Art and truth

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Art and truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

psycho wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:04 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:50 pm
psycho wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:41 pm For me. art is distinguished from other human products because it expresses a novel idea about some aspect of reality.
When we're talking about instrumental music, say, what would you say is an example of a novel idea about some aspect of reality that a musical artwork would be expressing?
An artist can express himself unintentionally or intentionally and his creation may be considered art if others deem it valuable.
You wouldn't say there can be bad art, poorly executed art, crap art, etc.?
Music is appreciated because we specialize in distinguishing patterns (of all kinds) and when a pattern is understood we are rewarded with a sense of pleasure.

However, as patterns are associated with emotions, when listening to music, we also interpret it according to our associations. The music can be martial or romantic. As if a certain pattern of sounds, without any other information, could describe battles or loves.

No. There is art or there is no art. Either the idea is relevant and novel and its expression is executed with excellence or not.
So music only has value to you insofar as you associate it with emotions a la states like "romantic" (and the old "happy," "sad," etc.) (as opposed to "purely aesthetic" emotional states that bear no relation to states that occur outside of experiencing artworks)?

Also you're saying that in your view there can be no bad art?
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Art and truth

Post by Janoah »

psycho wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:38 pm
I assure you that it was not my intention to offend Chopin.
Thank you for the recognition about Chopin!
I will be grateful for the recognition, if you deem it correct, what I will say now.
So, scientific or "factual" truth consists in the correspondence of the mental representation of something to what exists in external reality.
For example, the mental picture that a tree is growing behind the house is true if a tree actually grows behind the house.

Regarding the nocturne, the melody could come spontaneously, without any idea of external reality.
Therefore, I say that the truth of art is different from scientific, factual truth.
(To make it clear, I do not believe in the "supernatural" transcendent, and I propose to define the truth in art in scientific language.)
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Art and truth

Post by Walker »

Good enough for this official video.
Sometimes it's a tension between good and better.

These days though you gotta wonder ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FdDLvED_4E
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Art and truth

Post by Walker »

This gives rise to the first classic question, is it the singer or the song that makes the art?

The second classic question: girl or guy?
(Maybe that’s the first classic question.)
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Art and truth

Post by psycho »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:46 am
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:04 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:50 pm

When we're talking about instrumental music, say, what would you say is an example of a novel idea about some aspect of reality that a musical artwork would be expressing?



You wouldn't say there can be bad art, poorly executed art, crap art, etc.?
Music is appreciated because we specialize in distinguishing patterns (of all kinds) and when a pattern is understood we are rewarded with a sense of pleasure.

However, as patterns are associated with emotions, when listening to music, we also interpret it according to our associations. The music can be martial or romantic. As if a certain pattern of sounds, without any other information, could describe battles or loves.

No. There is art or there is no art. Either the idea is relevant and novel and its expression is executed with excellence or not.
So music only has value to you insofar as you associate it with emotions a la states like "romantic" (and the old "happy," "sad," etc.) (as opposed to "purely aesthetic" emotional states that bear no relation to states that occur outside of experiencing artworks)?

Also you're saying that in your view there can be no bad art?
Sorry for not being clear! Those were just examples of how people relate sound patterns to emotions. Obviously those association is not limited to only those two emotional states!

There must be an interpretation on the part of the listener for the music to be meaningful to them.

Otherwise, those who listen to music would react to it without what they heard meant anything to them. That is not what we experience or what we distinguish in those who enjoy music.

LOL! True! Bad art doesn't exist for me. In the same way that there is no half death or half pregnancy.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Art and truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

psycho wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:01 pm Sorry for not being clear! Those were just examples of how people relate sound patterns to emotions. Obviously those association is not limited to only those two emotional states!

There must be an interpretation on the part of the listener for the music to be meaningful to them.

Otherwise, those who listen to music would react to it without what they heard meant anything to them. That is not what we experience or what we distinguish in those who enjoy music.
Aren't you aware of formalism? Enjoying the structures (the forms) for their own sake? And then there are exclusively aesthetic "emotions" related to that. There's no interpretation needed for that. It's just enjoying the form for what it is.
LOL! True! Bad art doesn't exist for me. In the same way that there is no half death or half pregnancy.
Sure. That's an unusual way to use the term "art," though. Dig stuff like the Museum of Bad Art: http://museumofbadart.org/
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Art and truth

Post by psycho »

Janoah wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:29 pm
psycho wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:38 pm
I assure you that it was not my intention to offend Chopin.
Thank you for the recognition about Chopin!
I will be grateful for the recognition, if you deem it correct, what I will say now.
So, scientific or "factual" truth consists in the correspondence of the mental representation of something to what exists in external reality.
For example, the mental picture that a tree is growing behind the house is true if a tree actually grows behind the house.

Regarding the nocturne, the melody could come spontaneously, without any idea of external reality.
Therefore, I say that the truth of art is different from scientific, factual truth.
(To make it clear, I do not believe in the "supernatural" transcendent, and I propose to define the truth in art in scientific language.)
For me, the use of the concept "truth" just confuses things.

In my case, my opinion is more extreme because I do not think that the absolute truth is something accessible to humans.

We only get to know approximations.

I share with you that a concept must have an effective correspondence with what it describes about reality.

I do not share with you that something called scientific truth exists. Science does not make claims about the truth.

In my opinion, the "truth" in Chopin's art is found in the effectiveness of his product to generate in his listeners the mental states that they enjoy so much.
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Art and truth

Post by psycho »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:17 pm
psycho wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:01 pm Sorry for not being clear! Those were just examples of how people relate sound patterns to emotions. Obviously those association is not limited to only those two emotional states!

There must be an interpretation on the part of the listener for the music to be meaningful to them.

Otherwise, those who listen to music would react to it without what they heard meant anything to them. That is not what we experience or what we distinguish in those who enjoy music.
Aren't you aware of formalism? Enjoying the structures (the forms) for their own sake? And then there are exclusively aesthetic "emotions" related to that. There's no interpretation needed for that. It's just enjoying the form for what it is.
LOL! True! Bad art doesn't exist for me. In the same way that there is no half death or half pregnancy.
Sure. That's an unusual way to use the term "art," though. Dig stuff like the Museum of Bad Art: http://museumofbadart.org/

As with music, we take pleasure in discerning patterns, structures, trends, etc. It is a trait that favors our survival.

One can express concepts that correspond to a certain pattern. If the concept is relevant to the observer, it is
original and created with excellence, it can be considered art.

If your mind did not interpret it, it would not be possible for you to enjoy it.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Art and truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

psycho wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:50 pm As with music, we take pleasure in discerning patterns, structures, trends, etc. It is a trait that favors our survival.

One can express concepts that correspond to a certain pattern. If the concept is relevant to the observer, it is
original and created with excellence, it can be considered art.

If your mind did not interpret it, it would not be possible for you to enjoy it.
So you don't believe that one can enjoy forms/structures for their own sake/in their own right, without "interpreting" them?
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Art and truth

Post by psycho »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:54 pm
psycho wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:50 pm As with music, we take pleasure in discerning patterns, structures, trends, etc. It is a trait that favors our survival.

One can express concepts that correspond to a certain pattern. If the concept is relevant to the observer, it is
original and created with excellence, it can be considered art.

If your mind did not interpret it, it would not be possible for you to enjoy it.
So you don't believe that one can enjoy forms/structures for their own sake/in their own right, without "interpreting" them?
Nope.

We react to what we interpret. The rest goes unnoticed.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Art and truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

psycho wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:10 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:54 pm
psycho wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:50 pm As with music, we take pleasure in discerning patterns, structures, trends, etc. It is a trait that favors our survival.

One can express concepts that correspond to a certain pattern. If the concept is relevant to the observer, it is
original and created with excellence, it can be considered art.

If your mind did not interpret it, it would not be possible for you to enjoy it.
So you don't believe that one can enjoy forms/structures for their own sake/in their own right, without "interpreting" them?
Nope.

We react to what we interpret. The rest goes unnoticed.
I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I enjoy forms/structures in music for their own sake, with no interpreting involved. There are formalists in this sense with respect to every art form. If that's not something you can relate to or even conceive of, there's probably no (at least relatively easy) way to convey the notion to you.
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Art and truth

Post by psycho »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:28 pm
psycho wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:10 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:54 pm

So you don't believe that one can enjoy forms/structures for their own sake/in their own right, without "interpreting" them?
Nope.

We react to what we interpret. The rest goes unnoticed.
I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I enjoy forms/structures in music for their own sake, with no interpreting involved. There are formalists in this sense with respect to every art form. If that's not something you can relate to or even conceive of, there's probably no (at least relatively easy) way to convey the notion to you.
I think that you distinguish something in the object that gives you enjoyment.

If you did not distinguish something in particular, that object would be indifferent to you from other objects.

Your brain interpreted the characteristics of the admired object and evaluated them positively. He had to conceptualize them.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Art and truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

psycho wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:20 pm I think that you distinguish something in the object that gives you enjoyment.

If you did not distinguish something in particular, that object would be indifferent to you from other objects.

Your brain interpreted the characteristics of the admired object and evaluated them positively. He had to conceptualize them.
You hear things like how a particular collection of pitches sound in context (contexts being things like the pitches that are before and after the pitches in question), what particular rhythms sound like in context, etc.
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Art and truth

Post by psycho »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:47 pm
psycho wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:20 pm I think that you distinguish something in the object that gives you enjoyment.

If you did not distinguish something in particular, that object would be indifferent to you from other objects.

Your brain interpreted the characteristics of the admired object and evaluated them positively. He had to conceptualize them.
You hear things like how a particular collection of pitches sound in context (contexts being things like the pitches that are before and after the pitches in question), what particular rhythms sound like in context, etc.
In other words, the music does not generate any emotion or the emotions it generates are not related to the music?

When you have emotions while listening to music, are these emotions arbitrary?

Emotions result from the interpretation of reality.

I am sad because this aspect of reality is negative for me or I am happy because this situation means something positive to me.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Art and truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

psycho wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:07 pm In other words, the music does not generate any emotion or the emotions it generates are not related to the music?
Correct. As I said above, "purely" aesthetic emotional reactions. Emotional responses that are only to form.
When you have emotions while listening to music, are these emotions arbitrary?
Not arbitrary, but particular to an individual.
Emotions result from the interpretation of reality.
It's not an interpretation in this case. Merely a reaction to the form/structure. These emotions have nothing to do with emotions such as "happy," "sad," etc. They're responses to forms or structures as such.
Post Reply