For your information
Nietzsche was interested in the interplay between two creative forces that he believed guided artists. Art inspired by Apollo, the god of truth and prophecy, is rational, constructive, and idealistic, while art inspired by Dionysus, the god of wine and revelry, is emotional, instinctive, and spiritual.

many of Nietzsche's aphorisms are within my muscle memory... — Vaskane

Well, that explains you.

Your OP is entitled "The Nature of Art." Philosophy historically is very much concerned with the "nature of being." Reason alone suggests that the nature of being would include the nature of art.

I strongly recommend Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and Heidegger's Origin of the Work of Art..

And I would agree that it's not useful to reclassify philosophers as artists. What I was saying was that there is an artistic sensibility, an artistic creative power behind some philosophical visions/works. And that (perhaps) the act of philosophy can also be considered an artistic one, as per Janus below - — Tom Storm

I agree. Not all with an "artistic sensibility" are artists. And Nietzsche goes so far as to suggest that the primary formative forces that frame the "reality of art" for the person of artistic sensibility frame the "reality of existence" for the person of philosophic sensibility. And he makes a damn good argument.

I haven't considered him an artist. — Ciceronianus

Your OP is entitled the "Nature of Art." It would be a mistake to presume only artists have meaningful things to say about the "Nature of Art."

So rather than inferior to or equal to the logical thought which philosophy uses to try to grasp it, it rather precedes it. — Noble Dust

Some, such as Nietzsche, argue that the formative forces of art and the formative forces of philosophy are the same.

many of Nietzsche's aphorisms are within my muscle memory... — Vaskane

Woah - Has Vaskane deleted his account and become Arne?

Nietzsche is not much to my taste, why do you dislike him?

Nietzscheans are like a hydra, cut one head down, two more pop up.

two more pop up. — Lionino

Ah piss.

Nietzsche is not much to my taste, why do you dislike him? — Tom Storm

He comes across, to me, like an Emo lyricist of the 19th Century. It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. Not much philosophy in it. I can't get through more than a handful of pages without laughing out loud at how he is considered:
1. A philosopher;
2. Important; and
3. Interesting.

Though, I freely admit some of my bias against him is watching a number of my peers (in our late teens) get into to Nietzsche, become and remain insufferably narcissistic wankers who can't have a conversation without saying something extremely obtuse and pretending you're too dumb to get it. Which is what Nietzsche did, mostly. It got worse when they went to Uni and all the stupid uni kids were doing the exact same thing because they didn't realise the world existed outside of their parents ideas until then.
My account of this is that they are just not thinking properly. They seem to get to tier 2 of 10 and go "yep, I like those words, and it supports my broody, self-obsessed personality so, nice".

It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. Not much philosophy in it. — AmadeusD

Immediately reminded me of Guenon, whose "Crisis of the modern world" I tried to read recently. I gave up a few pages in.

late teens) get into to Nietzsche — AmadeusD

Well, that is the overwhelming demographic of "Nietzscheans", unfortunately, people who have no clue what he is talking about because their reading comprehension has not matured past middle school.

Thanks. Yes, some Nietzscheans can be gauche and insufferable.

↪AmadeusD Thanks. Yes, some Nietzscheans can be gauche and insufferable. — Tom Storm

You’ll notice Amadeus was speaking not just of his followers, but of Nietzsche himself. Perhaps one can say of many of Nietzsche’s followers as well as of his more shrill detractors that they are gauche and insufferable in their inability to read him well.

Perhaps one can say of many of Nietzsche’s followers as well as of his more shrill detractors that they are gauche and insufferable in their inability to read him well. — Joshs

Could well be. It's unknown to me since I have no reading of Nietzsche. :wink: I suspect he's probably very interesting if you can get through him, which I can't.

He comes across, to me, like an Emo lyricist of the 19th Century. It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. — AmadeusD

There is much truth to that. He definitely had issues and they came through in his philosophy. And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away.

And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away. — Arne

That's an interesting comment. Can you say some more?

You’ll notice Amadeus was speaking not just of his followers, but of Nietzsche himself. Perhaps one can say of many of Nietzsche’s followers as well as of his more shrill detractors that they are gauche and insufferable in their inability to read him well. — Joshs

I do not know what a Nietzsche follower is. But you either read him well or you don't. Though I am confident that I know far more about Nietzsche than the average person (not including this forum), I would claim that I am not a Nietzschean but I do not know what that means.

I recently read the Birth of Tragedy for the first time and immediately read it two more times. And it was definitely worth the time.

And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away.
— Arne

That's an interesting comment. Can you say some more? — Tom Storm

I don't like liars.

What is it intrinsically about making a claim of understanding Nietzsche that you take issue with? Also, are they all necessarily liars? Or are some merely mistaken?

What is it intrinsically about making a claim of understanding Nietzsche that you take issue with? Also, are they all necessarily liars? Or are some merely mistaken? — Tom Storm

Experience tells me that ignoring my intuition is bad. As a result, when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away. It is my intuition rather than a "claim" that is "intrinsic" to the situation. Though some could be mistaken, my intuition does not rest on the distinction and my experience tells me otherwise.

And of course I am talking about claiming to understand "Nietzsche" rather than claiming to understand what Nietzsche says regarding any particular issue.

There is a significant difference between saying my understanding of Nietzsche is X and saying I understand Nietzsche.

For me, claiming to understand Nietzsche is sufficient evidence that you do not understand Nietzsche.

There is a significant difference between saying my understanding of Nietzsche is X and saying I understand Nietzsche. — Arne

A reading of him. Yep, ok.

A reading of him. Yep, ok. — Tom Storm

And by contemporary standards, he was a prolific writer and not a particularly systematic writer.

Yes, I have read and heard a lot about N and tried to read several of his works (Kaufmann's mainly) - including Zarathustra, Human All to Human, On the Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil. I just can't do it. Possessing an abbreviated attention span, I find philosophy pretty hideous reading no matter who the writer. So I take full responsibility.

Yes, I have read and heard a lot about N and tried to read several of his works (Kauffman's mainly) - including Zarathustra, Human All to Human, On the Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil. — Tom Storm

I recently began re-reading Kauffman's book and thought I might as well read Nietzsche's publications in the order in which Kauffman discusses them. So I read for the first time The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and immediately re-read it two more times. It is fascinating and unequivocal. At first you think he is talking about art but then he says to the effect:

"The person of artistic sensibility stands in relation to these formative forces and the reality of art
as does the person of philosophic sensibility to these formative forces and the reality of
existence."

Where does this 28 year old professor of philology get off telling the rest of the world about the reality of art AND the reality of existence? And in such an unequivocal way?

But I could see in the book the kernels of his ideas regarding both the will to power and the eternal recurrence of the same.

"The person of artistic sensibility stands in relation to these formative forces and the reality of art
as does the person of philosophic sensibility to these formative forces and the reality of
existence."

Where does this 28 year old professor of philology get off telling the rest of the world about the reality of art AND the reality of existence? And in such an unequivocal way? — Arne

Who knows? What does the quote mean? I have no poetic imagination , so prose like this is just grey sludge to me.

he is talking about way more than art. he is talking about the reality of existence. and that is philosophy.

My interpretation is that he is saying that the formative forces of art (which he distinguishes as Apollonian and Dionysian) are the same forces that form the reality of the existence in which each and every one of us lives each and every waking (and dreaming) minute of our lives.

And that is bold and that is unequivocal.

It is my dinner time.

the formative forces of art (which he distinguishes as Apollonian and Dionysian) are the same forces that form the reality of the existence in which each and everyone of us lives each and every waking (and dreaming) minute of our lives. — Arne

I wouldn't disagree. I think everything humans do probably comes from the same source and impulses.

when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away. — Arne

:lol: Very real

We agree that art and philosophy are not the same. — Moliere

Not the same, but not separable. either, for thought is inherently aesthetic. What we call aesthetic is what is abstracted from the original experience. Art and philosophy are categorically distinct, obviously, but when one does philosophy, as when one does/thinks about anything, one is engaged in ways that deal with something other than arguments and their justifications. One is interested, intrigued, transfixed, curious, etc. in the affirming, denying, questioning, resolving, contradicting, etc. Note how all of this is qualitatively part and parcel of the art world.

Let's say you are viewing Van Gogh's Boots, and your thoughts turn to the plight of the poor. Is this sympathy part of the "art" of the piece? Or is it rather a thesis embedded in the art that says poverty is an awful thing? And so, what IS the nature of the ethical issues that center on poverty? Is this not a philosophical question? Or take a thesis that declares the bombing of Guernica immoral--can this be removed from the artwork by Picasso without removing part of what makes it art?

The trouble with defining art is that art is an open concept that continues to redefine itself. All concepts are like this, are they not? What is a bank teller? Surely the answer to this question will not be the same a hundred years from now? Or five hundred? Will there even BE money at all?