Aesthetic implies beauty? Art can be ugly. At the core of it, it is about capturing a glimpse of this human experience and creatively expressing it, whether in a pic, or writing…
Beauty is in the realm of aesthetics but not equal to it, and typpically implies pleasure, harmony, or attractiveness. Anything can be seen aesthetically.
A financial report is a glimpse of human experience and can be creatively expressed. Isn’t there something particular about art that isn’t mere reporting?
The artist’s truth on a meaningful level
Hmm. That doesn’t do anything for me, i’m afraid. I can’t know what you’re referring to, and you can’t know what’s “in me”. This is why I said they were rhetorical. I couldn’t see that we can take this any further.
As to the question you raise, of course. That hasn’t a thing to do with some abstract, fantastical “place” within a person where “deepest truths” reside. You should be aware, I do not think personal identity obtains, due to the extension literature on the matter. I contend, above, is New Age, pseudo-philosophical language to the letter. Although, that’s a little uncharitable: there is a use of “philosophy” which means exactly this, vague guiding principles lay people use day-to-day. But this isn’t a forum for that, really.
Your post in response to Praxis seems to be the same. What is “artists truth” or a “meaningful level”.
These seem to be placeholders for whatever you’re thinking at the time - which makes it extremely difficult to discuss with you.
We can report true and meaningful experiences devoid of aesthetic intent. And indeed, we can express false and meaningless experiences with aesthetic intent.
1 Like
Art is something created by living being of our world. It show something. And it is great or good. Or I mean, pleasant for the eyes or the ears.
[quote=“praxis, post:110, topic:58”]We
can report true and meaningful experiences devoid of aesthetic intent. And indeed, we can express false and meaningless experiences with aesthetic intent.
[/quote]
We can also communicate with aesthetic intent that fails to generate an aesthetic response. Tom Storm was bored by Anna Karennina. The aesthetic intent is what defines “art”. The general response is what differentiates good and bad art.
I think Tolstoy was conflating “art” with “good art”.
1 Like
“Fantastical” is your word. There is actually nothing more real to a person than those truths they hold about their existence. Maybe you can’t access them because you take them for granted.
“Place” is your inference, too. What you know simply resides within what you know.
On the old forum, I provided you with examples of my truth. I am happy to do again - here are a few of my truths -
My mother loves me. My sisters will never abandon me. Being caregiver to my disabled husband is the most important thing I have ever done. Honesty produces better outcomes than falsehood. Givers are happier than takers. Everyone is doing the very best they can. People can be manipulated. Defensiveness builds walls. Hungry bellies stands in the way of learning. Everyone wants to be loved. Newborn infants are perfect.
You may remember? Your reply to me then showed not only a lack of understanding about my point, but cruelty. You replied - “Maybe your mother really hates you.”
You must be aware that this is a tautology?
To illustrate how the truth is a public concept and your personal belief doesn’t constitute a truth (because it is, definitionally, a belief). I did not, as to seem to suggest, claim your mother hates you or insinuate that you were worthy of such.
This is a gross and unfair suggestion. There is also some irony that can’t be missed: you have obviously misunderstood my replies in that older thread.
It just is the case that you’re talking in abstracts and making claims you can’t support. Here’s one:
This doesn’t apply to me or many people I know - not because we “don’t have access” to anything; but because we are aware that identity is contingent and facts about the world are not (in the same way, at least - psychologically).
You reject this. That’s fine. You’re allowed your beliefs and opinions. There’s no need to now fall into ad hominems.
It’s in your brain. What you know resides in your brain.
Although, I do believe in the intelligence of the body, too…
Well, you did. I haven’t lost my memory yet.
You were conflating objective truth with subjective truth. It is 100% true to me that my mother loves me. there is no question. But that truth means nothing to you.
That subjective truth is contingent makes it no less truth
Does history produce better outcomes than fiction?
1 Like
I was referring to the individual, personal level, but this is an interesting question.
First of all - the best fiction is honest. It’s an authentic, accurate representation of reality. It is built on truth, even if the plot and characters are made up.
Second - looking at history - autocratic regimes rely on false propaganda to create ‘the enemy’ - so, that produces a worse society for many than does a political system that relies on truth.
The Ode on the Grecian Urn told Keats that “truth is beauty, beauty truth”, in which case art (defined by the German philosophers Tolstoy decries) is somehow “true”.
Nonetheless, fiction poses a question: I suppose good fiction is “true” in the sense that it illuminates true human emotions and motivations, projects “true” moral values, and is “metaphorically true”. But that’s stretching it. Is “The Lord of the Rings”(or other fantasies) “true”.
And what about mythology? Is Oedipus a “true” story? Freud would say that it communicates a truth about men wanting to marry their mothers and murder their fathers; the Greeks might say it reveals truths about fate and free will; some might claim that it is true that mistreating one’s children may come back to bite you (the name “Oedipus” – “swollen foot”-- must have been a constant reminder to Greek audiences of the sins of the parents.)
And if myths are true, how do they differ from the autocratic propaganda you decry? Can’t “false propaganda” be used to support kindness, generosity, and doing unto others? If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, does that mean it’s OK to hate one’s neighbor?
Wasn’t Leni Riefenstahl a “true artist”? Yet her art was used to produce a “worse society”. If so great a genius as Tolstoy doesn’t have the answers, I can hardly be expected to.
This needs to be understood that truth is beauty, in and of itself, even if the specific truth is an ugly truth.
Does it accurately portray human interactions in those particular circumstances? I am sure the author - the artist who created the story - would say, yes, this is the truth of human nature.
Again - it’s not in the plot and characters, but the truth they uncover, which usually reveals something meaningful about the culture that created the mythology
I disagree. It’s about self-identity, and the limits of human knowledge. It’s about human choice and agency… etc
maybe we need to differentiate them based on intent. Ancient myths most usually embody a culture’s history to build pride and belonging. Modern false propaganda is designed to manipulate.
You make me think of the propagandist paintings of Norman Rockwell during WW2. But I would say they were not false - that they depicted American life as Rockwell saw it.
I don’t understand this question.
Sometimes, not always. To me, art is subjective interpretation on the objects or ideas in the artists’ mind or world into images, words, music, films, or sculptures etc i.e. into more tangible forms.
Art doesn’t always induce feelings. Some arts induce ideas of beauty or messages. Some arts are just for capturing the moments of events such as some types of photography.
The image above seems to be a typical interpretation of the myth or legend using the artist’s imagination, which is supposed to give negative and horrible emotion to the viewers. Art is not always pretty or beautiful. Only some arts are.
IN the poem, the urn is telling Keats that the mythological etchings that decorate it are beautiful, so “true” in some way.
“Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter, therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
NOt to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,
Pipe in the spirit ditties of no tone.”
The pictures create a mental music. Can wordless music be “true” or “false”? Or is it merely enchanting or dull? Does the fact that the lad on the urn leaning in for a kiss can never win it constitute some sort of “truth”? Or is the melancholy emotional resonance it creates beyond truth or falsehood?
My point about Oedipus is that it can be considered “true” in many ways – but none of them construes “true” as “factual”.
Yes. Bob Ross, an American artist, comes to mind. This is not a criticism on my part, just an idea of category.
Did the composer create it with authenticity?
That’s amusing. I came to this last night. My partner runs Bob Ross on youtube to get to sleep at night. There’s something about his dispassionate approach that promotes sleep. Perhaps this was his true art.
2 Likes
I don’t know what that means. Does “authenticity” mean “originality”? “Authorship”? Who knows? Bod Ross is “authentic” – all technique and artifice, and little originality, but he is still “authentic”.
The inner state of the author is hidden to us consumers. How are we to know if the author (or painter or composer) is (as Tolstoy would say) “borrowing”. All art relies on technique, and Bob Ross is definitely an artist (although not a great one).
I saw “The Singers” recently – it’s a short movie nominated for an Academy Award in the short live action category. It’s on Netflix here in the U.S. (although I saw it in the theater). It considers some of these questions, and it’s well worth seeing. It’s based on the superb Turgenev story “The Singers”, available here: The Singers - Collection at Bartleby.com