Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 5:52 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 3:22 am Truth is experience, the truth in art is the truth of its experience, was it the intention of the artist, who knows his intentional experience might not be what the admiring subject might experience? It's relative to a conscious subject on both sides of the endeavor. I suppose the term, the truth in art might mean that this is when the two are one in the same way as subject and object.

I think concerns about truth may take attention away from the quality of the art. I've seen so-called conceptual art that I wouldn't want to buy because of the low quality. Of course, defining quality drove Pirsig mad, so suffice it to say within the scope of passing attention, that quality is self-evident. Like, low-rent is self-evident. Craftsmanship is an indication of quality.

The way I figure it:

Realistic painting = 95% artist and 5% witness.
Impressionistic painting = 70% artist and 30% witness.
One framed empty canvas = 0% artist and 100% witness.

The same principle of balance can be applied to all art forms. Artist and witness join to form the complete work.

The numbers may fluctuate, and they do exclude the fantasy 110-percenters.

Walker,

Certainly quality is important, indeed the term art depends upon it for the fewer of those qualities it has the closer in comes to the ugly and/or the monstrosity. This in effect brings the object nearer to extinction and further away from the intention of the artist. Whatever the art object is it has a category, it is a member of a kind an example of its species against which it is to be measured. It is about the rhythm and the radiance of near perfection, of being a celebration of the object. You don't often see a painting of withered and dying flowers though that could be a metaphor for the sorrows of the world. Generally, beauty is considered the radiance of well-being in all its forms. Great art might at the same time as representing this beauty also have within the same frame an indication of its temporality. I believe art is communication and perhaps most artists who take offense to being asked what it is about it is because if you have to ask, the artist has failed.

Truth? Art? Together? In the same room? You must be joking!

However, we're obviously talking about a different kinda art, the kinda art a certain class of mentally challenged/imbalanced peeps crank out on cheap canvasses in forbidding loony bins.

I think that truth in art must mean the truth the artist is trying to convey is received by the public and the effect is accomplished. Isn't that what is meant when you are told not to ask the artist its meaning, it would mean he has failed in affecting you in the way he intended. The only other possibility that I can think of is, truth is whatever was intended by the artist to the artist, and whatever one receives from the piece by the admirers is truth to the admirers. If it is meant to be mystical it is a failure.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:38 am I think that truth in art must mean the truth the artist is trying to convey is received by the public and the effect is accomplished.

If Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa were to be discovered just now, or not to be discovered at all, wouldn't it be true art from the moment of its creation?
In my opinion, "work for the public" is more likely to be "cheap art", although, being populist, it can have a fabulous price, and crazy demand.

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:58 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:38 am I think that truth in art must mean the truth the artist is trying to convey is received by the public and the effect is accomplished.

If Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa were to be discovered just now, or not to be discovered at all, wouldn't it be true art from the moment of its creation?
In my opinion, "work for the public" is more likely to be "cheap art", although, being populist, it can have a fabulous price, and crazy demand.

Art would still be art if only the artisan perceived it. Early art was basically, I think, the appreciation of function and form in everyday objects that contributed to the quality of the community's life. A perfectly balanced instrument would serve a function, if also aesthetically pleasing it serves both aspects and is termed art by modernity, but perhaps at the time, just a really nice tool.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:00 pm
Art would still be art if only the artisan perceived it.

In the old days, the populism of the artisans was limited by the censorship of the aristocrats. In our time, the aristocrats of the spirit threaten to die out like mammoths, imperceptibly, and with them the world in which we live. Doesn't the democracy of the kingdom of Vulgarity looms at us, the truth is not a priority in it.

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 11:37 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:00 pm
Art would still be art if only the artisan perceived it.

In the old days, the populism of the artisans was limited by the censorship of the aristocrats. In our time, the aristocrats of the spirit threaten to die out like mammoths, imperceptibly, and with them the world in which we live. Doesn't the democracy of the kingdom of Vulgarity looms at us, the truth is not a priority in it.

Define the truth. I am not differing with you, just asking for clarity.

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 11:37 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:00 pm
Art would still be art if only the artisan perceived it.

In the old days, the populism of the artisans was limited by the censorship of the aristocrats. In our time, the aristocrats of the spirit threaten to die out like mammoths, imperceptibly, and with them the world in which we live. Doesn't the democracy of the kingdom of Vulgarity looms at us, the truth is not a priority in it.

Should they make cartoons the old way, before Fred Rogers changed the transmissions aimed at children?
Fred was aiming for truth by teaching self-control and conflict resolution to toddlers.

The old style of transmission contains metaphorical messages, because the characters are portraying ROLES. Here's a short example.

Kill the Wabbit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTE9MDoaLs

Commentary:
- The scene opens with a forbidding, demonic shadow that is cast by a mild and meek little killer.
- That is a truthful metaphor about life.

- To make it fair, the wabbit ain’t so innocent.
- That is also true. Look what they did to Australia.

- The wabbit is rather clever and although he can’t sing, he does try.
- Self-evident and metaphorically, rabbits can be friendly when trained for humans, and at times do sound human.

- The question is, during the rest of the drama, because the Wabbit noticed the helmet, we must assume that the creators followed Chekhov’s advice concerning drama.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:01 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 11:37 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:00 pm
Art would still be art if only the artisan perceived it.

In the old days, the populism of the artisans was limited by the censorship of the aristocrats. In our time, the aristocrats of the spirit threaten to die out like mammoths, imperceptibly, and with them the world in which we live. Doesn't the democracy of the kingdom of Vulgarity looms at us, the truth is not a priority in it.

Should they make cartoons the old way, before Fred Rogers changed the transmissions aimed at children?
Fred was aiming for truth by teaching self-control and conflict resolution to toddlers.

The old style of transmission contains metaphorical messages, because the characters are portraying ROLES. Here's a short example.

Kill the Wabbit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTE9MDoaLs

Commentary:
- The scene opens with a forbidding, demonic shadow that is cast by a mild and meek little killer.
- That is a truthful metaphor about life.

- To make it fair, the wabbit ain’t so innocent.
- That is also true. Look what they did to Australia.

- The wabbit is rather clever and although he can’t sing, he does try.
- Self-evident and metaphorically, rabbits can be friendly when trained for humans, and at times do sound human.

- The question is, during the rest of the drama, because the Wabbit noticed the helmet, we must assume that the creators followed Chekhov’s advice concerning drama.

I am not all that familiar with interpretation of symbolism. I am just trying to get into it a bit. Any suggested readings?

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1725755 Working presently on quotes from Whitehead.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/172 ... and_Effect

Art is not ture.
There is no truth in art.
The truth is where you find it, part of the observers' experiences.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:02 pm Art is not true.
There is no truth in art.
The truth is where you find it, part of the observers' experiences.

That is the best thing I've heard so far. Seeing as experience itself is truth to the individual, but to the group agreement.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:02 pm Art is not true.
There is no truth in art.
The truth is where you find it, part of the observers' experiences.

That is the best thing I've heard so far. Seeing as experience itself is truth to the individual, but to the group agreement.

Thanks.

The artist can make the art truthfully and can use the experience to truthfully express his/her thoughts and feelings; but this can never be received perfectly by the observers since their truth is a translation process, a reflection on their own experience and feelings.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:15 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:02 pm Art is not true.
There is no truth in art.
The truth is where you find it, part of the observers' experiences.

That is the best thing I've heard so far. Seeing as experience itself is truth to the individual, but to the group agreement.

Thanks.

The artist can make the art truthfully and can use the experience to truthfully express his/her thoughts and feelings; but this can never be received perfectly by the observers since their truth is a translation process, a reflection on their own experience and feelings.

Indeed, art is communication! excellent!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:42 pm I am not all that familiar with interpretation of symbolism. I am just trying to get into it a bit. Any suggested readings?

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1725755 Working presently on quotes from Whitehead.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/172 ... and_Effect

No suggested readings. To live life as a philosophy means to see an applicable metaphor of that philosophy in every situation, and situations are in constant flux.

Checkhov said that if you mention a gun, if you show a gun, then that gun has to function before the story ends.

The wabbit was skeptical of Elmer Fudd's "magic helmet," his hat ... so you know before the 'toon ends that the helmet will likely get knocked off by the waskily wabbit. It's the dramatic form we expect stories to follow.

The magic helmet. You must remove the magic helmet-hat* in church to expose the mind to God.

Shaking hands. You shake hands to show that you have no weapon, and your right hand shakes so that your left may shield your heart from any lethal deception from the other's hands. Plus, you put your right foot forward and your left foot out when shaking with your right hand, and when doing the hokey pokey, so those ergonomics distances your heart from the other shaker. (After all, we do live in a predatory universe, that's what it's all about.)

When shaking hands in a Catholic church, which was part of the mass ritual before the Death-Sentence of Covid co-mingling, folks also say, "Peace be with you."

It's rather difficult to shake someone's hand, look them the eye and say peace be with you, without meaning it at that moment. And that moment of sincerity, that physical action, has a peaceful effect upon all concerned.

Just because a situation is seen as a metaphor does not make the metaphor true, true meaning a high probability of correlation with reality. Seeing the way things are makes the metaphor true. The form of metaphor just makes the relevant principles in the news apparent to other situations, as a rule of thumb. I also heard that in the past, "rule of thumb" meant the rule that a stick for beating the wife could be no thicker than a thumb, so in the Woke world that's reason for never saying it again. Never ever.


* And then there's the metaphorical advice to young men to be sure and wear a helmet if getting frisky, and thus removing that helmet would further add to literally surrendering to God's will to go forth and procreate oneself, which is often expressed in cruder terms in other applications.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 12:35 am
Define the truth.

He that speaketh truth in his heart is true in art, and in general in life. And on a desert island, too.
That is, do not lie to yourself, this is an inner truth, in art in particular, and in general in life.
After all, I said it at the beginning of this topic.

It is interesting, by the way, that in Sartre, self-deception-bad faith was a central point.