Is Art Worth the Time and Effort?

[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. :tongue:

 

[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. :tongue:

 

[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

 

[Janitor]

Monique,

I know very little about painting, but I am always impressed when I run across a reproduction of anything the van Eyck brothers did. Their paintings were realistic, and the vibrant colors have held up well over the centuries. You probably don't live all that far from where they lived.

 

[Monique]

They're Flemish Renaissance painters.. that'd make their paintings about 600 years old.. it was actually not until the Renaissance that people started making paintings with a 3d perspective :)

 

[tribdog]

They're Flemish Renaissance painters.. that'd make their paintings about 600 years old.. it was actually not until the Renaissance that people started making paintings with a 3d perspective :)

so I guess you were probably too young to remember them, huh?

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.

I've been in that room. Have you been able to see the warden yet?
And as far as not making money from studying art I disagree whole heartedly. We've already talked about how popular art is. Anything popular is a money making field, just ask Mary Magdelane.
Professor of Art History and Professor of Physics's paychecks are identical and since more people take Art than Physics, Prof Art His. has better job security. Also when it comes to making money who'd make a better counterfeiter the artist or the mathematician?
and finally, what good is lots of money without something beautiful to spend it on? you don't need much money to survive trust me I know. you need lots of money to get the beautiful things, things like art.

 

[Monique]

Studying art also does not help you earn money

Studying physics doés? :tongue:

 

[Evo]

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..

I have always liked Rossetti's poem "Sudden Light". His artwork is beautiful.

 

[Monique]

~ Sudden Light ~
a poem by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828-1882)
This version features the final stanza of the original poem.

I HAVE been here before,
But when or how I cannot tell:
I know the grass beyond the door,
The sweet keen smell,
The sighing sound, the lights around the shore.

You have been mine before,
How long ago I may not know:
But just when at that swallow's soar
Your neck turned so,
Some veil did fall, I knew it all of yore.

Has this been thus before?
And shall not thus time's eddying flight
Still with our lives our love restore
In death's despite,
And day and night yield one delight once more?

Then, now, perchance again! . . . .
O round mine eyes your tresses shake!
Shall we not lie as we have lain
Thus for Love's sake,
And sleep, and wake, yet never break the chain?

I like his view on beautiful women, their faces are really special.
What made him so facinated?

The poem is written a year after his wife died, which he only was married to for two years.. that would explain..

 

[tribdog]

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.

 

[Janitor]

The line for the Monique fanclub forms here.

 

[tribdog]

it is good though isn't? that was my attempt to show exactly what the "point of art" is. It gets chicks.(lol, I don't really call women chicks) I just moved up a notch in Monique's attraction meter. I still register somewhere between pond scum and Neanderthal Man, but I'm moving up.
ps where in Arizona are you? I'm in Mesa Val Vista& McKellips

 

[Janitor]

I figure she rates me somewhere in the mold - fungus range.

I'm up Payson way.

 

[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 :tongue:

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? :tongue:

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?