Seems purely arbitrary. I actually agreed with everything you said in your OP other than this statement; the plague of posting on a philosophy forum: we focus on the negative. So, props on your OP, but...you said "the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence", I asked how/why you know that: you said: "because you don't have to live forever in order for you to appreciate beauty". So, basically this sounds like...some kind of fallacy, I'm too rusty on all of them to call it out. But, the simple point I wanted to make was: You made no argument as to why "the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence."

So, if it doesn't last... "forever"...why do good things versus atrocious things? Shouldn't I just do what catches my fancy? After all, eternity won't know the difference. How do you predicate this idea that I should do useful things?

Yet despite this, I know that the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence. — intrapersona

How/why do you know that?

delete

One of the things that intelligent, well read, and maybe over-informed people need to do is selectively cut back on the data feeds that are plugged into their heads. — Bitter Crank

>:O (and where's the standing O emoji to follow?)

We need--or at least I personally want--to transcend all of it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Me too. That's why I've taken a break posting on this philosophy forum.

Here's a suggestion, rest of the world: — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Perhaps a better place to begin would be to address this adage to yourself, rather than the rest of the world. The "rest of the world", after all, begins with you.

I'm with you.

As I understand it authentic (as opposed to indulgent) self-expression just is inspiration; Part of the discipline of any art form consists in learning to recognize one's self-indulgence and relinquish it, to enable inspiration to take place. I don't see any dichotomy or even inconsistency between the two notions. — Janus

I'm not sure, then, what you mean with that distinction, since you don't see any dichotomy. Unless I'm misunderstanding.

However I certainly don't think of it as an "outside force"; I have no idea what that could even mean. — Janus

Fair enough, of course. Like I said, my comments on that topic exede the bounds of a philosophy forum.

I have to agree with Rich and say that art is about self-expression. — Janus

I really have to say I continue to disagree with this. Reference my comments to you in the beauty thread. I have no problem with folks like you and Rich who make art for themselves and don't care about having an audience, but that's different than a selfish artist in search of, or in possession of, an audience. I've seen plenty of that in my short life thus far from working in various aspects of the music business. Additionally, self-expression is just one aspect to art. John Baldessari said "You have to be possessed (which you can't will)." The idea of artistic inspiration has a bad rap, but I can personally attest to the truth of Baldessari's idea, and there's really no other way to address whether some sort of unique inspiration happens than through one's own experience. Philosophically, it's pretty much untenable to assert that an outside force of inspiration exists in some artists. But this is an anonymous forum, so I'll just say it: it exists, and I'm one of those artists. I really lack the philosophical chops to try to express what i'm trying to say in any other way. I just know from experience that there's something more to art than self-expression. I don't only express myself when I make music. There's something else at work. So, briefly, the fact that this outside force of inspiration exists means that art doesn't just express the self; it's an (almost always failed) attempt at what Mondrian calls "a real equation of the individual and the universal", and what Berdyaev said is an always failed attempt of the divine aspect of man to "create new being".

I don't think there are any "mechanics" involved: we have a sense of being part of something greater simply by virtue of being in a world. That 'being in a world' is a primordial mystery. Beauty consists in the evocation of that mystery; we have no other way of dealing with it, since we cannot explain it, and even if we could, to explain it would inevitably be to explain it away. — Janus

By mechanics I just mean the physical workings of the brain, and this sort of thing:

evolutionary psychologists think that a sense of awe increases group safety and bonding by temporarily reducing the importance of self (without reducing self esteem). — Jake Tarragon

That's all, metaphorically, the mechanics of human experience. It's the "this lever does that". It doesn't answer "why", just "how". The sorts of "why's" it does address are just social concerns like "safety and bonding", and not actual philosophical questions. That's the point I was making to Jake.

since we cannot explain it, and even if we could, to explain it would inevitably be to explain it away. — Janus

I agree with everything else you said, it's just that I think there is a drive to try to understand beauty; not philosophically or analytically, but in a fundamental way. I don't think it would ruin the mystery to uncover even one layer of a deeper truth to beauty, something that few people might or might not have uncovered. I get the sense that beauty is potentially infinite; I think we can pursue it relentlessly and not ever ruin the sense of mystery. The deeper you inquire into beauty, the closer you get to "being" itself, it seems...

It's actually Elijah, by Nicholas Roerich. He has his own museum in NYC. I visited and had the place to myself. I saw that one last, as it was on the top floor. I like the imperfection of how it's composed and how annoying the colors are.

I guess what i mean is that as your tastes refine, you become pickier. For myself, it's harder and harder to enjoy generic indie bands that have a nice "sound", the more I explore my own musical voice, and the more I experiment and listen to more experimental music. So maybe we don't disagree there; I agree with your above post.

I don't have a problem with a given piece of intellectual content being beautiful, I just don't think beauty is inherently apprehended through the intellect, which I think Worset was saying.

The problem is that evolutionary science doesn't even address metaphysical or ontological questions, for instance, let alone aesthetic questions, as per the op.

I'm still having trouble seeing how beauty is intellectual.

What I was trying to point out is that a sense of being a part of something bigger is something science can only describe the mechanics of; it doesn't answer any philosophical questions.

For clarity, are you still talking about beauty when you say "it requires a grasping"?

If the "something bigger" doesn't actually refer to anything and only serves to prolong life (why exactly?), then isn't that idea essentially a form of wish fulfillment?

It's an intellectual satisfaction upon bearing witness to transcendence. — Wosret

Isn't it also a fundamental aspect of that transcendence? I agree with everything else you said.

What I mean by granularity is basically more concepts made out of our raw experience. I don't see why an increase in these factors would prevent the development of a new concepts. — praxis

What I was saying is that the socio-economic pressure on art industries changes how the value of art is perceived, which means it doesn't play the same role in society that it used to. After the World Wars, for instance, there was this massive, sort of tragic collective sigh which manifested in post-modern art, atonal, music, etc.

And as I mentioned earlier, I believe the increased granularity of our sensibilities leads to greater appreciation. — praxis

It might lead to greater appreciation in the sense of a more nuanced appreciation, but it seems that most people still place high importance on whatever first pieces of music or artworks first got them excited about a given medium. Another consequence of that granularity is that it gets increasingly harder to be impressed by a given artwork the more you know about the medium, genre, etc. Music criticism is a perfect example of that. The joy of discovery is hard to maintain.

Tragedy can be beautiful because it highlights the human condition; it highlights the gap between beliefs and desires versus reality. But that's beautiful because it gives us a sense of perspective, which gives us a sense of the value of our beliefs and desires.

So, beauty seems to do that; it gives us perspective, and a sense of the value of our beliefs and desires. Beauty seems to say to us "what you desire, underneath all of your superficial desires, is good and right." Beauty has a welcoming character.

but what is the origin of the kind of beauty that has a non material trigger? — Daniel Sjöstedt

Welcome to the forum and brace for impact...

Major movements in art like realism, impressionism, abstract art, etc., to speak only of painting, have all been done, so it's more difficult to be original or to create new concepts. — praxis

I agree to an extent, but again, I think it's even more complex than what you're saying. A large part of why there is such a large and ever-increasing proliferation of new movements and styles and genres (just think of the endless subgenres in music) is because of technology, and not only technology, but it's relation to consumerism and a capitalistic, globalized economy. And this is exactly what prevents a new movement to really take hold. Art becomes more and more disposable the more these socio-economic factors (driven largely by the tech industry) put pressure on art industries. Like I said earlier, the function of art in society is always in flux, and an increasing technocratic society doesn't have much room for art.

*Takes a look at his computer wallpaper* :

In practice, they become equivalent. It matters to someone if they like it, and you have to figure out what they like and please them. That's what salesmanship is all about. — Rich

Well, they're certainly connected, but how do they become equivalent? What line of work made this your life's work btw? (edit: did you mean sales?)

With regards to art, Duchamp ushered in a whole age of art that didn't particularly please audiences. I think this revealed something pretty telling; I think the relationship is more complex than you're suggesting. How art functions in society hasn't remained a constant; I'm sure everyone here knows their art history.

I put "true" in quotation marks because Mondrian used the word. I have no idea what "true" art would be — Noble Dust

He also said "Art has shown that universal expression can only be created by a real equation of the universal and the individual." :P

http://theoria.art-zoo.com/plastic-art-and-pure-plastic-art-mondrian/

It is just plain difficult for a serious artist (as opposed to a dilettante) to find his or her voice/vision/real self... and then express it so that he or she knows that what is on the canvas or score or page is what he or she intended to be there, and that there is a good chance that the viewer, hearer, or reader will receive the work as intended. Art is hard. Truly sublime art is harder. — Noble Dust

It's just work. That also connects to what I'm trying to communicate to . It's possible to make great work, it just takes work. And you can't control how the audience receives your art, I made an entire thread about that too. That's why focusing on the work in front of you is paramount, and that's why feeling that your work matters in a larger way doesn't equal giving the audience what they expected, or delivering it to them as you intended.

One thing that makes art more difficult these days is the investment habits of the 1%. — Bitter Crank

Yes, it's a racket.

As I already explained, missing the point (through overconsumption) is not what necessarily will happen. That's too simplistic. — Πετροκότσυφας

Hmmm, it could be too simplistic, but wouldn't the converse assumption also be too simplistic? Admittedly, we're making broad strokes here, and we're both giving examples, and I acknowledge it's a bit vague, but I'd say your examples are about the same. That's just an observation.

For example, what's also inherent in today's technology is the possibility of enhancing our experience of art*, the possibility of making it richer and more careful than it ever were, simply because we are now able to do things that were impossible without today's technology. But, that's also just a possibility, it does not mean that people will take advantage of this. — Πετροκότσυφας

I can't watch the videos as I'm at work, but the salient point here I think is that the technological means are just a neutral factor, and they always have been, back to the printing press, etc. To bring 's point into it, art is fundamentally an expression of the inner life of the person; it has a historically mystical character. The tools available for art have always remained tools, but the bell-curve-increasing complexity of tech, combined with a world view that sees tech as inherently positive rather than neutral, is, I think, what leads to the ubiquity of art being a detriment to art appreciation. Hope that makes sense.

What will lead one to embrace this possibility or be lost in superficiality, is a combination of social relations, which are structured in a capitalistic way so they tend to strongly favour consumerism for the sake of consumerism, and our personal idiosyncrasies. — Πετροκότσυφας

I agree.

Is your concern in any way linked to Benjamin's concept of "aura"? — Πετροκότσυφας

I'm not familiar.

Ok, no worries, sorry to misinterpret.

The notion that "ubiquity" degrades appreciation is curious. I would think that abundance generally enhances or widens sensibilities. — praxis

Well, I work in retail, and we have to play music in the shop for 8 hours every day, 5 days a week. My boss yells at me if i start the day off without putting anything on (because i just want some damn silence to sit with my thoughts and my coffee for awhile). But I'm a musical artist, and I hardly have the energy to go home and work on music after work because I'm already over-inundated with it. I know I'm not the only one, especially in the major city that I live in, filled with other musicians who are literally working themselves to death trying to make a living as a musician.

You keep replacing "work matters" with "please others". They aren't the same. Again, I'm wondering, in general, do you think people want their work to matter? What I'm talking about is vocational fulfillement, if you will.

On my phone, will respond to everybody soon.

Ok, but do you disagree that in general, people want their work to matter? Is it wrong for a professional artist to want their work to matter?

Are you suggesting "true" art (which you say is still very difficult to create) would be art that is less immersed in the artists culture? And I was never arguing that there was a time where artists weren't immersed in their own cultural milieu or something like that.

Piet Mondrian lived between 1872 and 1944. Pre-internet yes, but how "pre-modern" really? Dutch Mondrian lived in a small country with other artists, museums, books, libraries, photographs, and eventually sound recordings (granted, not very good sound for quite a while after their appearance) and film. Even radio, at some point. — Bitter Crank

Sure. The quote from Mondrian does suggest that he was painting and developing his style before he was introduced to some of his main contemporaries. Maybe that's not entirely accurate? When I read the quote, it was a jumping off point that got me thinking about the subject of this thread.

Now, When Bach was 20 and just starting out, (1705) he walked 500 miles from Arnstadt to Lubeck and back to hear the 68 year old Dietrich Buxtehude play the organ. Buxtehude was well known among musicians, and they could read the scores, IF they could get ahold of them--which they might not. Once Bach got to Lubeck he decided to stay and soak up as much Buxtehude as he could (much to the annoyance of his employers in Arnstadt.) That's closer to pre-modern. — Bitter Crank

This is exactly the sort of idea I'm getting at here. Maybe yours is a better example. I think it's fascinating to read about these accounts and then compare it to our own experience of music; for instance, the fact that you threw in a simple youtube link at the end, as we all often do in discussions about art.

I took your question as to whether it was my experience to be sarcastic, since none of us were alive in the time period I was referring to. I assumed the sarcasm meant you must disagree with the concept, and since I don't appreciate that sort of sarcasm, I asked if you disagreed. What exactly are you trying to point out here? Can you be more clear?

What I'm trying to point out is the quality of the experience of art in the internet age, vs. past ages. That was pretty explicit in my OP.

Do you disagree with the statement you quoted?

Do you disagree?

If you need validation for your art, I am afraid all may be lost. — Rich

Everyone needs to feel like their work matters in some way. Someone endeavoring to become a full time artist wants to feel like their work matters, and that manifests itself in an audience that thinks the work matters. But yes, it's a slippery slope and can be dangerous for your mental health as an artist.

It is no longer yours, it becomes theirs. — Rich

But this is exactly what happens regardless of your mindset as an artist. Art exists in the relationship between the artist, the work, and the audience. Even if that audience is only you.

Prior to the internet there were libraries and recorded music available in listening rooms. — Cavacava

Right, I remember the one at the University that my dad worked at. It seemed awesome. Libraries for literature have been around forever, which is great, but I think my points about live music (in Beethoven's day, for instance), and fine arts still stand. Regardless of the specifics, which is what people seem to be critiquing here, the general sense I was getting at is that we couldn't google fine artworks and download every song ever registered with a recording rights company until very recently. This is actually a neutral development, I think; quantity of art does not equal quality. I guess no one else here finds that idea significant, or at least worth contemplating?...

I wonder if it's a generational difference? Maybe older generations actually find the ease of access to be great (vs. the old limited access) and feel grateful, whereas the younger generation like myself feel overwhelmed because we were brought up in this world of instant access?

There is literally nothing like standing in front of Guernica's encompassing massiveness. — Cavacava

I remember hating Pullock until I sat in front of Autumn Rhythm for half an hour.

then out you go, you have no business in this thread. — Agustino

Maybe you should just not read any more of his posts in this thread. >:O

:s What is with this "I won't be responding" thing these days? Is Thanatos/Harris really having that negative of an effect here?

Did you read the OP?