What is art?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6425
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by thedoc » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:13 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:49 pm
Since you know and respect the rules of chess all this PC tampering is just silly. But it is the same with the universal laws of existence. The East understands them far better than the West which is why they value the knowledge of dharma and karma. Art worthy of the name allows the recipient to feel the quality of emotion related to greater objective value which the dharma in its own way allows a person to experience. Modern western art is only concerned with glorifying random egoistic expression. It is like silly chess in which the games of the great masters like Fisher, Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca etc. could never be experienced.
There is a problem with the universal laws of existence. Too many people today have the expectation of "instant gratification" and they expect Karma to be enacted right now. That is unrealistic in that Karma might manifest in longer than the human lifespan. At that rate each person might not see a satisfactory outcome and not believe in Karma. The same can be said of Dharma and the west could dismiss the concept because of the time for either to manifest. In chess a player might loose on a regular basis at first, but if the individual is willing to learn from the mistakes made they will become a better player and the losses will be fewer. Personally I do not like the "timed chess game" where there is a limited amount of time to make a move, I prefer and I do much better when there is practically an unlimited amount of time to consider a move.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3550
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Greta » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:22 am

thedoc wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:12 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:19 pm
Experts say it is unfair and a person should be allowed to place their pieces wherever it feels good to do so. the king and queen must be made equal in importance as an attack against sexism.

This may seem silly
These "experts" are just idiots who have lost touch with reality.

It is silly.
Do you believe that "experts" - people who have had a passion for a topic, studied it and worked in the field for many years - are less knowledgeable about their pet topic than laypersons?

What I see are a lot of people hoping to elevate their status through bluff above those who have actually worked and studied. Generally I will place more store in expert opinion than that of laypersons, with occasional exceptions. Experts are always worth taking note of, but laypersons it's very much a case-by-case basis.

Nick_A
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:24 am

thedoc wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:13 am
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:49 pm
Since you know and respect the rules of chess all this PC tampering is just silly. But it is the same with the universal laws of existence. The East understands them far better than the West which is why they value the knowledge of dharma and karma. Art worthy of the name allows the recipient to feel the quality of emotion related to greater objective value which the dharma in its own way allows a person to experience. Modern western art is only concerned with glorifying random egoistic expression. It is like silly chess in which the games of the great masters like Fisher, Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca etc. could never be experienced.
There is a problem with the universal laws of existence. Too many people today have the expectation of "instant gratification" and they expect Karma to be enacted right now. That is unrealistic in that Karma might manifest in longer than the human lifespan. At that rate each person might not see a satisfactory outcome and not believe in Karma. The same can be said of Dharma and the west could dismiss the concept because of the time for either to manifest. In chess a player might loose on a regular basis at first, but if the individual is willing to learn from the mistakes made they will become a better player and the losses will be fewer. Personally I do not like the "timed chess game" where there is a limited amount of time to make a move, I prefer and I do much better when there is practically an unlimited amount of time to consider a move.
Instant gratification is a topic in itself. I believe technology furthers the drive for instant gratification which is having a disastrous effect on the human psyche. Attention span shortens and reason becomes shallow leading to a lessening of a human perspective. A dangerous situation

I think you will appreciate this. Dr. Bulington went to rural Mississippi to teach chess. Many will say why bother with these young lost souls unable to think straight? How can they learn chess much less be motivated to learn chess? Well he didn't listen to the experts and went to Mississippi. You can read what he accomplished. He made reason and analysis fun giving the kids a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Their grades went up and they now have a chance for a bright future. That is what chess is capable of. It may not be hip and offer the enchantment of video games but provides something meaningful difficult to describe.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-fight- ... ssissippi/

Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch wrote: "Chess is a form of intellectual productiveness, therein lies, its peculiar charm. Intellectual productiveness is one of the greatest joys -if not the greatest one- of human existence. It is not everyone who can write a play, or build a bridge, or even make a good joke. But in chess everyone can, everyone must, be intellectually productive and so can share in this select delight. I have always a slight feeling of pity for the man who has no knowledge of chess, just as I would pity for the man who has no knowledge of love. Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy."

Belinda
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:25 am

The doc wrote:
Political correctness is total Bull Shit, and doesn't deserve the attention it gets. Chess is a game with definite rules and to abandon the set rules of chess is nonsense, chess is not politically correct and never should be, play the game as it is or go find another game where you won't loose. About 45 years ago I encountered idiots who insisted that no child should ever experience failure and wanted to eliminate the failing grade from the school system, how is a student expected to learn about real life if they don't occasionally fail. These "experts" had obviously never been in a class room and stood in front of a class of students who didn't want to be there. Failure was the only way to wake them up but it didn't always work, students often come to school with the attitude of their parents, so they just drifted along till they were out of school.
Branding any child with "failure " is child abuse. The child is dependant upon others in their home and at school, everywhere.

The child who fails to be good at chess or any other game with rules is not 'a failure'. That child needs extra care from adults to do as well as they can do wherever they have some potential . Somebody who fails standard tests in school or in life is not ' a failure'. The opposite of what you say is true, branding somebody " a failure" is not only soul-destroyingly arrogant for the person doing the branding, but damages the recipient of the abuse.
I have taught young adults who were polite enough but who had little interest in the topic. The only recourse of the teacher or lecturer in that case is to find out what the student likes and take it from there.
True, the student should not be infantilised and should be aware that there are public examinations to be dealt with, if they even are able to sit the exams. Also true, the student should be aware that they might fail the exam if they aren't up to the required standard of intelligence or knowledge. But to fail to present oneself to examiners, or to fail at chess, is not to be a failure. I think, the doc, you have simply not expressed your opinion as well as you might have done.

How does all this apply to appreciation of art? One of the tasks of educators is to teach art appreciation. This can be done only in a way that starts from the point of view of the recipient. There is no other way. Neither should artists lower their standards to popularise or commercialise their work. I'm not decrying commercial art, but part of art appreciation is to be able to understand the relevance of the art activity to the society in which the art is embedded.

thedoc
Posts: 6425
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by thedoc » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:38 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:25 am
I think, the doc, you have simply not expressed your opinion as well as you might have done.
I think you are correct, but I don't usually write my thoughts I tend to keep them to myself. I wasn't suggesting to label a child as a failure but I think it is important to give them a realistic expectation of the world. On another forum a college professor expressed some disappointment that some students taking his class expected a passing grade just for paying the fee for the class without attending the class or doing the work. This kind of entitlement mentality is what comes of not giving failing grades when the work is not up to minimum standards, and those standards are low enough for just about anyone to achieve with just a little effort. It is true that everyone is not good at the same thing but the public school system is not the place to find that special talent, that should be what the parent is doing and then letting the school act accordingly.

FYI, I was a teacher for 7 years in the 70's when this idea was proposed but I quit teaching and later decided that I just wasn't very good at it, but there were other things that I was good at. I'm not expressing ideas in a vacuum but from the experience that I have had, I don't believe the "experts" who were proposing this idea had ever spent any time in a classroom in front of students. In my opinion it was a bit of "Ivory Tower" thinking that wasn't very realistic.

Belinda
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:28 pm

The doc wrote:
I wasn't suggesting to label a child as a failure but I think it is important to give them a realistic expectation of the world.
I agree. I am glad you cleared that up.

The doc:
It is true that everyone is not good at the same thing but the public school system is not the place to find that special talent, that should be what the parent is doing and then letting the school act accordingly.
I don't agree. Parents can't be expected to be experts in child rearing. I wish that they were, but they aren't. Often the home conditions are bad for the child and those aren't the parents' fault. Bad housing and lack of funds for adequate parenting is the fault of such social welfare system as it is.

Teachers are the experts. I am sorry that teachers have to face stroppy or stupid parents and I wish that all parents respected teachers' expertise.
Last edited by Belinda on Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nick_A
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:32 pm

Belinda
How does all this apply to appreciation of art? One of the tasks of educators is to teach art appreciation. This can be done only in a way that starts from the point of view of the recipient. There is no other way. Neither should artists lower their standards to popularise or commercialise their work. I'm not decrying commercial art, but part of art appreciation is to be able to understand the relevance of the art activity to the society in which the art is embedded.
The proponents of the Great Beast determine the relevance of art in progressive art appreciation. Is that all there is?

Belinda
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:38 pm

Nick_A wrote:
The proponents of the Great Beast determine the relevance of art in progressive art appreciation. Is that all there is?
I have forgotten what "The Great Beast" is .

Nick_A
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:03 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:38 pm
Nick_A wrote:
The proponents of the Great Beast determine the relevance of art in progressive art appreciation. Is that all there is?
I have forgotten what "The Great Beast" is .
Simone Weil describes the modern image.
The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.

Belinda
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:37 pm

Nick_A wrote:
The proponents of the Great Beast determine the relevance of art in progressive art appreciation. Is that all there is?
Thanks for clarification.

No. I believe that some works of art are better than others. Art appreciation is taught in several ways. One is to learn how to be a maker of music, pictures, dance, sculpture etc. There is also learning to listen or to see or to taste so that one can perceive skill, creativity, autonomy, or truth. There is seeing , hearing,or tasting the difference between the crude and the complex, and between the imitation and the genuine.

There is a lot of natural talent and appreciation among us hoi polloi and many of us welcome good teachers so that we can appreciate more.

Nick_A
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:00 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:37 pm
Nick_A wrote:
The proponents of the Great Beast determine the relevance of art in progressive art appreciation. Is that all there is?
Thanks for clarification.

No. I believe that some works of art are better than others. Art appreciation is taught in several ways. One is to learn how to be a maker of music, pictures, dance, sculpture etc. There is also learning to listen or to see or to taste so that one can perceive skill, creativity, autonomy, or truth. There is seeing , hearing,or tasting the difference between the crude and the complex, and between the imitation and the genuine.

There is a lot of natural talent and appreciation among us hoi polloi and many of us welcome good teachers so that we can appreciate more.
When Frederic Church painted "In the Heart of the Andes" it was considered exceptional and meaningful for expressing cosmology and a certain harmony in nature. Then experts became enthused with Darwin and the idea of the survival of the fittest. It was concluded by the experts that this harmony was a lie and not so lovely so this magnificent painting ended up in a hallway and not worth two cents. Who can argue with the experts?

Then around 1900 some experts decided that it wasn't half bad and major doners at the Met in NY decided to have a day promoting Frederic Church. The painting then returned to the Met and now is considered priceless. Who knows what the experts will come up with next but nothing will surprise me at this point.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by davidm » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:45 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:00 pm

When Frederic Church painted "In the Heart of the Andes" it was considered exceptional and meaningful for expressing cosmology and a certain harmony in nature. Then experts became enthused with Darwin and the idea of the survival of the fittest. It was concluded by the experts that this harmony was a lie and not so lovely so this magnificent painting ended up in a hallway and not worth two cents. Who can argue with the experts?
You do say the most absurd things! It's quite amusing. :lol:

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by davidm » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:02 pm

“The Heart of the Andes” was first exhibited in 1859 and created a sensation. A certain book was published that same year that ultimately created an even greater sensation. Could this be what Nick is talking about? Who can say?

I’m not an expert on Church and his work but I don’t think his popularity ever waned in his lifetime, and certainly I don’t think Charles Darwin had anything to do with Church or his work.

Church depicted idealized scenes of pastoral settings in a hyperrealistic and sentimental matter. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s certainly not my cup of tea. I’ll take Picasso any day.

I should mention that while Darwin and Picasso today have tremendous influence, Church — meh, not so much. But then this is the era of the Great Beast! :twisted:

Dubious
Posts: 1714
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Dubious » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:50 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:00 pm

When Frederic Church painted "In the Heart of the Andes" it was considered exceptional and meaningful for expressing cosmology and a certain harmony in nature. Then experts became enthused with Darwin and the idea of the survival of the fittest. It was concluded by the experts that this harmony was a lie and not so lovely so this magnificent painting ended up in a hallway and not worth two cents. Who can argue with the experts?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? This is the history of the painting, nothing about it hanging in a hallway nearly worthless.

Church eventually sold the work for $10,000—at that time the highest price ever paid for a work by a living American artist. The painting was acquired by Margaret Dows, widow of David Dows, and bequeathed to the Metropolitan Museum of Art upon her death in February 1909.


The painting is a major masterpiece by any standard and goes far beyond being merely idealistic. I'll take it over Picasso a thousand times over!

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3550
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Greta » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:11 am

I think Nick was just trying to address the subject of "experts", letting us know that those who have devoted their lives to study and work in a field know no more about a subject than laypersons [sic].

Unlike in religion, experts in secular societies are allowed to disagree with each. They are also allowed to change their minds. In religion this shows a lack of depth and faith. In science it's just logical - if the evidence is there, then opinions change. In this case, art experts from different eras disagreed regarding the quality of particular works. Does that render all their ideas to be more more than that of a layperson?

Whatever, in this anti-expert era of increasingly proud ignorance, unlike climate change, denialists of expertise can enjoy the fact that expert opinion doesn't matter in personal art appreciation. For instance, if Picasso's Girl Before a Mirror to be amongst my favourite works of art, why would I care about any contrary expert opinion? If an expert didn't much enjoy the piece, why would that change my day?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests