any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
Hi all,
I was just wandering around something:
Are there by any chance artists here, that due to their work, sparked also their interest in philosophy?
Or perhaps the other way around, are there people here, mostly interested in philosophy, that also turned into artists, perhaps in an attempt to explain or visualize their work?
If so, and willing to tell stories around this, feel free to share them.
I was just wandering around something:
Are there by any chance artists here, that due to their work, sparked also their interest in philosophy?
Or perhaps the other way around, are there people here, mostly interested in philosophy, that also turned into artists, perhaps in an attempt to explain or visualize their work?
If so, and willing to tell stories around this, feel free to share them.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
Dunno if I qualify as an artist, but I went to art school. The thing with really learning to draw is that you have to learn to see what is actually there, rather than what you imagine; so no outlines for instance. And to understand movement and proportion, it helps to know a thing or two about anatomy. I decided that I wanted to understand the universe, so started studying physics and mathematics, which I figured were analogous to seeing what is there and anatomy in the case of physics, with maths being more akin to movement and proportion. But to me the interesting questions are what is everything ultimately made of, and how does it actually work? Both of those are actually philosophical questions, so I went and got a degree in philosophy.
Dunno if I qualify as a philosopher, but I got an MSc and had a few things published. The thing is, the process is fundamentally the same. You have to learn the tools and techniques; practise for years and accept that not everyone will appreciate your output no matter how technically proficient you become, because people make decisions for essentially aesthetic reasons, as much in science and philosophy as in art.
Dunno if I qualify as a philosopher, but I got an MSc and had a few things published. The thing is, the process is fundamentally the same. You have to learn the tools and techniques; practise for years and accept that not everyone will appreciate your output no matter how technically proficient you become, because people make decisions for essentially aesthetic reasons, as much in science and philosophy as in art.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
I have absolutely no idea how philosophy could resolve any of that. If it had the means, why didn't it do so a long time ago! Philosophy has always been more a matter of interpretation than discovery. Also the old precincts of Natural Philosophy have yielded to science as now established in spite of the semi-scholastic arguments between scientists pondering their theories as happened in all ages.
...or maybe I misunderstood your statement.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
wow, talking about possible multidisciplinary insights. Art, philosophy, physics and mathematics.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:19 am Dunno if I qualify as an artist, but I went to art school. The thing with really learning to draw is that you have to learn to see what is actually there, rather than what you imagine; so no outlines for instance. And to understand movement and proportion, it helps to know a thing or two about anatomy. I decided that I wanted to understand the universe, so started studying physics and mathematics, which I figured were analogous to seeing what is there and anatomy in the case of physics, with maths being more akin to movement and proportion. But to me the interesting questions are what is everything ultimately made of, and how does it actually work? Both of those are actually philosophical questions, so I went and got a degree in philosophy.
Dunno if I qualify as a philosopher, but I got an MSc and had a few things published. The thing is, the process is fundamentally the same. You have to learn the tools and techniques; practise for years and accept that not everyone will appreciate your output no matter how technically proficient you become, because people make decisions for essentially aesthetic reasons, as much in science and philosophy as in art.
I'm trying to do the same, although a bit differently (Heck, we all have our lives and "equations" to make haven't we?)
A very interesting insight. Many thanks!uwot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:19 am The thing is, the process is fundamentally the same. You have to learn the tools and techniques; practise for years and accept that not everyone will appreciate your output no matter how technically proficient you become, because people make decisions for essentially aesthetic reasons, as much in science and philosophy as in art.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
I think you are right about philosophy being more interpretation than discovery, but even today the data we discover has to be interpreted. Scientists still do natural philosophy; even those who deny it the loudest. The thing is that there can be more than one interpretation of the same data. What studying philosophy or science teaches you is not to fool yourself into believing that the interpretation you happen to find the most appealing is necessarily the correct one.Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:32 amPhilosophy has always been more a matter of interpretation than discovery. Also the old precincts of Natural Philosophy have yielded to science as now established in spite of the semi-scholastic arguments between scientists pondering their theories as happened in all ages.
...or maybe I misunderstood your statement.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
I am not sure whether there's much of a difference between art, philosophy, science, engineering or any other constructive human activity - in the most abstract interpretation it's all a form of creation/self-expression.
The need to create is at the tip of Manslow's hierarchy - self-actualisation.
The need to create is at the tip of Manslow's hierarchy - self-actualisation.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
Absolutely.
You're welcome. If you're interested in how art, maths, philosophy and science are all inter-connected there is a fabulous book called Objectivity by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
Some philosophy of a certain quality as well as some art enables a person to experience the anonymous within it which transcends opinions. This experience can come first from either as long as the anonymous is deep within it and lets another share it..A work of art has an author and yet, when it is perfect, it has something which is anonymous about it. (Simone Weil)
-
- Posts: 8313
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
I think of Plato's disdain for the arts as being mere "imitation" of appearances of the perfect forms, in essence, third-hand truth. However, I think Nietzsche rescued art by eliminating all objective frames of reference. My first love was philosophy but I find art, especially poetry, to be relaxing these days.
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
Yes, I agree. Plato's statement makes sense though, if you look at artifacts of those times, but now art is developing it's own language, it's own way.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:02 pm I think of Plato's disdain for the arts as being mere "imitation" of appearances of the perfect forms, in essence, third-hand truth. However, I think Nietzsche rescued art by eliminating all objective frames of reference. My first love was philosophy but I find art, especially poetry, to be relaxing these days.
Glad you find comfort in poetry Gary.
Many thanks for this and my best wishes.
-
- Posts: 8313
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
Thanks. To you as well.NEW wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 7:22 amYes, I agree. Plato's statement makes sense though, if you look at artifacts of those times, but now art is developing it's own language, it's own way.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:02 pm I think of Plato's disdain for the arts as being mere "imitation" of appearances of the perfect forms, in essence, third-hand truth. However, I think Nietzsche rescued art by eliminating all objective frames of reference. My first love was philosophy but I find art, especially poetry, to be relaxing these days.
Glad you find comfort in poetry Gary.
Many thanks for this and my best wishes.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
What Simone said is true though the anonymity felt is, I think, more pertinent to art than to philosophy which even at its most outstanding is still a matter of opinion.Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:59 amSome philosophy of a certain quality as well as some art enables a person to experience the anonymous within it which transcends opinions. This experience can come first from either as long as the anonymous is deep within it and lets another share it..A work of art has an author and yet, when it is perfect, it has something which is anonymous about it. (Simone Weil)
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
I'm a philosopher that is now an artist - if that is any help?NEW wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:21 pm Hi all,
I was just wandering around something:
Are there by any chance artists here, that due to their work, sparked also their interest in philosophy?
Or perhaps the other way around, are there people here, mostly interested in philosophy, that also turned into artists, perhaps in an attempt to explain or visualize their work?
If so, and willing to tell stories around this, feel free to share them.
Aside from making sculptures of philosophers, and sculptures leaning towards history of philosophy , I think generally it is difficult to express philosophy artistically.
What would a sculpture look like that was based on the discussion between free will and determinism; or the challenge to the rationalists that the empiricists made?
Re: any artists here that turned into philosophers (or the other way around)?
If you do art then you are an artist. I'm not sure art school qualifies either way.
I think the philosophical ideas about idealism and phenomenology have something to say about art training - when the aim is to get a likeness, and to see what is there ,and not what you think is there. However much art does not aim to achieve this. Rather than aim for the objective, and search for the ideal and the subjective can make better portraits and more interesting an abstract works.The thing with really learning to draw is that you have to learn to see what is actually there, rather than what you imagine; so no outlines for instance. And to understand movement and proportion, it helps to know a thing or two about anatomy. I decided that I wanted to understand the universe, so started studying physics and mathematics, which I figured were analogous to seeing what is there and anatomy in the case of physics, with maths being more akin to movement and proportion. But to me the interesting questions are what is everything ultimately made of, and how does it actually work? Both of those are actually philosophical questions, so I went and got a degree in philosophy.
For my money though as a sculptor who most often does live portraits and nude life sculptures the abstract is not the aim, but to unpack and sidestep the ideal and to seek the objective.
Nonetheless I can make a sculpture of a nude in a class with half a dozen other experienced sculptor and despite the skills towards fidelity of form there is no way you could mistake one sculptor's work for another.
Portraits of faces is no different.
Aesthetic achievement is always more mature and worthwhile if you have the skills, and capabilities that the discipline of finding the objective will get you.Dunno if I qualify as a philosopher, but I got an MSc and had a few things published. The thing is, the process is fundamentally the same. You have to learn the tools and techniques; practise for years and accept that not everyone will appreciate your output no matter how technically proficient you become, because people make decisions for essentially aesthetic reasons, as much in science and philosophy as in art.
So much in modern art is devoid of the crafts(man)ship that gives art its underlying dedication .
Its a shame that so many modern artists are such poor craftspersons.