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
  #51  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 04:02 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
No, it can't be. This fellow is too fluent with proper English. We'd need more grammatical and spelling errors for Kingdaddy, though I admit, the arguments do have certain similarities.

For those who have no clue what we're talking about, Kingdaddy is the name of a rather entertaining poster at another forum some few years ago.
I am not nor have I heard of Kingdaddy, by the sound of it, perhaps rather regretfully
__________________
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
  #52  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 04:04 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
Isn't "grace" an "end" for morality?
No

Ethics are secular. When religion is involved (i.e. "grace") then we are talking about morality, not ethics.[/quote]

No, there is no coherent secular theory of ethics, which if you have studied philosophy, as you claim, you should know. Your second sentence is also false

So, where was it you studied and what branch of philosophy?
__________________
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
  #53  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 04:07 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
Ethics can be religious or secular, but that's neither here nor there.

I get the impression that Voices is entering this discussion from a distinctly non-secular perspective.
There is no coherent secular theory of ethics, such is just those that haunt God's bones
__________________
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
  #54  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 04:08 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
I'd disagree with that one. I'd like to see Non Sequitur's take on it.



Without a doubt. Which is why a switch of terms to "morality" would be appropriate since that's where this is going.

What you call morality is nothing to me
__________________
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
  #55  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 04:09 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
Along with literally thousands of academics, books, traditions, schools of theology, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics

For example...
Yes, indeed Michael is completely wrong there
__________________
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
  #56  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 09:10 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
Except art does not create beauty, it makes a poor, bloodless rendition of the beauty of nature
Hey now, we did this one already back in post #22ff!

You say "Where art is beautiful it is one a pale imitation of the beauty of nature, wherein lies all beauty."

Then I say that actually art can help to highlight and expose the beauty of other things, that you've ignored the other values of art I mentioned, and what do you mean by "nature" anyway?

Then you say you're using "that use of 'nature' to indicate that which is not of non-material world origin"

Then I say that it sure seems like that should include art, since it isn't from the non-material world.

Then you say "A man make s a tool that is natural, rooted in our biology, art is an attempt to capture the end in and of itself without the rigours of that calling. Art is less than craft, less than other activities, as has been said above little more than 'masturbation writ large"

Then I say Why is making a piece of art less natural than making a tool? And just what do you mean by "art" anyway?

Then you "Making a tool is part of our form of life, just as certain animals make tools, making something useless like art is a perversion of that ability"

Then I say why is art useless? And point AGAIN to its ability to highlight beauty to enlighten, to inspire, and to bring pleasure (though you consistently ignore these other services). [And I might add, why is making a tool more part of "our form of life" than making art?]

And now we're back to you saying that the beauty of art is a "bloodless rendition of the beauty of nature".

SO, rather than make the block again, I'll simply sum up the questions I'd still like to see you address:
  • What do you mean by "art"? I'd like this definition because, without it, I can't fathom how you see art as useless or lacking in beauty and many fine other qualities. I can only assume you have some relatively narrow definition of "art" in mind and I'd like to know what it is.
  • If not addressed in the above, I'd like like an explanation of why pieces of art are deemed unnatural since they seem to fall well within the natural world. Why must one natural object (i.e. a piece of art) be ipso facto less beautiful than another natural object?
  • And finally, beauty aside, I point yet again to the other valuable services of artwork: to inspire, to enlighten, and to bring pleasure. There are probably more, but that's a good start.
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 09:20 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
Hey now, we did this one already back in post #22ff!

You say "Where art is beautiful it is one a pale imitation of the beauty of nature, wherein lies all beauty."

Then I say that actually art can help to highlight and expose the beauty of other things, that you've ignored the other values of art I mentioned, and what do you mean by "nature" anyway?

Then you say you're using "that use of 'nature' to indicate that which is not of non-material world origin"

Then I say that it sure seems like that should include art, since it isn't from the non-material world.

Then you say "A man make s a tool that is natural, rooted in our biology, art is an attempt to capture the end in and of itself without the rigours of that calling. Art is less than craft, less than other activities, as has been said above little more than 'masturbation writ large"

Then I say Why is making a piece of art less natural than making a tool? And just what do you mean by "art" anyway?

Then you "Making a tool is part of our form of life, just as certain animals make tools, making something useless like art is a perversion of that ability"

Then I say why is art useless? And point AGAIN to its ability to highlight beauty to enlighten, to inspire, and to bring pleasure (though you consistently ignore these other services). [And I might add, why is making a tool more part of "our form of life" than making art?]
Which makes your argument circular, only nature creates beauty, art only imitates that beauty and shows it through a glass darkly.

Making a tool keeps us alive therefore contributes to our form of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
And now we're back to you saying that the beauty of art is a "bloodless rendition of the beauty of nature".

SO, rather than make the block again, I'll simply sum up the questions I'd still like to see you address:
  • What do you mean by "art"? I'd like this definition because, without it, I can't fathom how you see art as useless or lacking in beauty and many fine other qualities. I can only assume you have some relatively narrow definition of "art" in mind and I'd like to know what it is.
  • If not addressed in the above, I'd like like an explanation of why pieces of art are deemed unnatural since they seem to fall well within the natural world. Why must one natural object (i.e. a piece of art) be ipso facto less beautiful than another natural object?
  • And finally, beauty aside, I point yet again to the other valuable services of artwork: to inspire, to enlighten, and to bring pleasure. There are probably more, but that's a good start.
No, actually I have a rather broad definition that I have already given, art is a system that attempts unsuccessfully to create value. A poor shabby thing.

I have not understood what you mean by 'enlighten' I do not believe art does this. Rather art deceives, obscures and diverts
__________________
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
  #58  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 10:00 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
Which makes your argument circular, only nature creates beauty, art only imitates that beauty and shows it through a glass darkly.

Making a tool keeps us alive therefore contributes to our form of life.



No, actually I have a rather broad definition that I have already given, art is a system that attempts unsuccessfully to create value. A poor shabby thing.

I have not understood what you mean by 'enlighten' I do not believe art does this. Rather art deceives, obscures and diverts
If you define "art" as a poor shabby thing which cannot create value, then it seems the issue is settled from the beginning and there's nothing farther to discuss.

I can only say that I find a great deal of beauty (and other valuable qualities) in what is commonly called "art," and as I have said before, that art often helps me better see and appreciate the beauty of other things. I know many/most others find the same value in art and that their lives are the richer for it.

If you find yourself unable to discover beauty, pleasure, inspiration, or simply joy from pieces of art, then you have my sympathy. I must assume that your world is the less for it, as mine would be were I suddenly only able to see art as "a poor shabby thing."
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 10:17 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
If you define "art" as a poor shabby thing which cannot create value, then it seems the issue is settled from the beginning and there's nothing farther to discuss.

I can only say that I find a great deal of beauty (and other valuable qualities) in what is commonly called "art," and as I have said before, that art often helps me better see and appreciate the beauty of other things. I know many/most others find the same value in art and that their lives are the richer for it.

If you find yourself unable to discover beauty, pleasure, inspiration, or simply joy from pieces of art, then you have my sympathy. I must assume that your world is the less for it, as mine would be were I suddenly only able to see art as "a poor shabby thing."

I am confused how an imitation can help you appreciate the original
__________________
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
  #60  
Old Jan 7th 2014, 11:44 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
I am confused how an imitation can help you appreciate the original
Putting aside the implication that all art is "imitation"....

You've really never found that a landscape painting has highlighted aspects of a vista that you'd previously overlooked? Never first noticed a particular personal quality in a photograph or portrait and, thereafter, been able to see it in the person themselves? Or, perhaps most common, never found that you could accentuate your experience of the warmth and brightness of the sun, or the depressing chill of the rain, or the invigorating briskness of the wind by recalling the right song or poem when you're out for a walk?

I can be more specific and personal, if you like. My appreciation for the beauty and grandeur of the night sky is raised whenever I stare upward and recall to mind the lyrics of 'Stars' from the Les Miserables musical.

Quote:
Stars
In your multitudes
Scarce to be counted
Filling the darkness
With order and light
You are the sentinels
Silent and sure
Keeping watch in the night
Keeping watch in the night

You know your place in the sky
You hold your course and your aim
And each in your season
Returns and returns
And is always the same
And if you fall as Lucifer fell
You fall in flames!
I listen for (and can often hear) music in the waves and wind along the shore because we have a picture of a couple dancing beside the sea on our walls (Jack Vetriano's "The Singing Butler").



I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a very artistic person (notably my examples here are hardly considered "high art"), but even I find my world made more beautiful, made richer, by the art in it.
__________________
kyrie eleison
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 05:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com