xxx Hello everyone. It has just struck midnight of Sunday here upon the thirteenth of July, and I would like to welcome the day with a new weekly thread to be commuted for discussion: Sillysophical Sundays. The concept is, essentially, that, quite like its name, philosophical discussions [that may or may not become intensive] shall be held each Sunday. xxx To elaborate, upon each Sunday of every week, a topic will be determined by myself or will, perhaps, be taken as a recommendation from a member. This topic can be openly discussed until the next Sunday, where it will, accordingly, be altered to freshen the new week and open our eyes to something else. xxx The sole rule of this thread is that conversation remains on-topic at all times. Know that ethics do not exist here and opinion is solely opinion. There also is no designated interpretation of the topic; it may be responded to accordingly with whichever manner the reader understood it. Thank you and enjoy yourselves.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:11 pm
xxx I figure that we might as well begin broadly with a subject that a fair amount of individuals are familiar with as a generality and could contribute to either way. xxxThe topic of discussion is: does society need art?
Since I started studying psychology and, specifically, the psychology of emotions, I've come to look at art as a reflection of the time period in which it was produced. If anything, it should serve as a tool of study for anthropologists. The feelings of a nation can be fairly accurately summed up in the artwork of the time. As Oscar Wilde wrote in The Picture of Dorian Gray; “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” I don't think it's so important that it should take priority over other subjects in public schooling or anything like that, though. I remember kids protesting back in high school when the art classes were getting canceled, but with the education budget we have, any other alternative would have been damaging to the curriculum. If somebody honestly wants to pursue art as a career or as an ongoing hobby, there is plenty of material out there to get started. People will just have to try a little harder.
I don't suppose this topic was inspired my the Monuments Men movie that came out recently, eh?
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:41 pm
Devtar
Since I started studying psychology and, specifically, the psychology of emotions, I've come to look at art as a reflection of the time period in which it was produced. If anything, it should serve as a tool of study for anthropologists. The feelings of a nation can be fairly accurately summed up in the artwork of the time. As Oscar Wilde wrote in The Picture of Dorian Gray; “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” I don't think it's so important that it should take priority over other subjects in public schooling or anything like that, though. I remember kids protesting back in high school when the art classes were getting canceled, but with the education budget we have, any other alternative would have been damaging to the curriculum. If somebody honestly wants to pursue art as a career or as an ongoing hobby, there is plenty of material out there to get started. People will just have to try a little harder.
I don't suppose this topic was inspired my the Monuments Men movie that came out recently, eh?
xxx Historically, even in the modern time, artwork has shown to effectively depict a nation's encompassing, generalised emotions and feelings during a given period of time; I find the evolution of the this forme of expression, as a whole, is an intriguing subject, especially resultant of the fact that it could be actively perceived as half - or more - of humanity, referring to the involved functionality of the mind and even the body. To create some addition to the point, I would actually like to provide quotation belonging to an unknown author of my own findings:
"'Tell us master, what is art?' 'Do you want the philosopher's answer? Or are you seeking the opinion of those wealthy folk who decorate their rooms with my pictures? Or again, do you want to know what the bleating herd thinks of it, as they praise or denigrate my work in speech or written word?' 'No master — what is your own answer?' After a few moments, Apollonius declared, 'If I see, or hear, or feel anything that another man has done or made, if in his track that he has left can I perceive a person, his understanding, his desires, his longings, his struggles — that, to me, is art.'"
xxx I should agree that, with an educational budget taken into account, the arts should not be prioritised above required curriculum courses, however, I do believe that, even if not with intentions of a career, a fair amount of persons should look into a subdivision. Although fields of the subject, as a generality, differ in regards to which portions of the brain are stimulated, by which manner, and also to what extent, though these are also affected by the individual, themselves, they allow for comfortable communication that the ambivert, extravert, and introvert may be satisfied with through methodology that other areas of knowledge are incapable of providing. In any case, although not necessarily as systematically functional as mathematics - though it can simultaneously be, as proven by some individuals such as John Cage, M.C. Escher, and the like - as a forme of expression, it becomes capable of assisting an individual adaptively to situations. xxx The question that I tend to discuss with fellow artists frequently is: is art dying? As of the modern years, art, as we have recognised it to be, has been degrading as mankind becomes more to our definition of "effecient", posing threats to activities that we do not necessarily require to advance, as a species. It seems that the body, even, could become nothing more than a useless distraction that only impedes upon our mentally augmentative prowess.
xxx It wasn't, actually, inspired by the Monuments Men movie, though I could well see the relevance.
I would blame the decline in art quality on the decision of public schools to make art credits mandatory and to offer one way of teaching art, what art is supposed to be, to such a large audience. It sets the seeds for one uniform way of thinking and creating. It's turned art in all it's forms from an art, to a science! If people genuinely have an appreciation for art, they will find it. Not the other way around. Sure, there will be less artists, but the ones that do end up pursuing art will pursue it with far more passion. Furthermore, with the decline of self proclaimed "artists," the few who do choose to pursue whichever medium they enjoy will be looked at with more reverence, seeing as they wont be produced a dime a dozen. In turn, anyone who sees these genuine artists as someone to look up to will be far more likely to try their hand at art. And the ones who don't would never have had the willpower to become great in the first place. I guess what I'm getting at is that art should be for those who have the desire, emotional inclination, and the willpower to pursue it; not just the people who want to be "artists."
"Is art dead?" That's a question I enjoy. Namely because it's such a fun thing to refute. See, art can't die, because there is no definitive form it should take. It is an abstract concept. It's like saying, "Is society dead?" Abstractions never die, they just change. Art isn't getting any worse, either, the way I see it. Is it losing variety? Sure. Is it losing feeling? You know it man. But what is that if not a perfect representation of the current zeitgeist? We've become a people of conformity and apathy. The masterpieces of the past came from times of reformation and passion. We're living in decadence, and the artwork is reflecting that vividly. A hundred years from now when the surviving artwork of today is presented, I'm sure it will give us an accurate, albeit unappealing, rendition. Though, I guess that's a question for your fellow artists. They might have a more artistic view on what art is. I'm probably over thinking it.
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:58 am
Puppet on a String Theory
xxx I figure that we might as well begin broadly with a subject that a fair amount of individuals are familiar with as a generality and could contribute to either way. xxxThe topic of discussion is: does society need art?
In order to answer that, it is first important to define what art is. While it can be argued that art is hard to define, for the purposes of discussion I will use a couple of qualifiers given to me from my last art class. Function: All art has a function that is designated by the artist, even one as simple as looking pretty. Form: It contains formal elements such as line, shape, color, texture and so on. Content: Art is not without some kind of meaning, even nonrepresentational art still has meaning Aesthetics While music can be considered art, it might complicate things to include it in this particular discussion.
In answering the question, art serves a purpose in society, therefore it is needed.
xxx Although purposes may be served to whichever extent, is that also to say that the purpose is necessary? To say that society needs art, however, despite what forme or shape it may take, would also be to imply that it is a requirement for the development of the aforementioned peoples or their survival. One of the predominantly excelling traits of the current, contemporary modernisation is effeciency and straightforwardness; although, per example, olden literature may be pleasant to listen to or read [with stylistic penmanship taken into account], it serves no purpose in comparison to the recent variations simply resultant of the fact that, though beautiful, it is not as productive. Likewise, architecture has deflated from the fantastical spectacles that individuals were meant to perceive as majestic, but has, rather, become something that is simply meant to aid mankind in the basic needs of survival: reproduction, shelter, and sustenance. Undoubtedly, it has been failing to compete with scientific progress out of the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution, but there is only so much that be deducted with the information that we possess. For the sake of effeciency and the rate by which the majority of humanity is currently travelling, can art, as we commonly perceive it, truly be needed, or, perhaps, might we come to view it as nothing more than an obstruction in our linear paths of knowledge and work? To a certain extreme, unnecessary aesthetics, content, forme, and function may become customarily understood as redundant and the beauty of it may simply be recognised as arbitrary.
Reply
