All very valid points. It's true that money and art have been hand in hand over the course of history. I think the point I'm trying to make is admittedly pretty opinionated, if not controversial. But, it's the idea that the truly artistic expression is an expression of something higher; quite literally something supra-physical. So, how this relates to monetary problems is that true artistic expression "burns up the world" (to quote Nikolai Berdyaev); it essentially spits in the face of determinism with pure rage. So, the truly artistic is inherently apophatic; it's almost Gnostic.

I think the answer is in your tone, here. An artist makes art despite everything; A fair-weather "creative" makes "art" until the going gets tough (the self-esteem quota isn't being met, etc).

I like the mix of past and present tense. That's a problematic thing I've been wrestling with for years in poetry/song lyrics that I write; every time I consciously do it, the sense I'm trying to express gets lost. It might be incidental here, but it was one of the main things I picked up on, other than the near-perfect rhythm.

I think the question is how, if at all, will art survive it's commodification (Spotify for music, million dollar sales of Jeff Koons/et. al works, etc). This ties back to points I've tried to make about the relationship between art and religion, and I don't at all think this is small fry. This is the whole crux of this question. The intuition, or imagination, or whatever, was always connected to the spiritual in humanity. So the real question we're dealing with here is "what happens to art when the spiritual is removed?". Or, the more important question would be "what happens to humanity when art is removed?"

Nah, don't include me. State your case clearly, with as few words as possible. I just did it myself.

My pleasure, I didn't realize you meant that. The fact alone that you enjoyed the Rautavaara piece is enough to make my day. :up:

Sorry, grumpy old man syndrome. :ok:

Eh.... what??....

Oh, that? That's only the best piece of solo piano music ever composed.

What?

Edit: I drunkenly thought I had a good angle, but since I can't delete anything, this is a great piece of music that I love.

If we're starting again, then this interests me the most:

Well, unfortunately, it can be. Stop feeling so special. — Brett

Oh, I see now you edited your post from "art?" to "Art? Actually you seemed to be referring to yourself and art at the same time."

And now I'm confused...

Are you asking me the question "Art?"

About what "it" referred to in your post that I quoted.

Sure, present me with an argument.

I'm put off by the minutia. Actually, I'm put off by the idea that "art" can be dissected in the same way as a frog. As an artist, I feel like a frog. I feel like there's a scalpel slowly but surely incisionining a precise incision along my spine.

I'm so happy to see a thread about art at 12 pages.

But now I'm realizing we don't even need a philosophy of art. Or at least I don't. As an artist, the more I read this thread, the less I'm interested in contributing.

Fair enough.

I grew up with a friend who's mother would pronounce "white" as "h-wite". Suffice it to say that I'm a strong believer in the use of "a" preceding a word beginning with a silent "h".

Jacques Ellul - The Technological Society — Umbra

I started this a few years ago, and always think of it, and need to go back. Any thoughts?

Are hypotheses falsifiable in the first place?

he went his own way and did not give a crap about anyone's expectations — SophistiCat

I might have mentioned this, but I've slowly been studying his Modes of Limited Transposition. The name itself is so poetic, and what's at play theoretically is pretty incredible but hard to get a grasp on. I've written music by ear my entire life, but with a basic working theory knowledge; trying to delve into this has been exciting.

If Beethoven's shadow lay over the entire century, reaching all the way to Brahms and Dvorak, in the 20th century styles and influences began to fragment and succeed each other much more rapidly. — SophistiCat

True, but in my mind Scriabin is a case of the "one hit wonder", in the sense that he was a star during his lifetime, and then forgotten, while the French school at the time (Debussy, Ravel, and Satie, who is especially appreciated more and more outside of the classical scene) do live on. But it is true that, with the evolution of tech, musical styles evolve much more quickly. But there are those composers who have stood out through the change.

One who hasn't, unfortunately, is Rautavaara. Maybe my Finnish blood feels the pull of the homeland, but this piece was probably the best new piece of music I discovered in 2019:

This is so cool; we now have our own unique micro-conspiracy theories.

The Witch - David Lindsay
Declare - Tim Powers
Journeys Out Of The Body - Robert Monroe
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - Shunryū Suzuki

On deck:

Dark Knight Of The Soul - St. John Of The Cross
The City & the City - China Miéville

Ongoing:

The I Ching

I think I've gotten to the point where I don't think art can be defined or fully described philosophically.

The finale is a riot of excess! — SophistiCat

I honestly never made it that far till now. Interesting. I need more listens. The first listen feels weird because it doesn't feel as existential and spiritually disturbed as the Messiaen I'm familiar with.

Reminds me of Scriabin. — SophistiCat

Yes, very ornamental, like Scriabin. I find this guy less indulgent than Scriabin though. I literally stumbled upon this guy on youtube; he apparently died at 23. If anything, I'm so curious how he could potentially have been connected with the French and Russian schools at this time, and at such a young age. Considering that ideas didn't exactly move at an internet pace at the time. But the harmonic structure feels related.

Huh, another from the Scriabin/Medtner school, and also new to me. Very nice. — SophistiCat

A friend of mine introduced me to Stanchinsky a few months ago, but I didn't love what he suggested. This piece, on the other hand, scratched the itch for me, and once again, I stumbled upon it on youtube randomly...

Btw, word to the wise, the Medtnaculus user on youtube has a great collection of solo piano music from this era; idk if you were familiar with the legendary Hexameron youtube page a few years ago, but Medtnaculus is sort of the heir apparent (the same person, maybe?).

whaaaaat

:death: Brutal.

Just discovered this early modern guy yesterday:

Are you familiar with the Scottish novelist David Lindsay? He was a notoriously bad writer, but he's gained a cult following over the past century, and the philosophical and supernatural elements in his work are unlike anything I've encountered elsewhere. I'm currently reading his unfinished final novel The Witch, and it's one of the most sublime, disquieting, but deeply flawed pieces of fiction I've read. Fascinating stuff.

I think it's important to note that there isn't an observably, historically satisfying definition of art. In something like Greek Mythology, the lines between art, religion, philosophy, and some kind of legendary, mystical expression of ancient history are blurred. Art served a religious function in the west dating back into the middle ages (earlier??), but it began to take on what we now categorize as a "high" form of art around the enlightenment, while still existing to serve the church and express religious concepts. "Secular" art did exist (love ballads whose melodies were later borrowed and made into sacred hymns, i.e. Be Thou My Vision), but the evolution of modern art in the west is descended, I think to a large degree, from the church: If you follow the historical thread of an art form, classical ("art") music, for instance, it moves from someone like Handel writing sacred music for the church (as well as secular operas), gradually all the way to someone like Schoenberg, who experimented with the 12 tones of the chromatic scale in a purely analytical way, completed removed from any religious context.

All this history might not seem significant, but what seems important to me here is that the way to interface with what I'll here call creative expression (rather than "art", provisionally), has shifted in step with the shift from a sacred to a secular world. In other words, there's been a shift of emphasis from what is expressed to how it's expressed; a shift away from function and towards form. Conceptual art was the logical conclusion of this shift, but it's already past it's peak, culturally.

I see no reason not to assume that creative expression will continue to shift in step with how the world changes philosophically. For instance, amongst us millennials (to my constant chagrin), how we think about and use creative expression has shifted to the concept of a person being a "creative". A "creative", as an individual person, in our parlance, is someone who uses creativity generally for a capitalistic purpose (advertising, tech start ups, branding, graphic design for corporations etc), rather than to express what we would, in every day usage, consider artistic: something expressed for it's own sake, and not specifically for profit. Even popular music largely falls under the branch of something made by a "creative" rather than an artist, although maybe it's not there yet linguistically; however, the need for artists to increasingly market themselves at higher and higher levels on increasingly transient social media platforms squarely places them, functionally, within the same class as "creatives" who work for corporations, rather than artists.

Eh. A rant from a disillusioned artist.

The problem that needs addressing the most, is, and is always, the "human condition" that underlies and leads to all of these problems.

I found "Man And His Symbols" to be a good intro. The first section is written by him.

I would need more details about what this experience is/was. Off the top of my head, it sounds vaguely like some stuff Philip K. Dick experienced. For the record, I'm totally open to these sorts of experiences. I have sleep paralysis, and recently had an episode that, from what I've read, was on the verge of becoming an out-of-body experience.

You've done a decently impressive job of parrying @StreetlightX's flowery, loquacious, ideological and emotionally charged laughable bookworm bullshit, so I wouldn't worry too much. Welcome to the war.

Cool, much appreciated. :up:

Like I said, I'm not well read on this topic, and I hold a provisional view of Chomsky at best, so I'd be curious to hear a specific argument from you about why you find him so "diametrically opposite" to what you seem to think is reality? This is an honest question and I welcome any ideas.

Language is a system of thought. It's communicated very rarely, whether by sign or through speech. So it's communicative properties aren't what's essential. One can communicate with a hairstyle, bees with a waggle dance, etc. There are all kinds of ways to communicate, down through the insects. So language certainly isn't that. — Xtrix

I'll preface this by saying that this topic actually fascinates me to no end, but I'm not well read in this type of rocky terrain (mixed metaphor; what do you have to say about those? Do they "communicate"?), so I'm just tossing out a few informal thoughts for informal consideration.

What do you mean by system of thought? Are there multiple systems of thought, language being one? It looks like you're trying to distinguish between a "system of thought" and "communication". Is that correct or no?

Because I don't understand what "system of thought" is supposed to mean, I'm not clear on how it differs from communication. So, for instance, when you say "Language is a system of thought. It's communicated very rarely..." is "it's" referring to language, or to a system of thought? If language, then to say that language is communicated very rarely sounds like a non sequitur; language communicates various meanings with success all the time: "I'm replying to your post here on TPF because I find it interesting". Is that not a sufficient communicational use of language? Did you receive no communication from me when you read that sentence? Or, if "it's" refers to "system of thought" then I can't really imagine what you would be trying to say there.

Slowly been learning this...devoting all my creative energy into a piece that's above my pay grade. It's a good experience.