Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Arts & Literature

Arts & Literature Book Reviews, Fiction, Literary Criticism, Poetry, Stage and Visual Arts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old Jan 4th 2014, 03:26 AM
voiceoftheshires voiceoftheshires is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Heart of England
Posts: 490
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donkey View Post
I... don't have a definition for that.
Then perhaps that is why you do't understand
__________________
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ...and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Jan 4th 2014, 03:38 AM
voiceoftheshires voiceoftheshires is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Heart of England
Posts: 490
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
IMO, this progression breaks down at point 3.

It presumes that "art" has no true value, a presumption which goes against sentiments both ancient and modern. Even putting aside those who believe in "art for art's sake," art may be [and often is] a source of beauty, of pleasure, of inspiration, of devotion, and of enlightenment. It is therefore a valuable and the creation and protection of such art is, itself, ethical.
That this goes against both ancients and moderns means nothing. Where art is beautiful it is one a pale imitation of the beauty of nature, wherein lies all beauty. Please tell me what you mean by enlightenment?

Art for art sake is meaningless and circular so good we left it aside
__________________
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ...and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Jan 4th 2014, 07:44 AM
dilettante's Avatar
dilettante dilettante is offline
Moderator
Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,082
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceoftheshires View Post
That this goes against both ancients and moderns means nothing. Where art is beautiful it is one a pale imitation of the beauty of nature, wherein lies all beauty.
I've found that good art can vastly enhance my ability to identify and enjoy the beauty of the world. Art can help me to find the beauty in places, people, and things I could previously only see as ugly or mundane. That seems to me a valuable service.

I would also question what definition you're using for "nature" here. Every piece of art exists in the natural (as opposed to the super-natural or non-material) world. I challenge the notion that one object is, ipso facto, less beautiful than another because it is "art."

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceoftheshires View Post
Please tell me what you mean by enlightenment?
In this case: instruction, edification, insight.

And again I point to inspiration and pleasure as other valuable benefits one can receive from art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceoftheshires View Post
Art for art sake is meaningless and circular so good we left it aside
I suspect something similar could be said of "value for value's sake...."

Any system of values or morals must be founded on something that is simply accepted as valuable or good for its own sake. That something might be God, or happiness, or (perhaps) art. But if there is not some bedrock, self-referential value at the core of the system, then there is no value at all.
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Jan 4th 2014, 09:48 AM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,835
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
Any system of values or morals must be founded on something that is simply accepted as valuable or good for its own sake. That something might be God, or happiness, or (perhaps) art. But if there is not some bedrock, self-referential value at the core of the system, then there is no value at all.
Small problem with "food" here. It is valued, not for its own sake, but for its pure utility. There is nothing that is "simply accepted" here.

Food, like water, is necessary. Calling that a "value" or a "good" produces semantic circles.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Jan 4th 2014, 11:08 AM
dilettante's Avatar
dilettante dilettante is offline
Moderator
Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,082
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Small problem with "food" here. It is valued, not for its own sake, but for its pure utility. There is nothing that is "simply accepted" here.

Food, like water, is necessary. Calling that a "value" or a "good" produces semantic circles.
I don't see the problem. I don't think anyone would claim that "food" is a foundational value in their moral system. It, like many other things, is a means through which more foundational values such as pleasure or the sustenance of one's life (which are/may-be considered good for their own sakes) can be achieved.

Food would not be necessary and would have no value to sated individual on the verge of death.

All systems of value end in a semantic circle. That's the point. Sooner or later they boil down to some self-referential good.
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Jan 4th 2014, 02:16 PM
Donkey's Avatar
Donkey Donkey is offline
Official Forum Mascot
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 7,771
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceoftheshires View Post
Then perhaps that is why you do't understand
Well yeah. I'm not going to understand your logic if I'm unaware of your definitions.
__________________
"It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize."
Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Jan 5th 2014, 03:57 AM
voiceoftheshires voiceoftheshires is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Heart of England
Posts: 490
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
I've found that good art can vastly enhance my ability to identify and enjoy the beauty of the world. Art can help me to find the beauty in places, people, and things I could previously only see as ugly or mundane. That seems to me a valuable service.
Then it is a means to an end, not of value in and of itself but only as a means to get that which is of real value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
I would also question what definition you're using for "nature" here. Every piece of art exists in the natural (as opposed to the super-natural or non-material) world. I challenge the notion that one object is, ipso facto, less beautiful than another because it is "art."
Well then, let us distinguish between that use of 'nature' to indicate that which is not of non-material world origin (Lets us, for the sake of this argument, ignore the incoherence and inconsistency of the concept of a material world)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post

Any system of values or morals must be founded on something that is simply accepted as valuable or good for its own sake. That something might be God, or happiness, or (perhaps) art. But if there is not some bedrock, self-referential value at the core of the system, then there is no value at all.
Yes indeed, that is what we must ask, what is it that can act as that bedrock, you have yourself reduced the supposed value of art to a means to an end and therefore shown it cannot play that role
__________________
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ...and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old Jan 5th 2014, 09:36 AM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,835
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceoftheshires View Post
Then it is a means to an end, not of value in and of itself but only as a means to get that which is of real value.
In which case, art has no actual or real value on its own. It is only a means to an end.

I'm okay with this definitional requirement, though it pretty much kills the idea of art as an end in itself.

(I've always held that artists create art in order to express themselves - as such, art itself is merely the vehicle for the artist's expression and as such, the artwork itself is merely incidential to an expression that is entirely self-referential to the artist - that is to say, creating art is ultimately, little more than 'masturbation writ large').
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old Jan 5th 2014, 10:11 AM
dilettante's Avatar
dilettante dilettante is offline
Moderator
Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,082
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceoftheshires View Post
Then it is a means to an end, not of value in and of itself but only as a means to get that which is of real value.
Of course. That was established as soon as we set aside "art for art's sake." For most people, most things are means to ends; very few are ends in themselves (i.e. good for their own sake).

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceoftheshires View Post
Well then, let us distinguish between that use of 'nature' to indicate that which is not of non-material world origin (Lets us, for the sake of this argument, ignore the incoherence and inconsistency of the concept of a material world)
Ok. So why isn't art part of nature?
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old Jan 5th 2014, 11:57 AM
voiceoftheshires voiceoftheshires is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Heart of England
Posts: 490
Default Re: Nature of art

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
In which case, art has no actual or real value on its own. It is only a means to an end.

I'm okay with this definitional requirement, though it pretty much kills the idea of art as an end in itself.

.
Indeed
__________________
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ...and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com