Not sure what the point is there, but okay.Janoah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:42 ampornography, for example, also resonates with consumers.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:47 am
At any rate, what folks would be referring to is just that something about the art, re what it's "communicating" on an abstract level, resonates with the consumer--it seems on-target in its observations, its impressions, its commentary, its criticism, etc.
What is art? What is beauty?
I agree an idiom can be learned and can be deliberately taught. For some reason it was easier for me to appreciate impressionists than cubists and abstract much of which remains beyond my ken.psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:30 pmI understand that an approach to the concepts that nurture a particular artist makes it easier to distinguish subtleties in their work. But if his work doesn't seduce with the promise of an interesting and aesthetic idea, no further explanation will make you find it of value.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:35 pmYes truth is an approximation to reality and nobody can know the limits of reality.psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:14 pm
For me, "Truth" is an approximation to reality and this is an insurmountable limit by design.
I do not think that Art would be a sum of effectiveness where the importance of the idea, the intention when expressing it, the ability to translate it, the artistic ability, the aesthetic conceptions, etc. of an artist result in a work of art. The mind is an opaque box and we only see its products.
The observer reacts or not to the work.
If Picasso had been a recluse who never expressed anything outside of his paintings and sculptures. A complete stranger whose entire work would have been hidden in a basement. When you went down to that basement for the first time and without knowing anything about the artist, would you have considered his work as a work of art?
I would not have considered Picasso's paintings and sculptures works of art because I would not have been familiarised with the idioms Picasso employed. I'd have appreciated George Stubbs's or Degas's horse paintings immediately as works of art.
Everybody who wants to understand works of art, including those within popular culture, has to learn the idiom. Musically, it is likely that babies respond to rhythm and tone, and perhaps certain intervals increase dopamine levels. The visual arts however are more suited to symbolism and other means of conveying conceptual meanings.
Perhaps it is unfounded but I suppose that if you looked at the works of Picasso in their chronological order and you would be warned about the plastic orientation in art, before he made his appearance, you would appreciate his exploration even if you would never previously have known a word of his intentions.
But it's just my opinion.
Truth in art can be an ambiguous subject.Janoah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:22 amfor science it can be.
The question remains, what is truth in art? It is clear that in art, truth is not an approximation to reality, (although there was such a trend in art, "socialist realism").
You mean if the artist is faithful to his intention? If one really try to manipulate society to achieve fame or wealth?
If the artist expresses a truth?
The truth (concepts that have a supposed correspondence with some part of reality) in art does not necessarily have to be social. Art has tried to transmit aesthetic, religious, psychological, moral concepts. And more.
I do not distinguish that in art the idea of truth is different than in science. Science is the system we use to get knowledge. Art, in my opinion, cannot be lacking in concepts that have a correspondence with reality. This does not mean that art is restricted and that creative flight is subject to reality. Art is part of reality.
the point is that it is really different.
what is in general correspondence to reality in Chopin's nocturne.
one can rather ditch art with concepts, art is not didactics, but rather spontaneity.
I shudder at Janoah's ugly turn of phrase . However.
Sex is a powerful disruptor of social life. That is why it is always in some measure controlled by law or by taboo. There has never been a truly permissive society. Sexual activity is often hidden from view by the simple expedient of covering the primary genitals, and this applies especially to erect penises.