Is Art Worth the Time and Effort?

[tribdog]

fungus? you lucky bastard

edited and added later:
this post shows up as the first post on page five for me and on the odd chance someone goes straight to page five all they would see would be the above line. taken all by itself out of context its a funny funny line. What if some alien intelligence somehow gains access to only one web page and this is it? how would they judge us based on "fungus? you lucky bastard"

 

[cragwolf]

I'm going to respond to various people in this post.

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.

I just wonder how effective it really is when you can take two intelligent people, get them to experience the same work of art for the first time, and find they come away with different impressions, different interpretations and different judgements. Not only that, but even the same person can be subjected to a work of art on two different occasions, and come away with two very different experiences. Take me, for instance. The first time I watched Andrei Tarkovsky's film, Mirror, I thought it was a steaming pile of horse manure. The next time I watched it I was overwhelmed by its beauty and concluded that it was a very deep film. I suppose this multiplicity of interpretations is what keeps the art critics employed, but what does it do for mutual understanding? But that's the thing about emotions: they're so incredibly subjective that trying to communicate them in any form is surely an exercise in futility, unless you're talking about really simple and base emotions that Hollywood tends to trade in, like fear and lust.

But maybe I'm being unrealistically pessimistic about art's ability to communicate emotion.

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.

I would never claim that science is all objectivity, and no subjectivity. The only thing I would state without reserve is that if you're interested in finding out the truth about ourselves and the universe, the best thing we currently have for that task is science, as unreliable as it may be.

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.

I have a big problem with this statement. What truths or even near-truths or even half-truths has art discovered? Name me one. Or perhaps to be less strident, let me ask this: how has art increased our understanding of the world and ourselves?

Studying art also does not help you earn money, which is perhaps the most important part of studying.

Part of the reason I keep putting off my decision on whether to change careers and become a high school teacher (it's a steady job, after all), is because I'll have to deal with narrow-minded parents who possesses bourgeois attitudes exemplified by the opinion above. If I had children, I'd tell them to study what they wanted to study, for any reason, no justification necessary. Life is hard enough without the added burden of parental expectations. Do what you want to do, just don't harm anyone in the process.

 

[Monique]

That poem gives me inspiration. I think I'll steal the style. Tell me what you think.

Sudden Sight
By Brian Whipple

I COME here all the time
More times than I will say
To view perfection in black and white
It makes my day
It haunts my dreams and ruins my night.

You are here all the time
and when you're not, you are
an archive search gives me what I seek
beauty without mar
The lovely avatar of Monique.

I'm so honored! A poem.. Just for me!
If I had the time I would paintbrush some rosy cheeks on the avatar

Now everyone who says there is no point to art should be directed right to me.. I'll have a word with them.. no point to art.. pfuh! The poem really came out nice though.. now if you don't mind, I'm off to research the state of being without mar.

 

[zk4586]

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

Well, that's only in your opinion. I'd rather read all day than do anything else. And I think sports are a huge waste of time.

 

[Artman]

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"?

Let's look at my Goya example again. We can't talk to him because he is long dead, so we must find other ways to know him. Science tells us he was a carbon based life form, evolved from apes, etc. History tells us that he was an artist, Court Painter to the King of Spain. Studying his art we see first that he was a very talented artist; that he was also deeply moved by human suffering; fearless in his depiction of tyrany (painting satirical portraits of his powerful benefactors); gutsy in his subject matter in general, painting nudes during the inquistition, political satires, religious satires, any of which could have gotten him put to death.

By which description do we learn more about that particular man? Our creations can tell many things about us. Often these creations are classified as art.

cragwolf, I hope you don't think that we are "dissing you," as Pace said in one of his posts. We're just trying to get to know each other better, right?

 

[selfAdjoint]

This "carbon based life form" is kind of a caricature of science. Science can say a lot more about things of the past than that. And science (archaeology) can give a lot of insight to enrich the history of Spain during Goya's lifetime, which since he was so deeply involved in that history (from court painter to "The Horrors of War") gives us further insights to his essence as man and as artist. No?

 

[Chi Meson]

Part of the reason I keep putting off my decision on whether to change careers and become a high school teacher (it's a steady job, after all), is because I'll have to deal with narrow-minded parents who possesses bourgeois attitudes exemplified by the opinion above.

I recommend it. Teaching HS physics is as good as teaching gets. Usually physics is an elective, so most of the kids you get are the interested ones. The boureois attitudes are not as prevalent as you might think (depending on location, of course).

Regarding the thread: I don't think art has any "truths" to offer, but I also don't think that "truth" is the only reason for existence. Along with "truth," there's "beauty" (Then "strange" and "charmed" ) and I would consider them separate but equally valid goals.

 

[Artman]

This "carbon based life form" is kind of a caricature of science. Science can say a lot more about things of the past than that. And science (archaeology) can give a lot of insight to enrich the history of Spain during Goya's lifetime, which since he was so deeply involved in that history (from court painter to "The Horrors of War") gives us further insights to his essence as man and as artist. No?

Yes, I agree it is a caricature of science (intentionally brief list). Archaeology can contribute to our knowledge of the man and his times however, I think that archaeology for that period, when it is employed, mainly serves to validate history.

Without his paintings, would history have taken notice of him at all?

 

[plus]

Studying physics doés?

More than art. (Im talking undergraduate here, not professor)

 

[Monique]

I wouldn't be too sure about that, how many people studying physics will actually turn it into their profession?