whose art is it?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

whose art is it?

Post by Advocate »

If you're looking at a piece of art and seeing something other than what the artist intended, you're seeing a piece of art You created out of their art. Likewise if you don't know what was intended, or if either of you simply don't care.
Last edited by Advocate on Sat May 07, 2022 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:43 pm If you're looking at a piece of art and seeing something other than what the artist intended, you're seeing a piece of art You created out of their art. Likewise if you don't know what was intended, or if either of you simply don't care.
Do you mean "Whose Art?"
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Belinda »

Advocate wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:43 pm If you're looking at a piece of art and seeing something other than what the artist intended, you're seeing a piece of art You created out of their art. Likewise if you don't know what was intended, or if either of you simply don't care.

It's the same with watching a football game, or sitting listening to a lecturer. Each spectator is a unique Dasein who creates 'himself' from what he experiences.
Impenitent
Posts: 4329
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Impenitent »

the written word is often art...

literally

-Imp
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Walker »

Impenitent wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:55 pm the written word is often art...

literally

-Imp
Literarily, when figurative.

*

An artist who explains his intent is like a comedian who explains his joke. It doesn’t help the effort, and could hurt it.
Kenny92
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed May 18, 2022 6:25 am

Re: whose art is it?

Post by Kenny92 »

We can't say that by reading the book and imagining its events in your head, you become a kind of the author. It's only your interpretation of the events already described by the book's author. Word of mouth in a sense.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:26 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:43 pm If you're looking at a piece of art and seeing something other than what the artist intended, you're seeing a piece of art You created out of their art. Likewise if you don't know what was intended, or if either of you simply don't care.

It's the same with watching a football game, or sitting listening to a lecturer. Each spectator is a unique Dasein who creates 'himself' from what he experiences.
Belinda,

Would you say from your statement above that this is in a sense identity formation, is that what indeed the artist is creating out of himself and hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:06 am
Belinda wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:26 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:43 pm If you're looking at a piece of art and seeing something other than what the artist intended, you're seeing a piece of art You created out of their art. Likewise if you don't know what was intended, or if either of you simply don't care.

It's the same with watching a football game, or sitting listening to a lecturer. Each spectator is a unique Dasein who creates 'himself' from what he experiences.
Belinda,

Would you say from your statement above that this is in a sense identity formation, is that what indeed the artist is creating out of himself and hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer.
To create "out of ourselves" is an activity humans possibly uniquely are equipped by nature to do. It's a travesty of human nature when a person is a follower of others or of some leader of a cult.To freely choose one's own identity is the best way to go.

Artists whose work is significantly not derivative will bravely do their work despite adversity .

"hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer" may be a sign of commerce and lack of disinterest, but not always. Classical music composers, and Renaissance artists were commercially and religiously motivated to some extent. The mark of quality is to some extent that of skill as craftsman and I'd not be so daft as to claim a four year old child could produce a work of art. Mozart did it at age six but he was very unusual.

It's always a pleasant feeling when someone we respect agrees with and understands us, but it's a mark of quality when the artist is self -directed to a large extent including when he is unpopular with his employer or with the public. This is an ethical principle that covers not only art but also science, religious faith, political power, and everyday activities.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:50 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:06 am
Belinda wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:26 pm

It's the same with watching a football game, or sitting listening to a lecturer. Each spectator is a unique Dasein who creates 'himself' from what he experiences.
Belinda,

Would you say from your statement above that this is in a sense identity formation, is that what indeed the artist is creating out of himself and hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer.
To create "out of ourselves" is an activity humans possibly uniquely are equipped by nature to do. It's a travesty of human nature when a person is a follower of others or of some leader of a cult.To freely choose one's own identity is the best way to go.

Artists whose work is significantly not derivative will bravely do their work despite adversity .

"hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer" may be a sign of commerce and lack of disinterest, but not always. Classical music composers, and Renaissance artists were commercially and religiously motivated to some extent. The mark of quality is to some extent that of skill as craftsman and I'd not be so daft as to claim a four year old child could produce a work of art. Mozart did it at age six but he was very unusual.

It's always a pleasant feeling when someone we respect agrees with and understands us, but it's a mark of quality when the artist is self -directed to a large extent including when he is unpopular with his employer or with the public. This is an ethical principle that covers not only art but also science, religious faith, political power, and everyday activities.
Belinda,

So, context defines carries little weight here ---yes? For both artist and admirer?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:01 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:50 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:06 am

Belinda,

Would you say from your statement above that this is in a sense identity formation, is that what indeed the artist is creating out of himself and hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer.
To create "out of ourselves" is an activity humans possibly uniquely are equipped by nature to do. It's a travesty of human nature when a person is a follower of others or of some leader of a cult.To freely choose one's own identity is the best way to go.

Artists whose work is significantly not derivative will bravely do their work despite adversity .

"hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer" may be a sign of commerce and lack of disinterest, but not always. Classical music composers, and Renaissance artists were commercially and religiously motivated to some extent. The mark of quality is to some extent that of skill as craftsman and I'd not be so daft as to claim a four year old child could produce a work of art. Mozart did it at age six but he was very unusual.

It's always a pleasant feeling when someone we respect agrees with and understands us, but it's a mark of quality when the artist is self -directed to a large extent including when he is unpopular with his employer or with the public. This is an ethical principle that covers not only art but also science, religious faith, political power, and everyday activities.
Belinda,

So, context defines carries little weight here ---yes? For both artist and admirer?
If by "context" you refer to modes of expression , then yes, most everybody can express themselves in an idiom of their own choice; religious or political regime permitting.

If by "context" you refer to prevailing cultural norms then it's interesting to study a culture at a time of social change and observe how people express themselves according to the old or the new norm or combine the two. For instance during one phase of European history artistic expression was firmly attached to classical rules, and then there was a cultural revolution when the individual and her feelings mattered more than traditions. This sort of paradigm shift can be detected in music, fine art, and literature. I am not claiming classical is better or worse than romantic, only different.

However, the romantic tradition more so than the classical tradition allows the consumer of the work of art to add her own feelings to her interpretation.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:35 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:01 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:50 am
To create "out of ourselves" is an activity humans possibly uniquely are equipped by nature to do. It's a travesty of human nature when a person is a follower of others or of some leader of a cult.To freely choose one's own identity is the best way to go.

Artists whose work is significantly not derivative will bravely do their work despite adversity .

"hoping in becomes part of the admiring subject or admirer" may be a sign of commerce and lack of disinterest, but not always. Classical music composers, and Renaissance artists were commercially and religiously motivated to some extent. The mark of quality is to some extent that of skill as craftsman and I'd not be so daft as to claim a four year old child could produce a work of art. Mozart did it at age six but he was very unusual.

It's always a pleasant feeling when someone we respect agrees with and understands us, but it's a mark of quality when the artist is self -directed to a large extent including when he is unpopular with his employer or with the public. This is an ethical principle that covers not only art but also science, religious faith, political power, and everyday activities.
Belinda,

So, context defines carries little weight here ---yes? For both artist and admirer?
If by "context" you refer to modes of expression , then yes, most everybody can express themselves in an idiom of their own choice; religious or political regime permitting.

If by "context" you refer to prevailing cultural norms then it's interesting to study a culture at a time of social change and observe how people express themselves according to the old or the new norm or combine the two. For instance during one phase of European history artistic expression was firmly attached to classical rules, and then there was a cultural revolution when the individual and her feelings mattered more than traditions. This sort of paradigm shift can be detected in music, fine art, and literature. I am not claiming classical is better or worse than romantic, only different.

However, the romantic tradition more so than the classical tradition allows the consumer of the work of art to add her own feelings to her interpretation.
Belinda,

Frankly, it all sounds like context to me certainly context in transformation at times, but to think what contextual experience has taught us in the past does not determine what is to come is not logical. We are that which experiences and we react out of those experiences, experience is knowledge, art is the management thereof.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:19 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:35 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:01 pm

Belinda,

So, context defines carries little weight here ---yes? For both artist and admirer?
If by "context" you refer to modes of expression , then yes, most everybody can express themselves in an idiom of their own choice; religious or political regime permitting.

If by "context" you refer to prevailing cultural norms then it's interesting to study a culture at a time of social change and observe how people express themselves according to the old or the new norm or combine the two. For instance during one phase of European history artistic expression was firmly attached to classical rules, and then there was a cultural revolution when the individual and her feelings mattered more than traditions. This sort of paradigm shift can be detected in music, fine art, and literature. I am not claiming classical is better or worse than romantic, only different.

However, the romantic tradition more so than the classical tradition allows the consumer of the work of art to add her own feelings to her interpretation.
Belinda,

Frankly, it all sounds like context to me certainly context in transformation at times, but to think what contextual experience has taught us in the past does not determine what is to come is not logical. We are that which experiences and we react out of those experiences, experience is knowledge, art is the management thereof.
I think I agree with you. To make sure I understand what you are saying would you please say what, other than context, someone might suggest art springs from ? ( or any other human endeavour springs from ). True, there are what are usually called 'instincts' but these would be dormant or moribund in a context vacuum.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda,

Frankly, it all sounds like context to me certainly context in transformation at times, but to think what contextual experience has taught us in the past does not determine what is to come is not logical. We are that which experiences and we react out of those experiences, experience is knowledge, art is the management thereof.
[/quote]
I think I agree with you. To make sure I understand what you are saying would you please say what, other than context, someone might suggest art springs from ? ( or any other human endeavour springs from ). True, there are what are usually called 'instincts' but these would be dormant or moribund in a context vacuum.
[/quote]

Belinda,

Context is in its full meaning the world as object. As to the source of art like all other endevores it comes as a biological extension into the world as object, an expression a manifestation of human nature. Humanity being much more complex than its cousins it is also creatively more complex. Art is a human endevor for though in nature there is much beauty it comes to be though a natural process but basically unintentional. I believe art is a celebration of object/s in the widest sense. Beauty is the most healthy well adapted samples of its kind and according to kind it has measures of structure and form which in itself determines function. The essence of life being the same in all creatures, it is the complexity of organism and structure and form which makes for differentiation, but not essence, essence is the same across the board.

Art is communication between elements of a common biology and what is the communication about, it can only be about what it is to be and be in a human world. Biology creates objects through the energies that affect change in that same said biology thus, you might say that objects are ideas of the body as mind interprets, for the body is the idea of the mind. We know all meaning is the property of the subject, read biology because apparent reality is a reaction to the energies of the physical world which is composed of pure energies. I'll try not to babble on to much longer, so, art is the expression of the nature of humanities relations to itself for there is no separation between the object topic and the biological sensing of it.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:28 pm Belinda,

Frankly, it all sounds like context to me certainly context in transformation at times, but to think what contextual experience has taught us in the past does not determine what is to come is not logical. We are that which experiences and we react out of those experiences, experience is knowledge, art is the management thereof.
I think I agree with you. To make sure I understand what you are saying would you please say what, other than context, someone might suggest art springs from ? ( or any other human endeavour springs from ). True, there are what are usually called 'instincts' but these would be dormant or moribund in a context vacuum.
[/quote]

Belinda,

Context is in its full meaning the world as object. As to the source of art like all other endevores it comes as a biological extension into the world as object, an expression a manifestation of human nature. Humanity being much more complex than its cousins it is also creatively more complex. Art is a human endevor for though in nature there is much beauty it comes to be though a natural process but basically unintentional. I believe art is a celebration of object/s in the widest sense. Beauty is the most healthy well adapted samples of its kind and according to kind it has measures of structure and form which in itself determines function. The essence of life being the same in all creatures, it is the complexity of organism and structure and form which makes for differentiation, but not essence, essence is the same across the board.

Art is communication between elements of a common biology and what is the communication about, it can only be about what it is to be and be in a human world. Biology creates objects through the energies that affect change in that same said biology thus, you might say that objects are ideas of the body as mind interprets, for the body is the idea of the mind. We know all meaning is the property of the subject, read biology because apparent reality is a reaction to the energies of the physical world which is composed of pure energies. I'll try not to babble on to much longer, so, art is the expression of the nature of humanities relations to itself for there is no separation between the object topic and the biological sensing of it.
[/quote]

Yes, art, like any other endeavour, is a response to being in the world and may well be called "biological".

Some people (but not I) may claim a work of art is a direct and irresistible influence from God. Athena was the Greek (polytheist) goddess of art and creativity. Polytheistic gods are unpredictable supernatural forces that are inexorable like natural disasters are inexorable.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: who's art is it?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:08 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:28 pm Belinda,

Frankly, it all sounds like context to me certainly context in transformation at times, but to think what contextual experience has taught us in the past does not determine what is to come is not logical. We are that which experiences and we react out of those experiences, experience is knowledge, art is the management thereof.
I think I agree with you. To make sure I understand what you are saying would you please say what, other than context, someone might suggest art springs from ? ( or any other human endeavour springs from ). True, there are what are usually called 'instincts' but these would be dormant or moribund in a context vacuum.
Belinda,

Context is in its full meaning the world as object. As to the source of art like all other endevores it comes as a biological extension into the world as object, an expression a manifestation of human nature. Humanity being much more complex than its cousins it is also creatively more complex. Art is a human endevor for though in nature there is much beauty it comes to be though a natural process but basically unintentional. I believe art is a celebration of object/s in the widest sense. Beauty is the most healthy well adapted samples of its kind and according to kind it has measures of structure and form which in itself determines function. The essence of life being the same in all creatures, it is the complexity of organism and structure and form which makes for differentiation, but not essence, essence is the same across the board.

Art is communication between elements of a common biology and what is the communication about, it can only be about what it is to be and be in a human world. Biology creates objects through the energies that affect change in that same said biology thus, you might say that objects are ideas of the body as mind interprets, for the body is the idea of the mind. We know all meaning is the property of the subject, read biology because apparent reality is a reaction to the energies of the physical world which is composed of pure energies. I'll try not to babble on to much longer, so, art is the expression of the nature of humanities relations to itself for there is no separation between the object topic and the biological sensing of it.
[/quote]

Yes, art, like any other endeavour, is a response to being in the world and may well be called "biological".

Some people (but not I) may claim a work of art is a direct and irresistible influence from God. Athena was the Greek (polytheist) goddess of art and creativity. Polytheistic gods are unpredictable supernatural forces that are inexorable like natural disasters are inexorable.
[/quote]

Belinda,

Much like the Hindu gods which are not the ultimate, but represent the verious energies that manifest in human nature.
Post Reply