Is Art Worth the Time and Effort?

[cragwolf]

Why is art (painting, photography, literature, music, film, sculpture, etc) often put up on the same pedestal as science? Among names like Einstein, Poincare, Newton, and Gauss in a typical list of great contributors to humankind, you'll find names like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Bach, and Beethoven. But what did the people in this latter group give us apart from a little amusement? What is the value of art beyond mere entertainment? How many geniuses have wasted their potential because they chose to search for truth via art (a completely forlorn hope, by the way) rather than via science, the most reliable way to truth (though nowhere near 100% reliable)? Frankly, I feel that the time I spent on art (reading about it, experiencing it, even trying to do it) in my youth was misspent.

The questions above are only partially rhetorical. Feel free to answer them, or ridicule me if you like. I'm also interested to see if anyone agrees with me, or if I'm really as contrarian as my brother says I am.

Added as an afterthought: Even as entertainment, many things trump art: socialising, sex, communing with nature, sport, games, to name a few.

 

[pace]

I guess it's a question between metaphysics and aesthetics. Immanuel Kant wrote some good stuff about it I hear, you could check up on him.
It's an interesting question. To me art is much more than a 'little amusement'.

It's many things. You don't just have to see it as pleasure, but also a crossbreed of thoughts and emotions, and thus important to how you perceive things. I guess it lies much in the emotions category. Emotions is how your person directly percieve life, and art is an lifely expression of my emotions.
Cause not all truth can be found by thought I believe, but also be approached through emotions, or art.
Maybe you could say art is also communication.
Art means more to me than science, but then again I'm a musician and artist more than I'm a scientist.

If art has become just become a pleasure to you(and I think it is to many), I dare you to open up your art definition a little. Art will be how you percieve it.
Know that you're an growing thing, and as such you could divide art in how you experience it, and how it really is. Great artists has made great works, don't expect yourself to understand those works immediately. ie. I have a rule: When listening to an artist's material I always experience it more than one time before I make up my mind about it. To experience art is to grow, and art is a growing thing.

 

[Artman]

Art elevates humanity and defines a society.

As a man of science you should know that different people think in different ways (right-brain, left-brain). To try and pigeon-hole an artist into doing science may not work. There are exceptions such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, several of the members here are both artist and scientist.

Some people need to constantly change what they are doing or they lose interest. I fall into this category as do many others on this forum, I'm sure.

Finally, I don't think you realize the extent to which art influences life. Architecture, furniture design, book covers, scientfic illustrations, movies, TV & Radio programming, etc.

The market for scientific inovation is often driven by the artistic ways it is put to use. So don't be too hard on us artisitic types.

 

[Phobos]

Art is an aspect of human nature (usually a positive aspect). That alone gives it value (to humans, anyway).

Art can inspire (emotions, philosophy, etc.), can make you think, can communicate ideas, & can record history in ways that other methods cannot.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Art gives energy, vigor, warmth, juice, vitality to what would otherwise be sterile.

Instead of saying: "I am a shy, lonely man." T.S. Eliot said: "I should have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas."

 

[cragwolf]

Originally posted by pace
Emotions is how your person directly percieve life, and art is an lifely expression of my emotions.

I agree with you somewhat, but don't you find that your emotions are highly unreliable in getting at the truth? If I relied on my emotions, I'd probably be a Jesuit monk, rather than a science enthusiast and atheist. Alternatively, I'd have fallen for some get-rich-quick scheme, or new age quackery or a born-again cult. I just don't trust my emotions, they're too misleading.

Cause not all truth can be found by thought I believe, but also be approached through emotions, or art.

Science has revealed such truths as the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the predictable laws of gravity and electromagentism, the strange properties of matter at the very small scale, the cosmological origin of the microwave background radiation, the evolution of life on Earth, the workings of the cell, plate tectonics, and the periodic table, among many others. A lot of this knowledge is provisional in character, but that's how science works and advances.

But what truths has art revealed or discovered? Let me choose 3 examples of art which are commonly held up as great:

1) Ulysses, by James Joyce
2) Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci
3) Ninth Symphony, by Ludwig von Beethoven

What great truths did these works reveal? What did you learn about the world or yourself through experiencing them? I can't think of anything, myself, but that may be because I'm stupid, at least as far as art is concerned.

Great artists has made great works, don't expect yourself to understand those works immediately.

I would not expect otherwise. Nothing deep comes easy. Which is what makes art so frustrating to me. I dug fairly deep, and I found essentially nothing, except occasionally in novels, where I found some simple wisdom that could stated in a sentence or two. I probably lack an artistic temperament, or my aesthetic sense is primitive, or something like that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by cragwolf
I probably lack an artistic temperament, or my aesthetic sense is primitive, or something like that.

Maybe you should have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Maybe you should have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

hehe, this is my fiance's favorite quote...

craqwolf...art is an expression of the human spirit---not all express it with art, some express it in pursuing the truth which science aids in...do you enjoy music? then you appreciate a form of art...

the fact is, we are human beings and our emotions-although "formed by chemicals"-are the motivator (for example) in pursuing the truth...you desire to understand what is real beyond your emotional state, and this is truly remarkable! i am not sure that art is put on the same pedastal as science, as they aren't really related, at least in my perspective...many people do not have the creative flair (or have yet to discover it!) but understand the thought process behind creating wonderful art...perhaps a good question is, what is the science behind being artistic? how come some can paint and create wonderful music, and others cannot?

creativity is one of the most important aspects to me of being human...i make many different things that are as unique and beautiful as i can make them, and this gives me an inner joy.

 

[FZ+]

Why is art (painting, photography, literature, music, film, sculpture, etc) often put up on the same pedestal as science?

What is the point of pure science?

Yes, ok, pure science often has meaningful derivations later on, but as Feynman put it, "that's not why we do it". Pure science is pursued for its own sake - we declare that knowledge is good, regardless of usefulness. In the same way, I suppose you can say that art has some nice side-effects - makes you happy, perhaps - but the real point is that there is no point. Art for art's own sake.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by cragwolf 1) Ulysses, by James Joyce
2) Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci
3) Ninth Symphony, by Ludwig von Beethoven What great truths did these works reveal? What did you learn about the world or yourself through experiencing them?

Personally, I don't believe art directly reveals anything of particular use about "great truth". In fact, it is rather a celebration and deliberate exploration of empirical experience. The works you list above are, most importantly, about the emotions and minds of the artists. Ulysses is about Joyce, The Mona Lisa is about Da Vinci, and the 9th is about Beethoven. Each is a particularly outstanding and successful effort on the part of the artist to communicate his own perception of things.

...don't you find that your emotions are highly unreliable in getting to the truth?

Because I think art is the attempt to express empircal, idiosynchratic, subjective experience articulately I see it as an extremely important stage in any person's development. It is a deliberate attempt to overcome the differences in perspective and experience we percieve to exist between ourselves and others. I believe that most artists are shooting for the goal of directly inducing other people to have the same emotional experience of things that they have had, as a way of bridging the gap between themselves and others.

I agree with Kerrie in viewing your desire to get to the truth, as an essentially emotional urge. The concept of discovering truths about the world around you is really only important to you because it stirs you up emotionally, and motivates you, as Kerrie says, to go looking for those truths.

At this point you are much more interested in larger truths, ones that exist outside of any given individuals limitd view and circumstances, ones which are circumambient, rather than what are the idiosynchratic misperceptions that emotions can cause.

Kerrie says:

i make many different things that are as unique and beautiful as i can make them...

which points out one of the benefits to the artist of the artistic process, which is undertaking the discipline required to make things come out such that they are about what the artist intends then to be about, and not something else.

In order to capture a personal perspective the artist is required to a large extent to step outside it, examine it more objectively and make decisions about how to express it.

Then there is the command of the medium to master. You can't make a clay pot without learning something about clay, things you never realized, and a great deal of behind the scenes discipline is acquired by the demands of the clay to let go of your preconceptions and handle it on its own terms.

In this way, on a small scale, the quest to express one's individual experience leads to the experience of greater, extra-individual truths.

 

[Loren Booda]

What better way to reveal our dreams, to realize our feelings or to stimulate inner passion but through art? Recall the painting your imagination resonates with, an old song that brings tears of memories to surface, or the craziness of Ulysses shifting from prudish dactylic pentameter to rude Anglo-Saxon barking! The component of communication, the sensory stimulation, and the creative source which makes our life bearable, even beautiful, they are all art.

 

[Chi Meson]

Art is personal. The reason that certain artists are "better" than other artists, is that more people are personally affected by the "good artists" than the "hacks."

I never got much of a kick from poetry, nor from paintings or sculpture or other "physical" art forms, but there are few things that I can do that make me feel better than playing a difficult piece by Bach on the Piano. I am no closer to understanding anything other than the fact that I am experiencing a thrill in being alive. I assume that other people feel similar when experiencing other "arts."

If you experience absolutely no such thrill in any form of "art," then probably any logical argument will fail to convince you of its worth. But if that's true, I really would feel sorry for you more than anything else.

 

[cragwolf]

I agree with Kerrie in viewing your desire to get to the truth, as an essentially emotional urge. The concept of discovering truths about the world around you is really only important to you because it stirs you up emotionally, and motivates you, as Kerrie says, to go looking for those truths.

I can agree with this, too. All humans are emotional. Science stirs up emotions in me. But science satisfies my intellectual curiosity as well. It answers or attempts to answer the "why" and "how" questions. Art seems to me to be emotion for emotion's sake.

I believe that most artists are shooting for the goal of directly inducing other people to have the same emotional experience of things that they have had, as a way of bridging the gap between themselves and others.

So, in other words, art is the objectification of emotion? But that's a hopeless task. Emotions are purely subjective. How do I, as an artist, know that what you're feeling through my work is what I wanted you to feel? You can describe your feelings to me, but I still won't know what you really felt.

Or perhaps art is something more...

The component of communication, the sensory stimulation, and the creative source which makes our life bearable, even beautiful, they are all art.

...so, I wonder, does art exist mainly to make life bearable? Is it an escape from the harshness of reality? Nietzsche once said, "We have Art in order not to perish of Truth." The artist Paul Klee wrote, "I create in order not to cry." Is this why we have art? That would be sad.

 

[deltabourne]

"Un croquis vaut mieux qu’un long discours."
Fr., "A picture is worth a thousand words."
-Napoleon

 

[cragwolf]

Art is personal. The reason that certain artists are "better" than other artists, is that more people are personally affected by the "good artists" than the "hacks."

"More people"? So it's a popularity contest? Does that mean the film "Dumb and Dumber" is a "better" work of art than "Citizen Kane" or "Vertigo" or "The Rules of the Game" or "Tokyo Story" or "Mirror"? How does one actually judge a work of art? What really makes one work of art better than another? I think it's entirely subjective.

If you experience absolutely no such thrill in any form of "art," then probably any logical argument will fail to convince you of its worth. But if that's true, I really would feel sorry for you more than anything else.

You do realize how incredibly patronising that sounds? And you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of my religious uncle saying how he feels sorry for me (the atheist) because I haven't experienced the communion with God, the power of prayer, or the spirit of Christ. And then I have to bite my tongue to keep my mother happy.

But to correct you: I have experienced the thrill of art. I've felt plenty of emotions listening to music, reading novels, or watching films. But I get greater kicks from doing other things, like riding a bike, playing games, bushwalking, bodysurfing, and so on. Films are often described as "exciting as a rollercoaster ride!" So why not ride a real rollercoaster?

If the point of art is to simply experience certain emotions that you wouldn't otherwise experience, then I would say that there are better ways to do that. But if there are other reasons for art, I'm genuinely interested to know of them. This thread has revealed a couple of them, so it's been a worthwhile exercise for me. Thanks for your responses.

P.S. An equation is worth a million words.

 

[deltabourne]

"More people"? So it's a popularity contest? Does that mean the film "Dumb and Dumber" is a "better" work of art than "Citizen Kane" or "Vertigo" or "The Rules of the Game" or "Tokyo Story" or "Mirror"? How does one actually judge a work of art? What really makes one work of art better than another? I think it's entirely subjective.



You do realize how incredibly patronising that sounds? And you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of my religious uncle saying how he feels sorry for me (the atheist) because I haven't experienced the communion with God, the power of prayer, or the spirit of Christ. And then I have to bite my tongue to keep my mother happy.

But to correct you: I have experienced the thrill of art. I've felt plenty of emotions listening to music, reading novels, or watching films. But I get greater kicks from doing other things, like riding a bike, playing games, bushwalking, bodysurfing, and so on. Films are often described as "exciting as a rollercoaster ride!" So why not ride a real rollercoaster?

If the point of art is to simply experience certain emotions that you wouldn't otherwise experience, then I would say that there are better ways to do that. But if there are other reasons for art, I'm genuinely interested to know of them. This thread has revealed a couple of them, so it's been a worthwhile exercise for me. Thanks for your responses.

P.S. An equation is worth a million words.

I don't understand what you want from this thread. You seem to be arguing as hard as possible to convince everybody that art is worthless. If you don't like it, don't look at it. That is fine. Nobody will chastise you for it. But I think it is a bit presumptious of you to go around telling everybody else that their hobbys are worthless and pointless, because they may think the same about math and science. My mom once said to me "What do I care about the sun and the moons and the stars? I still have to go to work every day and pay the bills. It means nothing to me."
Not everybody thinks the same way as you do, no matter how right you think you are.

 

[cragwolf]

deltabourne, let me explain myself a little further.

1. I'd like to know what is the point and worth of art beyond providing people with a pleasurable hobby. How does it "elevate humanity" as Artman claimed? I can explain why science is more than just a hobby (yes, even pure math, FZ+), and how it "elevates" us, but I can't do so for art. Maybe someone here can (and there are some good candidates already).

2. As a hobby, I find art to be lacking compared to other activities. That's just my personal preference. I am not implying that my preferences as hobbies are better than yours. Hobbies shouldn't have to be justified, but it shouldn't be a sin to state what you like and what you don't like, and why.

Number 1 is the main point of this thread. Number 2 I just stated as an aside. I can't control the flow of this thread, so if Number 2 becomes the main point of this thread, then so be it. But that was not my intention.

Hopefully this makes it clearer what I want from this thread. If not, well, I'm not that good at expressing myself in words, so please forgive me.

 

[Kerrie]

crag, i have found a lot of inspiration from lyrics of music to elevate me from within...consider that everyone has their own path of "enlightenment", including studying and practicing science. it doesn't seem that art (at least traditional art) "touches" you, and that is how it is for you individually...perhaps science has yet to define why art "elevates humanity"?

speaking of art, i am going to the Portland Art Museum and visiting the Rau collection...i know nothing of it, but my fiance appreciates art greatly and has been wanting to see it for quite some time...if by chance, when I am viewing this art, i will "observe" how it touches me, and perhaps have something more concrete to contribute to this thread with my own experiences...

 

[Chi Meson]

"More people"? So it's a popularity contest? Does that mean the film "Dumb and Dumber" is a "better" work of art than "Citizen Kane" or "Vertigo" or "The Rules of the Game" or "Tokyo Story" or "Mirror"? How does one actually judge a work of art? What really makes one work of art better than another? I think it's entirely subjective.



You do realize how incredibly patronising that sounds? And you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of my religious uncle saying how he feels sorry for me (the atheist) because I haven't experienced the communion with God, the power of prayer, or the spirit of Christ. And then I have to bite my tongue to keep my mother happy.

But to correct you: I have experienced the thrill of art. I've felt plenty of emotions listening to music, reading novels, or watching films. But I get greater kicks from doing other things, like riding a bike, playing games, bushwalking, bodysurfing, and so on. Films are often described as "exciting as a rollercoaster ride!" So why not ride a real rollercoaster?

If the point of art is to simply experience certain emotions that you wouldn't otherwise experience, then I would say that there are better ways to do that. But if there are other reasons for art, I'm genuinely interested to know of them. This thread has revealed a couple of them, so it's been a worthwhile exercise for me. Thanks for your responses.

P.S. An equation is worth a million words.

OK. It does look more patronizing than intended, I'm sorry for that. I'm glad you do experience the thrill. I did not intend to say that you do not. It was an "if" statement with a general "you" not a personal (as in you-you) you. I doi think we are more in agreement on this subject than not.

There is no algorithm for determining good art, so yes, in a way, "Art" is a popularity contest. But it is a long term popularity contest. If we came back fifty years from now and did a general survey of people, I can be pretty certain that Citizen Kane would be remembered more than "Dumb and Dumber." Good art has a way of lasting through centuries. Hack art has a way of being forgotten.

And yes we agree that art is entirely subjective. I think we also would agree that there are many so-called art experts that are full of ... . And, correct me if I am wrong, we would agree that there is a lot of so-called art that is truly garbage.

But getting back to the thrill; this is what I believe to be the purpose of art because it is the only part that makes sense to me. So there are, absolutely, great artists who are as important to life as great scientists, Quite clearly some people can "do it" and others can't. THis is why Bach has persisted while thousands of temporarily popular composers have been forgotten since Bach died.

 

[Chi Meson]

WHo agrees with this?

Some equations are art! (Hey Maxwell!)

 

[hypnagogue]

cragwolf, I suggest you read The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley. Art at its best conveys an emotion and a mindset far deeper, far more substantial, and far more significant that mere 'enjoyment' or thrills. Of course, getting there depends to a large extent upon the perceiver's own mindset.

 

[Artman]

1. I'd like to know what is the point and worth of art beyond providing people with a pleasurable hobby. How does it "elevate humanity" as Artman claimed? I can explain why science is more than just a hobby (yes, even pure math, FZ+), and how it "elevates" us, but I can't do so for art. Maybe someone here can (and there are some good candidates already).

How does art elevate humanity?

One way is by exposing and opposing injustice that hold humanity down. Examples are found in the works of Goya. Here is a quote from a website about the artist:

Fiercely opposed to tyranny of all sorts, Goya became painter to Charles IV of Spain, whose court was famous for its corruption and repression. His observation of the vicious behavior of the royal family and the fanaticism of the church turned him into a bitter satirist who was disgusted by mankind.

Goya's Family of Charles IV (below) is a mocking caricature of the thirteen members of the royal family. The stout, red-faced king, loaded down with medals, is painted as a piggish man. The entire group is ostentatiously decked out in fine velvets and embellished with jewels. The queen, in the middle with the children, seems vulgar and unintelligent; she is, in fact, considered one of the more vicious women of history and dangerous precisely because she was so stupid. On the left is the future king, Ferdinand VII, who brought back the Inquisition to Spain. He is accompanied by a lady whose face is mysteriously turned away; the figure represents his bride-to-be whose identity at that time was not yet known. Critics have long laughed at the stupidity of the king and his family for failing to realize how ridiculous and mediocre Goya made them look. One critic nicknamed the painting "a grocer and his family who have just won the big lottery prize," and the nickname has stuck. It is widely assumed that these people admired their own images so much that they missed the fact that Goya was mocking them; at any rate, they commissioned him to paint many more portraits. In this one, the artist shows himself behind the canvas in the shadows at left rear as the objective recorder of the arrogance and pomposity of the Spanish monarchy.

What do you think? Sound like a little more than a mere hobby?

Check out the anti fascist works of Peter Blume, or the anti Nazi works of George Grosz or Max Beckmann.

The Ancient Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians are known as much, if not more, for their architectural, sculptural and literary works as they are for their achievements in science. Their civilizations were, and still are, defined by their artistic style.

You might look at art today and think exactly what you are saying, that you can’t see how it elevates humanity. Perhaps that is a failure of current artistic trends. Perhaps I should have said it can have the capacity to elevate humanity.

 

[Artman]

One more thing:

I believe that science allows us to descibe what we are and attempt to explain the world around us, while art allows us to define who we are and how we relate to the world around us.

When we attempt to apply who we are to the science process, it invalidates our findings.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is anyone else having the experience of quotes not showing up in this thread?

 

[Tsu]

[zz)]

Is anyone else having the experience of quotes not showing up in this thread?

What do you mean?

 

[zoobyshoe]

When people quote other people to respond to them, instead of the quote all I can see is a blank space.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When people quote other people to respond to them, instead of the quote all I can see is a blank space.

Mine seems to be working okay.


As for the point of this thread, I think we are all born with a yearning for certain perceived manifestations of perfection [for lack of a better word]. I think this applies more than the concept of truth. For example, something tells the artist when the color is just right…he or she see a sort of perfection on the canvas, or in the rock, metal, or clay. Musicians hear and feel and can express it; and scientists seek perfection in the form of precise and complete logic to explain the world around us. In young people especially, we often see this overwhelming need to get "it" out...to rebel, to create, to make it right, to change the world. I think we all have something...even the need for an orderly house or desk, or the need for a perfectly arranged garage are manifestations of this expression and need for perfection.

We don't celebrate all art, or music, or poetry, and surely we hope to ignore or dismiss bad or wrong science, but we do celebrate the best of these. We can each appreciate some of the manifestations of perfection found through the expressions of others. [edit] In other words, we need it; in one form or another.

Also note that perfection is not quite the perfect word. Something will tell me when I hear just he right word.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ideal?...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

better maybe...

I guess you get the idea.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But that's a hopeless task. Emotions are purely subjective. How do I, as an artist, know that what you're feeling through my work is what I wanted you to feel? You can describe your feelings to me, but I still won't know what you really felt.

Difficult, sometimes, but not hopeless. Artists are frequently dissapointed by other people's reactions. However this is no more or less the case than it is with pure information. People are constantly surprised when, having stated simple information, others don't seem to have understood at all. Find two people at PF who completely agree on what Relativity is about. Everyone knows why a plane flys, right? Start a thread about it and you'll find an argument as to whether it's Bernoulli, Newton III or a combination. These scientific "truths" are as subjectively understood as Beethoven's 9th.

 

[cragwolf]

I believe that science allows us to descibe what we are and attempt to explain the world around us, while art allows us to define who we are and how we relate to the world around us.

I don't understand. I'm cragwolf and you're Artman. Spend a bit of time with me, and you'll know who I am. Science (e.g. evolution) also tells us how we relate to the world around us. What exactly do you mean by "who we are"?

How does art elevate humanity?

One way is by exposing and opposing injustice that hold humanity down.

I don't doubt that artists attempt to do more than entertain. But how effective are they at doing anything else? Compared to reporting, protesting, lobbying, and suing, art is a long way behind in its effectiveness at exposing and correcting injustice. I think I have to agree with the actress Elisabeth, a character in Ingmar Bergman's film, Persona, who in the face of the terrible injustices of the world, which, she realizes, her art is powerless to stop, chooses silence.

Thanks for your responses.

 

[Evo]

I must be some sort of freak. (wouldn't surprise me) I will make a soul baring confession, I feel nothing when I view art, it is either "a pretty picture, or "an ugly picture"

I see no meaning in art, I feel no emotion. I cannot relate to people that do. I think it is wonderful that people can feel so moved by art & I realize that I must be lacking something. I wonder though, can you imagine yourself in my place?

Funny, I am a gifted portrait artist, but I merely can create precise photo like replicas of what I see.

I always felt bad when I was younger and people would ask me what book or what movie had the most impact on my life. NONE. I read a LOT and have read the classics and again, it's either "good book" or "bad book". Same with movies, I like some, dislike some, no significance.

Music, I love music, dislike some music, I am very musical, I make up songs all the time, again, no special feelings about it though.

I am a very passionate, feeling, caring person in "real" life.

Is there anyone else out there that understands not feeling emotions from "objects", which to me is what art, literature, and film are.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You were merely born without an art lobe. No biggy. It happens.

 

[Evo]

You were merely born without an art lobe. No biggy. It happens.

Is that it?

It's odd going through life unable to relate to what everyone else seems to be experiencing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I can only relate to what you say on that level: imagining being completely different than everyone else around. I can't imaging not having emotional responses to paintings or sculpture or books or movies.

The strange thing is, though, I know you like music from a thread where you and Tsunami compared favorites. How is it music was spared?

 

[Evo]

As I mentioned, I "love" music, it's my life, however, I can't say that I am particularly "moved" by music. Odd?

Music is something I enjoy, I am very musical and enjoy a wide variety of music. I can read music, have perfect pitch, and spent many years singing in an a cappella choir. Some people are "inspired" or deeply "moved" by music and I can't get past just simple "enjoyment" of what I like.

Like I said, I'm a freak.

 

[hypnagogue]

Evo, I know what you're talking about. It's the same for me for most works of art. I do have several exceptions which are notable to me, but by and large I could never be as passionate about it as, say, a humanities teacher.

One thing I do notice is that both my appreciation and production of art of any kind has historically been very heightened by emotional turmoil/instability. Not surprising, I guess-- in such states I can sympathize with the emotional charge of, e.g., a song much better than normal, and I also feel a strong urge to get it all off my chest and art has always been cathartic for me in that way. Now that all that drama is behind me, I still appreciate art and music and such, but I don't feel it so acutely in an emotional sense, and I also don't write or draw nearly as much.

Actually, now that I phrase it this way, it becomes apparent to me that perhaps art serves as a natural psychological/emotional balance for the mind, to help keep it on an even keel like a gyroscope. Maybe this is based too much on my own idiosyncratic experiences, but for instance the catharsis of artistic creation at least is widely recognized.

 

[Evo]

hypnagogue, you do seem to understand. Unfortunately I am dead tired and a reply now cannot do justice to your wonderful post.

 

[hypnagogue]

I don't understand. I'm cragwolf and you're Artman. Spend a bit of time with me, and you'll know who I am. Science (e.g. evolution) also tells us how we relate to the world around us. What exactly do you mean by "who we are"?

I think Artman is referring to our internal lives-- our subjective experiences. Art can serve as an effective means of communicating what is inherently a difficult thing to communicate. For instance, there are any number of songs that convey the musician's emotions far better than, say, an expository essay could.

Huxley comes to the same conclusion in The Doors of Perception. He even goes so far as to say that the art of some of the greater artists-- for instance Van Gogh-- reflects a certain way of seeing the world not unlike Huxley's own documented experience with mescalin. Whether or not this is the case, it is well known that many of the artists considered to be truly great or revolutionary also have had peculiar mental conditions, which in itself implies a peculiar sort of subjective experience.

There is an interview in the new issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies that touches on this issue, among others. Here's an excerpt in which Shaun Gallagher (a professor of philosophy and cognitive science) is speaking with Jonathan Cole (a clinical neurophysiologist, experimental neuroscientist, and author):

Gallagher: You are an experimental scientist, but you are also a physician who treats patients. Is it important to do both kinds of work?

Cole: I get paid as a clinical doctor, and I grew up with an academic, neurophysiological background. And as you say, I am an empirical scientist. Much of my writing is-- well, you could describe it-- it's about narrative, about biography...

Gallagher: It concernes, in the broad sense, how people live with neurological problems.

Cole: Yes, I am trying to look at both sides. Take Ian [the subject of one of Cole's case studies]. I've studied him as a scientist, but I have also written his biography, informed by science, and also by my crude readings of philosophy. When you approach what it is like to be someone else, you can do that scientifically in a lab, to find out how you can create a motor programme or how you can time action, but you also needto go out of the lab to ask how they live. And I know that Ian always says that he would not have done the amount of scientific work, over more than a dozen years, if I hadn't also been as interested in what it is like to be him, with his condition. I would say that this phenomenological approach to the subjective experience, the lived experience of illness, is just as important and informative as the lab science. [emphasis mine]

Gallagher: Yes, you know that I agree with that. Your work is a good example of how this combination can lead to very productive outcomes in regard to our understanding of illness. One very practical result is that because of your genuine interest in Ian as a person, he was willing to do more science with you. I'm also reminded of one of my favourite pieces by John Dewey. He once gave a lecture to a college of physicians in which he chastised them for focusing in a very mechanical way only on the physical condition, the body of the patient, and ignoring the environment in which the patient lived. To understand illness one needs to know about the body, but also about the person's way of life. To cure the body and then to send the patient back into a noxious environment is to ignore an important aspect of the illness.

Cole: Yes, and the same goes for empirical science. Science is defined as knowledge-- certainly it is in my OED. And it has come to be know as empirical science, which is a wonderful tool, and which I am not in any way criticising. It produces results and data which allow the verification or refutation of hypotheses, which has been such a powerful technique. Most people are not aware of how powerful it has been. We know infinitely more about the natural world and about how we all work because of empirical science.

But we should also not forget the wider, more personal, more subjective experience. To leave that to novelists-- and I have nothing against novelists-- neglects something inbetween, an informed interest. I quote Merleau-Ponty at the beginning of Still Lives, 'Science manipulates things and gives up living in them.'

Gallagher: Science stays on the outside, in an attempt to capture the whole picture objectively. But in doing that, it tends to miss half the picture.

 

[tribdog]

I'm sure a lot of you are a lot like me and aren't used to failure. I can do just about anything I seriously try to do. One of the big differences between science and art is that everyone can do science if they work hard enough. Art is different. I've recently started oil painting and I got to tell you it's hard to be good, and even at my best I don't know if I have anything original in me. I'm almost like a xerox machine and I can paint what I see, but so can a Kodak.
My greatest desire is to make a living as an artist. I've made a couple hundred bucks writing and that is probably where my future lies, but damn, if I could sell a painting I would be on cloud nine. I've never painted anything I would even consider offering for sale, but I'm a harsh critic of my own stuff.

Here's a little side note, don't know if it means anything: I was purely science and math for all my life and didn't get interested in anything remotely artistic until I was stabbed in the neck. Now I am into it big time.

 

[physicskid]

Recently, I've been really interesting in reading and writing fiction, so much that I stopped reading any books on physics! But now, I'm making a 'comeback'!

 

[tribdog]

Recently, I've been really interesting in reading and writing fiction, so much that I stopped reading any books on physics! But now, I'm making a 'comeback'!

don't you mean interested? let your readers decide if you are interesting. jk
you don't need to make a comeback, fiction and physics don't have to be exclusive. The very first story I ever sent out to get published was bought by the Arts Council of England. I got something like 30 pounds for two short paragraphs and the name of the story was "Physics is my Life"
If you really are interested in writing you should check out zoetrope.com. That's where I first started writing. It's Francis Ford Coppola's site. There you have to read 5 stories and give reviews in order to get your story put up, but then yours gets read and critiqued. There are some pretty good authors and even better editors there who are happy to point out mistakes, or to give pointers, especially after you've been there awhile and given out some thoughtful reviews.

 

[pace]

1. cragwolf, I think you have to get away from the objectivity and subjectivity issue. If you read up some philosophy-science you get to know that science isn't an objectivity authority either. Objectivity is a huge philosophical problem, along with subjectivity. It's two outer limits. So maybe it was wrong of me to focus so much on art as a growing thing.
Science also change through time, there are many science-laws that are refuted. Karl Popper was the foremost in the falsificationism area.
And philosophicly there are many problems of trying to state that any new or old science discovery will last forever. As an introduction I suggest you read on Chalmers: What is this thing called Science, if you haven't read it. It's univeristy material here in Noway at the least.
Now that science isn't objectivity either, the whole difference between art and science is getting more interesting, yes?
Now if you're speaking about Math, that's a nother issue, and it has pondered philosophers for centuries. 2+2 will forever be 4. Yes? (hm)



2. But Evo, you are interested in art. You love music you say :) Surely we can't be passionate about all forms of art.

3. Now to those that dizz crag for asking this question. FYI! Learn how to approach these issues before going all angry over it, learn to take criticism. crag even started very humbly in this thread, and has remained so.

4. (now, I'm one of those that's more of an artist and emotional person: I just haaate it when they change the forum look, and don't include all the good emoticons they had previously )

5. This thread needs to be moved over to the Philosophy section.

 

[plus]

I can experience emotions from movies and TV because they tell whole stories and you can get a much better idea of what the story is. You can relate to the characters more. This is to do with the human context of it. I could be moved by some strong images of people getting hurt , whether they are conveyed by art or a photograph. But I could not get moved by art in any other way than I would be if I saw the same thing in real life.
Pictures of still life or plain portraits seem a little bit pointless.

I agree that art should not be something other than a hobby, or a vocation for a tint minority.

Why are the ratio of people who study art : people who study art history so large when compared to the ratio of people who study science : people who study science history so different?

 

[einsteinian77]

Art is more of a philosophical way of discovering truth. I think art picks up were science can not go in terms of truth because science is a way of understanding but it doesn't give the perspective that art can.

 

[Janitor]

For whatever it's worth--

I have read anecdotes that indicate that Paul Dirac was unimpressed and unmoved by artsy stuff, while Robert Oppenheimer embraced it and wrote poems. So I guess even among hardcore physicists there is a wide variation in enchantment with art.

 

[tribdog]

I can experience emotions from movies and TV because they tell whole stories and you can get a much better idea of what the story is. You can relate to the characters more. This is to do with the human context of it. I could be moved by some strong images of people getting hurt , whether they are conveyed by art or a photograph. But I could not get moved by art in any other way than I would be if I saw the same thing in real life.
Pictures of still life or plain portraits seem a little bit pointless.

I agree that art should not be something other than a hobby, or a vocation for a tint minority.

Why are the ratio of people who study art : people who study art history so large when compared to the ratio of people who study science : people who study science history so different?

You are probably more affected by art than you realize. What got you interested in physics? I'd bet it wasn't a textbook, probably some sort of fiction.
Ever get turned on by a centerfold?
Listen to music?
What does your room look like? grey walls and carpet? you probably have some sort of decoration.
Still life and portraits allow us to have something comforting to look at that we couldn't reasonably have in real life. Plus you just got to be impressed by the talent.

The reason more people study art is because it makes you do one of a couple of things: it makes you feel good or it makes you think about something. And that's what people like to do.

I define art as: something new
An artist makes something that the world has never seen before. The better the art, the more original and unique it is. Lots of scientific theories can be looked on as a work of art. Ever see the beauty in Relativity? Where would todays theories be without symmetry.
I think that a lot of what is considered art turns off the average person, because they are looking for beauty and most modern art is anything but beautiful. The reason it is art is because of it's originality and that it gives us a completely new way to look at the world. And it isn't easy to do something that has never been done before, try it. Try to come up with something totally unique that isn't just an offshoot of something familiar. Picasso did it, so did Einstein.

 

[cragwolf]

I'm digesting your replies and considering my response. It may take a while. You people are too smart for me.

 

[plus]

You are probably more affected by art than you realize. What got you interested in physics? I'd bet it wasn't a textbook, probably some sort of fiction.
Ever get turned on by a centerfold?
Listen to music?
What does your room look like? grey walls and carpet? you probably have some sort of decoration.
Still life and portraits allow us to have something comforting to look at that we couldn't reasonably have in real life. Plus you just got to be impressed by the talent.

Yes I have got turned on by a centerfold - again the human aspect. I listen to music a lot, this I can appreciate, but I do not see art in the same light. My room is white walls and no carpet on the floor and no decoration.

I do not see how if people have talent at art it should make it a thing worth studying. People could have a huge amount of talent in any field, which I could respect, but it doesn't mean that I would want my children to learn about it at school. Studying art also does not help you earn money, which is perhaps the most important part of studying.

 

[Monique]

I can experience emotions from movies and TV because they tell whole stories and you can get a much better idea of what the story is. You can relate to the characters more.

That is because people have become so lazy and need fast input of information, otherwise they get bored. I don't appreciate the modern art, it is based on this fast culture.. but I sure can appreciate other forms of art.

You might enjoy the art of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, he combines many of his paintings with sonnets like the following: http://www.loggia.com/art/19th/rossetti14.html" . You must see his paintings from up close, they are simply stunning..

Some more: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/exhibitions/rossetti/works/beauties.asp