I think that you are coming mainly from the point of view of realistic art, which for many might be seen as replication. I do have experience of making art which is realistic although I was wishing to give added depth rather than simply copying.

However, you seem to be advocating conventional aesthetics insofar as you speak of portraying handsome men and beautiful women. I have never just wished to depict the people who are the best looking. I often drew people who were 'different', including people from various subcultures, such as punks and even drunk, down'n'out people sitting on park benches. I found these were interesting to draw and what I found was it could be stark to portray them in beautiful settings, such as the park or near architecturally decorated buildings. Perhaps this is the level of paradox applied to art.

You seem puzzled by how I seem to think that the whole mention of the sacred and profane applies to the arts. I would point to the whole history of religious paintings, stained glass windows and art work in other religions, especially Hinduism. The art of Hinduism is particularly interesting because it involves the many aspects of the gods, including Shiva and Kali. But even traditional Christianity did portray the diabolical as well, as conveyed by the images of gargoyles.

But, above all else, I do believe that the arts and making it involve moving into different states of consciousness. I know that you are more of a mathematician than an artist. I do not enjoy maths but I am wondering if you find maths can change consciousness and here I am wondering about the experience of the transcendent truths?.

I'm reluctant to accept works that don't have an aesthetic quality to them as art. All said and done, there's got to be something different, something unique, about art and that which makes art stand out as an independent category of human activity is its focus on the beautiful. Now it isn't absolutely necessary for an artist to depict the beauty of nature to the exclusion of other dimensions that reality has to offer. An artist could choose anything under the sun and turn it into a work of art but only if fae manages to make beauty an integral part of it. This is what I meant by beautification.

As for the sacred, it's beautiful and all that the artist needs to do is reproduce a faithful copy - I suppose this is what you mean by realistic art. The profane, however, is going to need more work from the artist for the immediate gut reaction to it is going to be that of disgust and revulsion. Given such circumstances, the artist has a mountain to climb in turning the sacrilegious into art for it involves turning what is, any way you cut it, hideously ugly into something that's a sight for sore eyes.

I do like your comment. It is a problem that art has often fallen into the hands of corporations. When I was leaving school I did consider going on to study graphic art. But the idea that it may end up leading to designing baked bean can wrappers deterred me. Even Andy Warhol's soup cans don't really inspire me. But now, I would say that so many would be queuing up for a supermarket to stack cans of baked bean tins onto the shelves.

But the tension does remain between art as a pursuit for its value and the whole system of earning a living. Some people who are extremely successful make a lot of money, but they are the minority and often have to look to the sphere of popularity and commercialism? Most people I know who try to make money through various arts cannot make enough money to live and have to have another job, or be topped up with benefits. So, where does that leave most people wanting to pursue the arts? Does it end having to be just a hobby'

Personally, I don't see the appeal of some very abstract art or installations which are displayed under guises such as postmodernism. But, of course, some people do think highly of this and that is where subjectivity comes in.

But, when I speak of the sacred in art I would certainly not be thinking of replicating the sacred art from past ages. I am thinking of capturing states of higher consciousness, which for want of a better term I will call 'enlightenment.' I am asking about this possibility and about mythic truth. Please also note that I am not just talking about visual art but all others, including literature. Perhaps many of the greatest writers ranging from Dante, Herman Hesse, Dosteovsky, to name a mere few managed to capture certain states of consciousness. I would say that the arts, including the visual can express so much of the deepest, innermost truths. What do you think about this?

Personally, and I maybe completely off the mark on this one, that art has a subjective element to it is an illusion created by the complexity of the interaction between subject and object, the object being that which is presented as art. It's not the case that a particular object is art i.e. beautiful to one person and not to another in the sense that there's a contradiction that we should puzzle over. Beauty is objective and if art is, or rather should be about beauty, art too must be/is objective. I think those who think otherwise are guilty of cherry-picking and oversimplification.

As for the sacred and the profane, I reiterate that both can be art but in different ways. The former need only be depicted as it appears to us for it is, in and of itself, beautiful and there's no point in gilding the lily. The latter, however, by its very nature evokes in us feelings, negative ones, that aren't conducive to the pleasant experience encounters with art should be. Ergo, the artist who wishes to make art out of the profane has faer back against the wall, clearly such an artist is working with his hands tied behind is back. Given these truths, we should expect very few artists, at least those who care about their reputation, to get involved in art with profane subjects. Am I right?

I'm reluctant to accept works that don't have an aesthetic quality to them as art. All said and done, there's got to be something different, something unique, about art and that which makes art stand out as an independent category of human activity is its focus on the beautiful. Now it isn't absolutely necessary for an artist to depict the beauty of nature to the exclusion of other dimensions that reality has to offer. An artist could choose anything under the sun and turn it into a work of art but only if fae manages to make beauty an integral part of it. This is what I meant by beautification.

As for the sacred, it's beautiful and all that the artist needs to do is reproduce a faithful copy - I suppose this is what you mean by realistic art. The profane, however, is going to need more work from the artist for the immediate gut reaction to it is going to be that of disgust and revulsion. Given such circumstances, the artist has a mountain to climb in turning the sacrilegious into art for it involves turning what is, any way you cut it, hideously ugly into something that's a sight for sore eyes. — TheMadFool

I think ‘aesthetic quality’ is arguably not about what is judged ‘beautiful’, but about what attracts our attention and effort towards understanding what we see. The installation of a urinal in an art gallery aims to achieve that - to challenge the art critic to look for the rationality in such an incongruous display. If they don’t find any - is it a lack of potential in the artwork, or in the viewer/critic?

Art that simply reassures the viewer of their own static position in the world offers no aesthetic experience.

If art isn't about beauty what is it about then? "Attract attention" is vague enough to include almost anything.

If art isn't about beauty what is it about then? "Attract attention" is vague enough to include almost anything. — TheMadFool

Not just ‘attract attention’, but attention and effort towards understanding - this is how we learn about the world. A ‘judgement of beauty’ is part of this.

Not just ‘attract attention’, but attention and effort towards understanding - this is how we learn about the world. A ‘judgement of beauty’ is part of this — Possibility

Go on...

What do you mean by "...effort towards understanding..."? This phrase seems more suited for a philosophical article than art.

I haven't replied to you because I didn't want to break up the discussion you were having about art installation you were having about with Possibility.

But coming from a different angle, what do you think about the whole issue of aesthetics in works of literature? I am a fan of gothic fiction which challenges certain norms, as well as traditions such as cyberpunk. I would say that I like being guided into alternative ways of seeing and this really gives me a lot to think about.

what do you think about the whole issue of aesthetics in works of literature? — Jack Cummins

In one word, beauty

I am a fan of gothic fiction — Jack Cummins

:up: I can relate to the goth subculture although my experience of it has been very superficial. Black is my favorite color - keep that between you and me please :grin:

It is probably evident that I am a bit of a music addict and I do listen to goth music a fair amount, ranging from the Cult, Bauhaus, the Cure, the Mission and even a bit of industrial, including the Nine Inch Nails. I know you say that are not a big music listener.

I like to explore the arts as widely as possible and in many genres.

I do like your comment. — Jack Cummins

Thanks. :grin:

Most people I know who try to make money through various arts cannot make enough money to live and have to have another job, or be topped up with benefits. So, where does that leave most people wanting to pursue the arts? Does it end having to be just a hobby' — Jack Cummins

Pragmatically speaking, this seems to be the case in today's world.

All the same, there's a musician I like who makes the claim that we must out-create the dominant, corporatized creations of the day if we are to preserve our humanity. This is very loosely paraphrased - and the "corporate" part is likely my own embellishment. But I find the underlying notion - that of a competition between types of artistic creations in relation to society at large - to be quite noteworthy.

Paying the artist for the artwork one likes rather than downloading it for free is one way to support the artists one likes so that they can continue making their art. Though a majority of people prefer not to pay money for it. Which in turn suffocates the art that they would otherwise want.

I am rather horrified by the way in which so many people seem to expect arts for free. I have friends who do not buy music at all and seem to think that I am ridiculous in paying for it. I also hear people grumble if the books in charity shops are not as cheap as in another shop, being over fifty pence or a pound. I often point out that why should they expect to get it for almost nothing, considering all the work that it must have taken.They usually laugh at what I am saying.

But I will confess that I have downloaded many books on my Kindle. I have managed to get so many of the classics free, and a lot of the authors are not living ones. I have also got a lot of new indie authors books or samples, and it is unlikely that I would have bought all these without having heard or read about them.

But I am deeply disturbed by the way people seem to object to having to pay for the arts. When I have conversed with some others who seem to think that I waste my money in this ways, they have gone as far as to suggest that artists should not expect to make their money and do jobs and do art as an extra. So I am left wondering how do we change a culture which expects the arts as a free extra?

But I will confess that I have downloaded many books on my Kindle. I have managed to get so many of the classics free, and a lot of the authors are not living ones. — Jack Cummins

You're in good company. Done so myself plenty of times. But, as you say, here the authors are not living ones. And their works were not pirated.

So I am left wondering how do we change a culture which expects the arts as a free extra? — Jack Cummins

I don't have any straightforward answer for this. Still, culture is constituted of individuals. The relation between the top-down effects culture has on individuals and those individuals have upon a culture is complex, to put it mildly. Bare minimum I can do, I'm thinking, is preserve my own way of valuing things as a constituent of the culture I am a part of. And of course, engage in conversations such as this. There's too much egotism that accompanies the prevailing materialist perspectives of the day, I'm thinking. Again, with this materialism being perpetuated by the overwhelming sum of (commercial) art we are exposed to. This, in turn, entailing not enough thought as regards others and what they require to produce those things that enrich our own lives. And this is a hard tide to turn, especially in the short run.

:lol: Calling rap rape was a Freudian slip. Unfortunately, when I think of rap I think of the anger directed against women expressed in some rape music. I know not all rap is hateful and I am not sure if our freedom of speech should cover hatefulness. In another post, you mention Hip Hop and I saw a show explaining the idealistic social intent of Hip Hop. I have seen rap with idealistic intent too from around the world.

That made me think of steampunk and the clothing that goes with that. All of the forms of music go with a dress style and perhaps a lifestyle.

Art and music are food for our souls. It enhances our life decisions to be calm and relax or hyped up, to be energized and angry, or calm and peaceful. It literally has a biological effect on us and some claim music has a biological effect on plants as well.

If something is beautiful to us or absolutely awful depends on how harmonious or symmetrical it is. Our brains are wired to chose patterns that have harmony and symmetry and recoil when there is over disharmony or a lack of balance.

Studies have shown that participating in music and art can alleviate pain, help people manage stress, promote wellness, enhance memory, improve communications, aide physical rehabilitation, and give people a way to express their feelings.Mar 22, 2018
or art and music therapy helps teens - USA Today — Reginal E. Payne II, Jayne O'Donnell and Marquart Doty,

I don't have any straightforward answer for this. Still, culture is constituted of individuals. The relation between the top-down effects culture has on individuals and those individuals have upon a culture is complex, to put it mildly. Bare minimum I can do, I'm thinking, is preserve my own way of valuing things as a constituent of the culture I am a part of. And of course, engage in conversations such as this. There's too much egotism that accompanies the prevailing materialist perspectives of the day, I'm thinking. Again, with this materialism being perpetuated by the overwhelming sum of (commercial) art we are exposed to. This, in turn, entailing not enough thought as regards others and what they require to produce those things that enrich our own lives. And this is a hard tide to turn, especially in the short run. — javra

You are Jack are having an absolutely marvelous discussion that I wish all of us would have! Before the 1958 education act that focused the US intensely on technology, children had art and music classes. I think for the sake of humanity and civilization we seriously need to return to liberal education and art is very much a part of science, and music can put our brains in rhythm for increased learning. The positive effect of the arts means this should be supported by government and it most certainly should be in our school system. If the government made that decision, teachers would be taught to value the arts in education. This is just a snowball that gets bigger and can move a civilization as 1960-70 art and music us until the impact of the 1958 had its full effect.

The music I am listening to now is supposed to Serotonin, Dopamine, Endorphin Release Music, Release Negativity. What if as an intentional effect of cultivating children they learned the effect of the arts can have on them physically and with that knowledge had true liberty to chose to have want influences them. Might we lift children out of poverty with such knowledge?

In a post yesterday I was saying that it is very sad that people are starting to expect books, music and other works for free, without appreciating of the artists' need to make money to live.

However, what you are saying about community arts is very important. I do believe that children and adults should have access to being able to participate in art based activities. Just before lockdown I was attending a creative writing group at a library and had just discovered an art group, which I attended once, in a museum. These were free. I do believe that it is important that people, children and adults, are provided to have access to the arts. It is such an outlet for people and I hope that after the pandemic these groups will be part of culture. I would also hope that there is public funding for such activities, rather than them just having to be staffed by volunteers.

In a post yesterday I was saying that it is very sad that people are starting to expect books, music and other works for free, without appreciating of the artists' need to make money to live.

However, what you are saying about community arts is very important. I do believe that children and adults should have access to being able to participate in art based activities. Just before lockdown I was attending a creative writing group at a library and had just discovered an art group, which I attended once, in a museum. These were free. I do believe that it is important that people, children and adults, are provided to have access to the arts. It is such an outlet for people and I hope that after the pandemic these groups will be part of culture. I would also hope that there is public funding for such activities, rather than them just having to be staffed by volunteers. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely, that is the very meaning of being civilized! The enlightenment was about lifting everyone out of the dirt and taking us from being worms to honorable and dignified human beings. It became what we call liberal or classical education bring the world's best literature and best philosophy to everyone through public education.

I don't want anyone to think I am against technology. I am sure it is an important part of the New Age. However, we went a little overboard with thinking technology would resolve all our problems. Technology is only a tool and how we use it depends on what kind of human beings we are. And I must say, your threads are excellent for getting us to think about such things. :heart: :flower:

Not just ‘attract attention’, but attention and effort towards understanding - this is how we learn about the world. A ‘judgement of beauty’ is part of this
— Possibility

Go on...

What do you mean by "...effort towards understanding..."? This phrase seems more suited for a philosophical article than art. — TheMadFool

When you stop to look at an artwork, it has succeeded in attracting your limited attention and effort. That’s a start. Aesthetic quality is based on feelings not just of pleasure but also of displeasure. Nevertheless, most adults want to simply ‘enjoy’ art, like life - not be influenced by it. Undeniable pleasure in the observation of art is often about its ability to render qualitatively positive aspects of experience in an acceptable form, enabling an incrementally positive overall shift in our perspective, and therefore understanding, of the world. A ‘judgement of beauty’ is an integration of this new understanding. Displeasure draws attention and effort in an initial unwillingness to integrate either certain qualitative aspects of experience or the form in which they are rendered. Sublimity highlights those qualitative aspects of the experience that we struggle to understand: the limitations in our faculty of judgement.

So, when we come across a urinal displayed as ‘art’ in a gallery, aesthetics enables us to come to terms with an interoception of displeasure in a rational understanding of our own limitations, and at least recognise that we’re equivocating a judgement of ‘art’ with a judgement of ‘beauty’ or of ‘form’, to the detriment of our capacity for understanding. The possibility of understanding such an installation as ‘art’ challenges the viewer to correct their conception of either ‘art’, ‘beauty’ or ‘form’ - or to reject the possibility of understanding what they see.

The Enlightenment was never complete. Certainly, there was a rebuttal of absolute religious authority, the divine rights of kings, and a movement toward democracy and sovereignty invested in the people. But philosophy, literature and film have merely confirmed the Church's position on science - as a heresy, established with the trial of Galileo in 1634.

Sure, science can be used to surround us with technological miracles, but is afforded no respect or authority. From Descartes' subjectivism, to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - 1818, right through to present day blockbuster films - all we see is the mad scientist, stringing together some world ending abomination unto God; depicted as either a careless fool or an evil genius - that only the flag waving, God loving hero can save us from.

But here's the problem, the climate and ecological crisis is a consequence of applying technology as directed by ideology - rather than, applying technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality. It's not a matter of morality - it's a matter of truth, and science has proven the truth of its ideas endlessly with technology that works.

But hey, maybe if we pray hard enough - snap off a few more salutes to the old skull and crossbones, climate change will just go away!

I am deeply disturbed by the way people seem to object to having to pay for the arts. When I have conversed with some others who seem to think that I waste my money in this ways, they have gone as far as to suggest that artists should not expect to make their money and do jobs and do art as an extra. So I am left wondering how do we change a culture which expects the arts as a free extra? — Jack Cummins

There is a certain commercial value placed on entertainment in the arts that fails to distinguish between ignorance, escapism or denial of reality, truth, etc and creative challenges to prevailing assumptions about reality, truth, etc. There is no recognised commercial value in high-quality thinking - only in the products of thought and their measurable utility. Because of this, any sub-standard thinking (or thinker) that generates a product people can use is potentially valuable. Enter Trump.

But the value/significance of creativity is in its relational structure of popularity, originality, comprehensibility and relatability - subjective and fluid measures on which we will never entirely agree. Whenever we reduce these relational structures to a single monetary value, we fail to clearly articulate why it matters so much. Everyone then assumes their own reductionist methodology to be in play, and so will argue that the value is ‘wrong’.

Any society that equates meaningfulness with a linear or even two-dimensional structure of monetary value will never fully grasp the utility of the creative process.

Yes, I do think that your whole debate on originality, comprehensability, relatability, popularity and accuracy is important to. I was thinking about it in relation to a comment I received in the thread on original ideas, and was planning to recommend that the poster scrolls back and reads what you wrote there. But, here, in the discussion of the arts, I would say that popularity is the one which is most related to making money and that should not be the most important way of evaluating art. I would say that this does happen a lot in the way that music and books are often viewed in terms of charts or best sellers. I can remember, mainly as a teenager, getting so concerned about where my favourite bands were in the singles and album charts.

I definitely think that art cannot be reduced to monetary value. I probably don't think in terms of the importance of popularity and money ranking that much at all, but more about how the individual artists and the arts can survive and flourish. I am worried that the arts will get pushed out of being considered as important. While I do have friends who are interested in expression in the arts, most of the people I interact with do seem to think that they are insignificant, and that matters such as sport are far more important. I can see that this is probably coming back to the whole popularity issue, aside from monetary value.

I do believe that meaningfulness is beyond monetary value but sometimes get demoralised by the way culture is going. We live in a very materialistic culture, although the pandemic may be a wake up call to challenge it. I am just hoping that the arts can be a leading force and that culture does not collapse. The reason why I am saying about culture collapsing is because I was having a discussion about this with Gus Lamarch in the thread 'Suicide of Mod' yesterday. He was suggesting that we are seeing a degeneration, which is equal to the collapse of the Roman empire. However, he does suggest that revolutionary thinking can possibly prevent this, to some extent. I am hoping that art can be a main way forward as a revolutionary force.

That’s a start. Aesthetic quality is based on feelings not just of pleasure but also of displeasure — Possibility

Enumerate these feelings.

I know that understanding is important but that goes for everything not just art and so understanding as a notion fails to distinguish art from non-art.

For my money, if there's an essence to art, it has to be beauty, and while it may or may not be possible to grasp beauty, art is simply experiencing beauty and not studying or analyzing it i.e. art is not about understanding anything but rather the act of beholding that which is aesthetically endowed.

To make my point clearer, there's understanding and then there's understanding beautifully. For instance, some mathematical theorems have more than one proof and some of them may be long-winded, many pages long and fail to capture the core ideas behind the theorems while others, the artistic ones, are succint, and reveals a deep insight of the theorems. Aesthetics and understanding are different things.

But I am deeply disturbed by the way people seem to object to having to pay for the arts. When I have conversed with some others who seem to think that I waste my money in this ways, they have gone as far as to suggest that artists should not expect to make their money and do jobs and do art as an extra. — Jack Cummins

If artists want to do pure art, art for art's sake, then they indeed must not expect to make money off of it.

If they make music, paint pictures, dance, etc. in order to make money with that, then they are not being artists to begin with, they are merely business people who are selling products and services.

So I am left wondering how do we change a culture which expects the arts as a free extra?

By putting pressure on the artists, because the problem starts with them. They need to stop wanting to sit on two chairs.

If they want to be taken seriously as artists, they need to stop selling themselves.

If they want to be taken seriously as business people, they need to stop giving themselves away for free.

I think that art has always sought to be revolutionary - where it seeks to stabilise or consolidate a prevailing perspective, it quickly loses significance.

Sport (especially football/basketball) is form of entertainment that draws people frustrated by a sense of helplessness, offering an illusion of potential/value in a constructed environment. It’s a form of escapism - for both the viewer and the participant - that has far too many people fooled into believing it’s the only solution to all their problems. The music and reality TV industries seem to be peddling the same distorted perspective in the arts.

BUT they’ve built these industries around a multi-dimensional structure of potential/value that just makes more sense: physical/creative opportunity, popularity, influence and money. Of course, it’s a house of cards, but it appears real enough - more real and more attainable than any value/potential offered by visual arts, anyway.

This comes back to valuing high-quality thinking and its relation to more accurate, comprehensive and original products of thought instead of simply more expensive or more popular ones. In my view this has to start with education reform, particularly promoting creative, critical and constructive thinking across all subjects (not confining it to the arts), and from a much younger age. But it also requires restructuring industry to both value and provide opportunities for creating and utilising more original and accurate products of thought by developing their comprehensibility and popularity, as well as demanding more accuracy from popular products of thought, and more comprehensibility from original products of thought - like we do with products of science and technology.

Unfortunately, the impact these pie-in-the-sky reforms may have on those in the fine arts industry, for instance, should not be the primary concern. Despite my support for Visual Arts and for artists, I think no particular industry format should be protected for its own sake, but for the opportunities it provides for high-quality thinking and its products. Elitism may be its downfall, if it clings to such ideals to remain commercially viable.

↪Athena
The Enlightenment was never complete. Certainly, there was a rebuttal of absolute religious authority, the divine rights of kings, and a movement toward democracy and sovereignty invested in the people. But philosophy, literature and film have merely confirmed the Church's position on science - as a heresy, established with the trial of Galileo in 1634.

Sure, science can be used to surround us with technological miracles, but is afforded no respect or authority. From Descartes' subjectivism, to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - 1818, right through to present day blockbuster films - all we see is the mad scientist, stringing together some world ending abomination unto God; depicted as either a careless fool or an evil genius - that only the flag waving, God loving hero can save us from.

But here's the problem, the climate and ecological crisis is a consequence of applying technology as directed by ideology - rather than, applying technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality. It's not a matter of morality - it's a matter of truth, and science has proven the truth of its ideas endlessly with technology that works.

But hey, maybe if we pray hard enough - snap off a few more salutes to the old skull and crossbones, climate change will just go away! — counterpunch

You are right, but could use a little more information. What is a matter of truth is a matter of morality. The line of reasoning for this conclusion is Greek and Roman. This predates Christianity, a mental disease that has us really messed up because a false belief blocks us from knowing truth and in the US this is a serious cultural problem affecting even non-Christians.

Starting with math, the Greeks got really hung up on doing things right and understanding why it is the right thing to do. That is Egypt had practical math and the Greeks learned from them, but they were not content with it works. They wanted proves. Now we come to logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech. The Bible says Jesus is logos because it was written by Greeks. With logos as the most divine power, we ask, why should we do this and not that and this is as serious as finding proves for maths. What is the reasoning, the moral choice? This is a life or death issue because the wrong choice leads to destruction, your environmental problem, and drug addiction, and all other problems resulting from bad information and bad decisions as surely as jumping off a tall building leads to death because of gravity.

When we had liberal education based the Greek and Roman classics, we had education for good moral judgment and we told children folk tales and then asked, what is the moral that story. I stress this question is about the reasoning and the reasoning is about universal law. The Little Red did not share her bread because no one helped her bake it. The Fox didn't get the grapes because he gave up and comforted himself by deciding they were probably sour anyway. But the Little Engine that could made it over the hill, because he did not give up. The moral being a matter cause and effect, and education for good moral judgment being essential to our liberty and democracy.

In 1958 we discontinued that education and left moral training up to the church and now we are in total crisis! Education for technology is not education for science. Liberal education is education for science and it comes complete with good moral judgment. Read Cicero, he tells us no animal sacfrice, burning of candles, saying prayers will make things good, when we make the wrong decision, because what will be is the consequence of our action. Not the will of a capricious god influenced by our piety. The rule of reason, logos. This predates Christianity and a book written by Greeks call the Bible.

Cicero believed that reason is the highest good, for “what is there, I will not say in man, but in the whole of heaven and earth, more divine than reason?” 12 The importance of reason is emphasized because it is present both in humanity and in God.Aug 31, 2018

Cicero's Natural Law and Political Philosophy | Libertarianism ...

I know that understanding is important but that goes for everything not just art and so understanding as a notion fails to distinguish art from non-art. — TheMadFool

I’m not trying to distinguish art from non-art; that appears to be your aim, not mine. I’m trying to distinguish between aesthetics and your claim that art should be about beauty.

For my money, if there's an essence to art, it has to be beauty, and while it may or may not be possible to grasp beauty, art is simply experiencing beauty and not studying or analyzing it i.e. art is not about understanding anything but rather the act of beholding that which is aesthetically endowed.

To make my point clearer, there's understanding and then there's understanding beautifully. For instance, some mathematical theorems have more than one proof and some of them may be long-winded, many pages long and fail to capture the core ideas behind the theorems while others, the artistic ones, are succint, and reveals a deep insight of the theorems. Aesthetics and understanding are different things. — TheMadFool

Well, for me, the essence of art is creativity, the experience of art is the possibility of understanding what we see, and the beauty of art is a judgement of success in that endeavour. Aesthetics, however, refers to the relational structure that enables all of this to occur, and is inclusive of both unmanifested creativity and any failure to understand what we see. Aesthetic value is a judgement of beauty with claims to universality, but an aesthetic experience can be so much more than that.

Art is [for me] the invocation of the unexpected. Good art is that which enshrines an original perspective. You can take the Mona Lisa and paint it in an identical way to how it was painted in the first place... will it stimulate the mind? Likely not. We will simply recognise it as being identical to its predecessor. But what if you took the Mona Lisa and this time you painted it in a distorted Or figurative way, or a colourful and vibrant expressive way, or you explored the geometry of the painting, or you made it mythological, or used only cubes to paint it or you painted it as a robot or made of fruit. The same recognition processes go into appreciating that it is the Mona Lisa but the newness is in “what kind of version of it he Mona Lisa Has been painted.

Art chews up the previous and rebuilds it into the future Presentation. It always has an input from the past but the result is always a transformation for the purpose of new expressions. This is artistic evolution.

Whether art offends/ is dangerous or not depends on to what degree it opposes the status quo/ the expected. There are many cases in history of art being destroyed for its obscenity and unacceptability but that is a reflection more of the art appreciator/ viewer than the artist and of what is culturally “appropriate” of the time. The “primavera” A mythological And somewhat pagan depiction Of the goddess of spring that was painted during the height of the Roman Catholic Church had to be hidden and protected for many years For this reason.

Art should provoke. Because if it cannot... it is dead. The essence of art is the new and therefore maybe the uncomfortable/ unpalatable/ unsightly.

I am all in favour of art as a means of provoking and being about the unexpected. I do believe at that level it has the power to bring about change. The only thing which I would say is that I don't just see it as being about an end result. It is a process as well and the whole experience of making art the art is a process of changing consciousness.

In speaking of this I am speaking of the change it may bring to the individual as well as on a social level. This can include the therapeutic use of the arts or about the way it brings a change in the state of the mind of the creator.

I would suggest that you are right to suggest that art should provoke but of course the effects cannot be judged in terms of the reaction of the viewer as well. What is new to some may be old to others. Ultimately, I believe in the role of art in bringing change but I do not wish to be making judgements about any art being inferior even if it is seen as a repetition of the past or less provoking. I would not want to step into the role of being an art critic.