Do humans cherish what we destroy?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Skip »

I've just read that the most popular art of the mid- to late-nineteenth century was idyllic landscapes ...
the very thing the industrial age was laying waste at the time; collected and admired by the very people who profited from its destruction.

When there is a lot of pious talk about peace, you know we're arming for war.

These days, we hear a great deal about the preciousness of children, and the importance of protecting them and their future. Meanwhile, drug traffic, sea levels and college fees are rising.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Nick_A »

Welcome to the human condition skip. Our chief characteristic is hypocrisy. We say one thing and do another.

You were probably reading on the Hudson River School. These artists were appreciated during the19thC as depicting the connection between God and nature. Then by the turn of the century the Darwinian revolution was in full bloom so art that was valuable at one time was now considered worthless. The term Hudson River School which is considered a name of respect today was actually a term of derision created by art "experts." You are right skip. Man is capable of both the greatest compassion and the most horrific atrocities. It is the human condition. It is wht we ARE.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Nick_A wrote:Welcome to the human condition skip. Our chief characteristic is hypocrisy. We say one thing and do another.

You were probably reading on the Hudson River School. These artists were appreciated during the19thC as depicting the connection between God and nature. Then by the turn of the century the Darwinian revolution was in full bloom so art that was valuable at one time was now considered worthless. The term Hudson River School which is considered a name of respect today was actually a term of derision created by art "experts." You are right skip. Man is capable of both the greatest compassion and the most horrific atrocities. It is the human condition. It is wht we ARE.
Oh right, blame Darwin.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Skip »

No, actually. I was reading about Van Gogh's family, who had several art galleries in the capitals of continental Europe.
The Romantic period landscape paintings, as well as the Impressionists kept increasing in value from the mid-1800's to the the present.
It had nothing to do with God; most of those painters were free-thinkers and/or indifferent to religion.

My specific question wasn't whether we're hypocrites - well, Duh! - but whether the particular focus of public sentiment is a good predictor of the next casualty of progress.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by marjoram_blues »

Skip wrote:I've just read that the most popular art of the mid- to late-nineteenth century was idyllic landscapes ...
the very thing the industrial age was laying waste at the time; collected and admired by the very people who profited from its destruction.

When there is a lot of pious talk about peace, you know we're arming for war.

These days, we hear a great deal about the preciousness of children, and the importance of protecting them and their future. Meanwhile, drug traffic, sea levels and college fees are rising.
Interesting to consider, the tracing the history of visual art alongside the history of worldviews. How do you establish particular periods within different cultures and their values. I expect that the focus here is on western art; the main masterpieces deemed as important within their particular movement ? How else is the level of popularity measured?

Different aspects of life are recorded in a variety of ways. The aims and purposes will change for different reasons. The promotion of religious, po!itical ideas of the artist or his angel, within the current society and its sub cuktures.

Talk of peace, pious or otherwise, is not just a temporary popular phase as in a particular artistic creation. It is the other side of the drums of war. Not necessarily leading to an arming for war. Although, that might be necessary as some kind of a deterrent. Hence, the eternal arms race...yeah, a vicious circle of human activity, but not as popular as it might once have been.
Why?

Art? Is there a correlation or causation between visual images presented to us and the way we think. I'm thinking of war photography. Different from artistic glorious depictions of Napoleon.

And talk of children and the stated desires/goals to protect and promote health and education. Yes, all great intentions. Hearts are tugged by promotional adverts of the displaced, abused, starving - for decades. Who knows what progress has been made?
At least there are worthwhile aims, even if scuppered by factions, events outwith our control.

What public sentiment do you want to choose as an example. The rage against widening inequality? How would that be a predictor of progress or otherwise. Only if activity is sustained and maintained can there be any real predictions made. I think.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Skip »

I was using the reference to art as an example of the general attitude prevailing in the opinion-influencing layers of a society in a period of time - as also the talk of peace that seems to dominate in some decades and all but disappear in others, and the episodic, culture-specific sentimentalism over children. There are a dozen other examples, on different subjects.
Incidentally, the Victorians were also sentimental about the idea of childhood - while sending hordes of children into mines, mills, factories and poor-houses.
marjoram_blues wrote: Interesting to consider, the tracing the history of visual art alongside the history of worldviews.
It certainly would be! But a huge project. Usually, documentaries and art history books simply comment on the emotions and views represented by the art itself, rather than reality in the underlying classes.
How do you establish particular periods within different cultures and their values.
In Chinese art, they just do it by ruling dynasties. The art itself didn't change: the same subject, in the same style, with the same media, for 4000 years. Very fine.... but when you've seen 73 distant mountains with a cherry tree in the foreground, you've pretty much seen all 73,000.

Therefore:
I expect that the focus here is on western art; the main masterpieces deemed as important within their particular movement ? How else is the level of popularity measured?
Periods in western art are very well defined, both by subject matter and style. For most of the AD era, popularity was not an issue: the only people who had to like it were the patrons: aristocracy, high clergy and rich merchants. Of course, everybody could see what they commissioned, but nobody else had influence. Not until the 18th century did art become accessible to the masses, and then popular taste began to have some feedback effect. Not surprisingly, changes in style - as well as the thinking of artists themselves - started to show up more frequently.
Talk of peace, pious or otherwise, is not just a temporary popular phase as in a particular artistic creation.
Of course not. That's quite separate from art. And it's not a popular fashion: it's a propaganda gambit by a belligerent government. Not all the time - just when they want to disguise an aggression they're contemplating or already carrying out, or a negotiation they're scuttling.
Art? Is there a correlation or causation between visual images presented to us and the way we think. I'm thinking of war photography. Different from artistic glorious depictions of Napoleon.
That's changed immensely - incomparably - since the Napoleon portrait. Or Washington's statue. The images coming thick-and-fast at people now are impossible to process. We don't have time to register most of them, let alone think about how they may affect us.
What public sentiment do you want to choose as an example. The rage against widening inequality?
If it's featured on mainstream news, to me, that signals an impending attack on low-end employment and trade unions.
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Impenitent »

disturbed by gruesome pictures of dead bodies from war?

don't play call of duty

yolo

-Imp
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Skip »

Now that you mention it, that's the flip-side of propaganda: popular entertainments and games designed to 1. desensitize the young, particularly males of near military recruitment age, to brutality 2. render images of brutality acceptable, or at least familiar and ignorable, to the general public 3. present these things as 'fictional'...
...while on the other side of your mouth, saying "That's the bad guys. We would never.... unless your safety depends on it..."
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Greta »

It's hard to speak of human views about the rest of nature because they can be anything from worship to disgust. However, those who strategically use more resources (ecosystems) have an advantage over those who are more careful with their use. The more resources you control, the more empowered you are. The problem as I see it is not human nature so much as, pardon the non sequitur, "the nature of nature".

Survival of the fittest never went away, although its effects have been softened to varying extents in different societies. "The fittest" clearly does not refer to the most ethical, decent or kind but to the most powerful and fecund. Now, the wealthiest.

The irony is that nature should produce creatures that find this distasteful. These organisms create structures and systems to isolate themselves from the elements, predators, parasites and pests. Safe in the rigorously sterile boxes they shelter in, they view images of the natural world on screens and admire its savage beauty and decry its losses.

The organisms also have a sense of disquiet, knowing that current practices are not sustainable with the current world population, and stresses are increasing. That will include more war. The future is looking to be one where "survival of the wealthiest" applies, although in a sense that has always been the case.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Skip »

The demand for romantic landscapes was most wide-spread in Europe from about 1840 to 1880, when the railways were cutting through the actual landscapes of Europe. This made the countryside more accessible - more visible to the prosperous urban industrialist - even while it was changing the way country people lived; changing the countryside itself. I do not think the craving of the middle and upper middle class for natural beauty was a matter of wealth or even, really, an expressed attitude to nature itself. I doubt it was even clear to them why they preferred these pictures to the heroic hist6orical subjects that had been in vogue for so long. I think it was more a mu7ddled nostalgia for something that they could feel - or sense, or intuit - was about to end.

I suspect the same is true of my other examples, and maybe a lot of other things. Like, in the 1990's and early 2000's, you couldn't go anywhere without confronting great big posters, photographs or meticulously realistic paintings of big game. Especially bears. I suspect people were, knowingly or not, saying good-bye.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Greta »

Skip wrote:I think it was more a muddled nostalgia for something that they could feel - or sense, or intuit - was about to end.
Yes. I don't even think of romanticising of nature as muddled nostalgia, just appreciating beauty at a safe distance. The sight of the icy tundra is inspiring unless you're there and freezing. The sweet chirping of birds may be screams of abuse.

One obvious influence on our aesthetics is healthfulness. The sight and smell of a sunny day in green surrounds, vibrantly moist from recent rains, feels good to many of us at an animal level, more so than dry desert terrain - although those adapted to those conditions may disagree. The sight of a purple sky and cyan foliage would elicit a very different physiological response.
Skip wrote:I suspect the same is true of my other examples, and maybe a lot of other things. Like, in the 1990's and early 2000's, you couldn't go anywhere without confronting great big posters, photographs or meticulously realistic paintings of big game. Especially bears. I suspect people were, knowingly or not, saying good-bye.
Interesting thought and maybe so.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by marjoram_blues »

Thanks, Skip, for your detailed response. I actually find it difficult to answer cut-out quotes; it disturbs my mental flow.
Or perhaps that's just an excuse for my chaotic flying thoughts and my inability to harness them to produce an adequate response.

Initially, I couldn't get my head round the title 'Do humans cherish what we destroy?'
An almost immediate reaction is to question which humans and what destruction of what we, or someone, might cherish.

I did think of an artist who talked of having to have a special and well-loved tree uprooted because it had grown to the extent it was overtaking the rest of the garden/leisure/pool space. That was an 'artisticsolution' 8) but such decisions are not always easy to make on a grander scale.
It is always a balancing act, is it not. Sometimes, there is a need for destruction to preserve that which we cherish. Or to provide necessary life systems like reservoirs.

Land is cherished for various reasons and for a variety of purposes - but again, you know all that. It seems that there is a whole load of land grab going on, the full extent of which is now being discovered and the public made more aware. Some public sentiment - not always published in certain media - is very much anti-fracking. Preserve the countryside for tourism and the awesomeness of it all. Celebrated by artists and walker alike. Battles are being fought against major companies who 'cherish' the land for its potential profit-making abilities.

It is thanks to mass media/internet that people can now see for themselves what is going on. Not so much can be hidden from view. And there appears to be more questioning of the political ideologies presented as truth in the newspapers.

Public sentiment is more than what is expressed in some media and not always reported. And yes, public sentiment can be whipped up by media barons - or soundbite brain-washing. Nothing new there. But watch this space,,,
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Skip »

Yes, that's a terrific example! Fracking continues to increase, as we learn more about its dangers. Which have been known all along by the experts, and by the perpetrators, but not turned to public debate until far too late. Was it necessary? Depends whom you ask. (of-bloody-course not!)

The next public treasure is water. Blue gold. The elixir of life, etc. Pretty images of waterfalls, fjords and lakes on every screensaver http://www.newsweek.com/race-buy-worlds-water-73893 This has appeared in news articles with increasing frequency over the last five years, but it doesn't seem to have penetrated the public awareness yet. Could there have been a better water-management strategy? Who knows? (of-bloody-course there should have been!)

Sorry about the quote-snipping. I have to do that for clarity. If I create confusion by using three disparate examples of [what i perceive as] the same phenomenon, imagine how badly I would muddle things, trying to answer four separate interesting thoughts in a single big paragraph!
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by marjoram_blues »

Thanks Skip, for article. Wow, things are getting scary - tanking water across the world, at what cost?
No worries about the quote response system; it just drives me nuts. It's not you, it's me :wink:

(Although I have to say that being the brilliant writer you are, you already gotta know that a big single blah of text,with several ideas,can be managed without the damned little quotes or getting into a muddle. In fact, they cause me more of a muddle when I try to respond. I think you sometimes list or number ideas for ease of reference, that can be helpful?

I mix and match, sometimes use the quotes, other times not. Depends how much nesting is going on, etc.
Anyway, all this is totally irrelevant and I will be shot at dawn).

Next topic, how best to have a PN discussion without going proper mad... :roll:
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Do humans cherish what we destroy?

Post by Skip »

Give it a nudge once in a while, else, just leave it go where it likes. It doesn't want to be saved, there's more where it came from.
Post Reply