Ok, but even then, an artists perception of one of their works can change. John Baldessari burned all of his early work.

Not sure I understand. Are you putting Newton up as a philosopher? Sure. But what he did would not be considered philosophy now. Today's philosophy is an intellectual backwater. I guess I would make a possible exception for political philosophy. — T Clark

Newton was an artist in creating calculus

I agree in part, but as I mentioned to ↪John
, I think there's still an underlying drive that motivates artists and audiences. We still seem to need or want art, regardless of how the definition changes culturally. It's almost as if that definition doesn't really matter as much as the underlying drive. — Noble Dust

I would be loathe to psychologize art as a "drive". There is certainly "something else" that makes art art ,and non-art non-art, apart from mere convention. Convention itself is driven, at least in part, I would say, by this "something else". We can't say exactly what this "something else" is though, and nor should we want to, because that would just be an expression of intellectual greed.

Newton was an artist in creating calculus — Thinker

I feel like I've dragged the discussion off-post. I'll let you guys have at it

Ok, but even then, an artists perception of one of their works can change. John Baldessari burned all of his early work. — Noble Dust

Ok, so - he wanted to add an addendum to his work - seems a little self destructive to me.

I would be loathe to psychologize art as a "drive". — John

I don't mean to do that either, but I realize the word drive suggests that. I categorize it as a spiritual drive. It's almost something ontological in our makeup, I think.

We can't say exactly what this "something else" is though, and nor should we want to, because that would just be an expression of intellectual greed. — John

I agree we can't quite say what it is, but why would doing so be intellectual greed?

I feel like I've dragged the discussion off-post. I'll let you guys have at it — T Clark

Quite the contrary - I hope you see the artistic Newton.

You argued that the artist doesn't change in relation to a work; I'm arguing the opposite and giving Baldessari as an example.

You argued that the artist doesn't change in relation to a work; I'm arguing the opposite and giving Baldessari as an example. — Noble Dust

Not quite - I think the artist's original work does not change - all artists evolve.

You said:

The artist doesn't change — Thinker

The artist doesn't change — Thinker

I meant the art doesn't change.

I have made some things that I kind of squirm at today - but I suffer through it.

Not "doing so", but wanting to do so. If we were able to we would, but we are not; so why should we want what we can't possibly have? That said, I think that in another way, every authentic work of art is an attempt to "answer" that question, or to speak to the question, at least. Why should we hope for a 'dry' analytical or discursive answer to the question, though. Would that not be to dishonour the question by trivializing it?

Not "doing so", but wanting to do so. If we were able to we would, but we are not; so why should we want what we can't possibly have? That said, I think that in another way, every authentic work of art is an attempt to "answer" that question, or to speak to the question, at least. Why should we hope for a 'dry' analytical or discursive answer to the question, though. Would that not be to dishonour the question by trivializing it? — John

Very good point.

I'm not personally looking for a dry analytical answer. And I think I agree with you that making a work of art is an attempt to answer the question. I guess I see what you mean by intellectual greed, then. I think it's possible to taste or get a glimpse of this thing that art is after, because I think it's an aspect of the same thing that everything else we do is after. That's why I said it's a spiritual drive.

I've done that before as well, apologies if I was being anal.

Poetry doesn't have a goal.
— Noble Dust

I think you are way off base here. Please reconsider this statement. — Thinker

Poetry speaks to heart of everything - it moves - bends - breaks us.

I agree. When I said it doesn't have a goal, that was in the context of other types of writing having a utilitarian purpose and goal. Poetry isn't trying to do the same sorts of things; poetry as a discipline doesn't have a specific goal. Poetry, if anything, imbues the very world with content and meaning. It's generative, at it's best.

No problem.

I agree that it's a spiritual drive, in the sense that you mean it; as you already noted, I think I was just thrown off the scent by the word "drive". :)

So, I think it's relevant to note that although the spiritual is individually, socially, culturally and historically mediated (and mediating) it is not exhaustively determined by (or determinative of), nor constructed by (or constructive of) individuals, society, culture and history.

"Spiritual Drives", yea well maybe but when I think of this I think more of what the piece itself demands.

What do you mean?

The piece itself, the form and matter have a say in what happens in making a work of art. The spirit of the work leads to its own accomplishment when successful. The characters in a novel may rebel against the author's plot. I see and I feel the drive to accomplish the spirit of the work to make it what it demands, how it ought to come out, resolving the tension of form and matter.

I think the characters in Hamlet took over the play, and forced its conclusion on Shakespeare, only sex starved Gertrude made it out alive. The ghost is the author.

The piece itself, the form and matter have a say in what happens in making a work of art. — Cavacava

How does the form and matter have a "say"? Are you talking about how a work of art "speaks beyond itself", or some such notion? The idea that the muse seems to speak beyond what the artist intends? If so, then I agree, but I'm not clear still on what you mean here.

So, I think it's relevant to note that although the spiritual is individually, socially, culturally and historically mediated (and mediating) it is not exhaustively determined by (or determinative of), nor constructed by (or constructive of) individuals, society, culture and history. — John

This is honestly a very confusing sentence; I see that it's grammatically correct, but what exactly are you saying? It sounds to me like you're saying "the spiritual is mediated in many ways, but is not exhaustively determined by those many ways". Is that what you mean? Could you elaborate in a different way?

I think the characters in Hamlet took over the play, and forced its conclusion on Shakespeare, — Cavacava

So the characters have their own life? They exist independently of Shakespeare?

Some stories are plot driven some are character driven. Plays, novels and other works that are character driven like Hamlet can lose their plot to character development/evolution.

How does the form and matter have a "say"?

Well at the bottom it is the matter, regardless of what that matter is, that is formed by the artist into the work of art. The artist's idea provides the form, what the artist is using, words, paint, sound or whatever have their own limitations, advantages, needs, requirements, which in execution can over ride the artists original idea/plan.



Michelangelo's Prisoners are prisoners of their matter, and they (perhaps) are not fully realized because they are as much bound to their matter, as we are.

When you create music don't the specific instruments you include in your work form both its limitation as well as its freedom. Do instruments have an affinity for certain sounds, certain notes, certain other instruments?

The spirit of the work, in my estimation, is how the artist's idea for the work gets sorted out by the materials the artist uses in execution of his idea. How form/matter fit together may have more to do with the way the materials will/can allow them self to be composed. The artist's plan is not typically a set course and problems arise in execution, tensions build, and a new plan evolves out of the 'spirit' of the work as the work has evolved. Things have to 'fit' together in the spirit of the work or the work wont work.

Thanks :)