist in society is to give meaning to the society.

Is classical/baroque the most salient dichotomy in the arts?
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Belinda wrote:@Conde Lucanor.

I was flummoxed about the difference between harmony and counterpoint and looked it up.

( I used to play 'Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring' on the piano, and I guess that this piece illustrates counterpoint pretty well, do you think?
You can find it in all of Bach's works. And of course, he composed the Art of the Fugue, which is pure counterpoint, but actually you will find it in most of Baroque music. That's why it's my favorite music, I think, because it's so dynamic: the melodic lines run one against the other in unpredictable ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXQY2dS1Srk
The extent to which Bach worked counterpoint is incredible. There are rules for it, but also an array of possibilities, as you may have seen in the famous Möbius canon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUHQ2ybTejU
Belinda wrote: After you explained your reference to "singularize" I understood what you meant about those trends in the arts which we can label. I think perhaps we would want to label those broad trends in the arts so that we can see how they are the meaning of a period in the development of civilisation. If this is the case the function of the artist in society is to give meaning to the society.
I think that what we can make of all of this is that art can become a relative autonomous practice with its own dynamic. At the same time, such dynamic can inform the historical context where it develops, serve different purposes and carry different meanings. For Renaissance art and Neoclassicism, the forms of ancient Rome or Greece served a function derived from both its perceived intrinsic artistic value and historical associations. Same for Neogothic in relation to Gothic.
Belinda wrote: Is classical/baroque the most salient dichotomy in the arts?
I can't tell, but there's also classical/romantic, realist/romantic, sacred/secular, ancient/modern, figurative/abstract, art pour l'art/ instrumental art, functional/decorative, bourgeois/popular, etc.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Is classical/baroque the most salient dichotomy in the arts?

I can't tell, but there's also classical/romantic, realist/romantic, sacred/secular, ancient/modern, figurative/abstract, art pour l'art/ instrumental art, functional/decorative, bourgeois/popular, etc.
Thanks for the recommended listening .

I suppose it's asking too much but I'd really like to establish which dichotomy most describes the nature of me, of you, and more importantly human nature generally.

I thought that for instance sacred/secular , bourgeois/popular, classical/romantic, and all of them really except figurative/abstract, could be discussed under the heading 'J. S. Bach'.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Belinda wrote:
I suppose it's asking too much but I'd really like to establish which dichotomy most describes the nature of me, of you, and more importantly human nature generally.
The one I've heard the most has been expressed in terms of a Nietzschean dual account of human spirit: Apollonian and Dionysian, which uses elements of Greek tragedy and mythology to convey the concepts of order, limits and rationality (represented by the god Apollo) and chaos, multiplicity and irrationality (represented by Dionysus, the good of wine). Supposedly, we live in a society where the Dionysian spirit prevails and thus, it is reflected in art. I see the value of such dichotomies, but as said earlier, I don't believe they are concrete realities, just abstractions.
Belinda wrote:I thought that for instance sacred/secular , bourgeois/popular, classical/romantic, and all of them really except figurative/abstract, could be discussed under the heading 'J. S. Bach'.
I'm not sure about that, but I suppose our modern readings (or any epoch's reading) of works from the past, can be selective interpretations in terms of the new sensibilities. The most well known version of Bach's Air on the G String is generally accepted as an expression of the romantic spirit, although the original Baroque version is from a couple of centuries before Romanticism. It is also well known, particularly in music, that humans adapt their sensibilities and become familiar to new realities that at first produce rejection or lack meaningful connections with traditional practices. That's the case with the use of dissonance in Beethoven's music or the atonal composers, the secular reception of sacred works, the appropriation of the bourgeois of the aristocratic modes and relationships with art, the use of popular songs to make high culture music and vice versa, etc. In other words, such abstract dichotomies always have historical origins and are related to concrete practices, more than reflecting something fixed in human nature.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Belinda wrote:
I suppose it's asking too much but I'd really like to establish which dichotomy most describes the nature of me, of you, and more importantly human nature generally.
The one I've heard the most has been expressed in terms of a Nietzschean dual account of human spirit: Apollonian and Dionysian, which uses elements of Greek tragedy and mythology to convey the concepts of order, limits and rationality (represented by the god Apollo) and chaos, multiplicity and irrationality (represented by Dionysus, the good of wine). Supposedly, we live in a society where the Dionysian spirit prevails and thus, it is reflected in art. I see the value of such dichotomies, but as said earlier, I don't believe they are concrete realities, just abstractions.
Belinda wrote:I thought that for instance sacred/secular , bourgeois/popular, classical/romantic, and all of them really except figurative/abstract, could be discussed under the heading 'J. S. Bach'.
I'm not sure about that, but I suppose our modern readings (or any epoch's reading) of works from the past, can be selective interpretations in terms of the new sensibilities. The most well known version of Bach's Air on the G String is generally accepted as an expression of the romantic spirit, although the original Baroque version is from a couple of centuries before Romanticism. It is also well known, particularly in music, that humans adapt their sensibilities and become familiar to new realities that at first produce rejection or lack meaningful connections with traditional practices. That's the case with the use of dissonance in Beethoven's music or the atonal composers, the secular reception of sacred works, the appropriation of the bourgeois of the aristocratic modes and relationships with art, the use of popular songs to make high culture music and vice versa, etc. In other words, such abstract dichotomies always have historical origins and are related to concrete practices, more than reflecting something fixed in human nature.
Thank you Conde Lucanor. Did the original CL did find absolute meaning, I wonder.

Historical relativity is I agree a fact. Thanks for reminding me of Dionysian/Apollonian which I do think comes close to "something fixed in human nature" but probably I say so because that particular dichotomy seems a fit mirror for our times. I find myself liking Hamlet's To be/Not to be as a statement of defying the impossibility of finding the absolute. Choose life as some religionists say. I'm not sure that Keat's certainty/uncertainty is the last word although it's helpful to see the virtue in uncertainty.

I think that I'll stick with a non-religious version of the religious dichotomy life/ death. As a philosophical naturalist life seems to me to be best served by knowledge, non-sensorship, and public service in the fields of arts, sciences, technology, and government. The public benefit of universal tertiary education especially in the humanities would point a society in the life direction.

Your discussion with particular reference to music of humans' adapting their sensibilities with examples was helpful for me, despite that I am not nearly as musically able as you are.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Belinda wrote:
Thank you Conde Lucanor. Did the original CL did find absolute meaning, I wonder.
I guess he did, although he was a fictional character.
Belinda wrote:Historical relativity is I agree a fact. Thanks for reminding me of Dionysian/Apollonian which I do think comes close to "something fixed in human nature" but probably I say so because that particular dichotomy seems a fit mirror for our times.
Even if it weren't so, our times seem pretty much in tune with Nietzsche's ideology.
Belinda wrote: I find myself liking Hamlet's To be/Not to be as a statement of defying the impossibility of finding the absolute. Choose life as some religionists say. I'm not sure that Keat's certainty/uncertainty is the last word although it's helpful to see the virtue in uncertainty.
I don't know much about philosophical interpretations of Shakespeare and when dealing with human affairs, the possibilities are endless. I always thought Hamlet's famous line was just the perfect synthesis of his doubtful, hesitant character, but that's more a literary interpretation.
Belinda wrote:I think that I'll stick with a non-religious version of the religious dichotomy life/ death. As a philosophical naturalist life seems to me to be best served by knowledge, non-sensorship, and public service in the fields of arts, sciences, technology, and government. The public benefit of universal tertiary education especially in the humanities would point a society in the life direction.
I agree. That's what humanists advocate and that's what I declare myself to be.
Belinda wrote:Your discussion with particular reference to music of humans' adapting their sensibilities with examples was helpful for me, despite that I am not nearly as musically able as you are.
I wish I were as able as you think. Actually, adaptation of senses to life conditions and the relativity of cultural practices it's a common human trait, which of course also applies to music.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Belinda »

One role of an artist is to show what he and sometimes others too are thinking, believing, loving ,or hating without censorship. If an artist, an actor or a musician expresses feelings or beliefs at a public performance this artist is doing what a good artist does.

The audience at any public performance might not be expected to participate expressly but the presence of a member of an audience at any artistic function, be it concert hall, theatre, or museum is a sign and a symbol of that person's participation in the event. Any and all human aware acts are symbolic to some extent, and what marks out an artistic event is the special importance of symbolism of presence at an event.

In the same vein, a respected actor or musician may be permitted or even required by circumstances of the art form or the social occasion to ad lib during, or at the beginning, or end of a performance.
Interjectivist
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: What is an Artist?

Post by Interjectivist »

I have a fairly romantic conception of what being an artist is about. And I agree with defining what it is to be or do art first, and then defining art as the product that ensues. I'm not sure if this has been posted here before but I like this artist's statement which ee cummings wrote for a show of his paintings back in 44'.
cummings wrote: "Foreword to an Exhibit: I" (1944)

Art is a mystery.

A mystery is something immeasurable.

In so far as every child and woman and man may be immeasurable, art is the mystery of every man and woman and child. In so far as a human being is an artist, skies and mountains and oceans and thunderbolts and butterflies are immeasurable; and art is every mystery of nature. Nothing measurable can be alive; nothing which is not alive can be art; nothing which cannot be art is true: and everything untrue doesn’t matter a very good God damn...

Item: it is my complex hope that the pictures here exhibited are neither "good" nor "bad," neither peacelike nor warful--that (on the contrary) they are living.

from E. E. Cummings, A Miscellany Revised Edited by George Firmage. New York: October House, 1965. 314-15.
Post Reply