Definitions of philosophy [Gr.,=love of wisdom] - study of the ultimate reality, causes, and principles underlying being and thinking. It has many aspects and different manifestations according to the problems involved and the method of approach and emphasis used by the individual philosopher. < http://www.reference.com/browse/philosophy>
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy>.
Philosophy was designed as a forum for creative communication, an intentional medium with aspirations for the expansion of awareness of individuals and societies.
Your definitions of art include "The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. Whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art. Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself ... but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the conscious intention of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art."
I believe Philosophy was created as an art form. The fact that some "philosophers" are poor artists is a reflection on them, not on the philosophical medium.
My Question:
Should we classify artistic mediums by examples of their highest representation or by the quality of execution of their creators?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Are ethics a necessary element of art?
Arthur Koestler “insists that an object’s status as original or forged is extraneous information, incidental to its intrinsic aesthetic properties” (Alex Neil and Aaron Ridley, 2008. Arguing About Art. Routledge. p. 103). After reading Alfred Lessing and Denis Dutton’s views on Fakes and Forgeries, it appears to me that originality and morality are not necessary ingredients for either the creation or appreciation of “great works of art” from an aesthetic consideration. The object d’art being considered is neither a moral agent nor a moral patient.
We know it is possible to regard highly works of art without knowledge of their origins or the purpose behind their creators’ manifestations of them. As discussed in class, the history and authorship of works of art as “authentic” may be inaccurate, either through ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. The judgment of authenticity is relative to the author of the work not the work itself, and therefore should be considered separately from an aesthetic review of the work.
My question is:
Are ethics a necessary element of art?
We know it is possible to regard highly works of art without knowledge of their origins or the purpose behind their creators’ manifestations of them. As discussed in class, the history and authorship of works of art as “authentic” may be inaccurate, either through ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. The judgment of authenticity is relative to the author of the work not the work itself, and therefore should be considered separately from an aesthetic review of the work.
My question is:
Are ethics a necessary element of art?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Response to Barry's Question
Barry asks, " Is it not the "intent" of those who create great art to express that "silent knowledge" to those of us who do not have sufficient energy to tap into that knowledge for ourselves?"
This reminded me of a response I wrote to one of Keane's older posts. Keane asked, "Is all art derived from creative introspection and subsequent realization?" I reviewed and edited that response as follows:
I agree that how we define art and creativity is essential for a determination of relational or independent properties. I think art minimally must reflect the incorporeal spark of its creator’s nature (physiological or spiritual). I believe great art is the co-creative product of the mind/body/essence of a corporeal being and their environment, and if they are fortunate, of the essence of their environment (meaning the artist was influenced by spiritual essence of the creative physical environment). One of the beliefs that I hold is that there are incorporeal spirits aligned with, responsible for, and inhabiting, natural communities.
I do not think that it is a necessary condition that all art must be derived from creative introspection and subsequent realization. I think art can also be created instinctively or subconsciously, and with or without subsequent realization for the creator or a given observer.
To the specifics of Barry's question:
I think that sometimes it can be the "intent" of those who create great art to express that "silent knowledge" to those of us who do not have sufficient energy to tap into that knowledge for ourselves, but I think that often great art (or art in general) is manifested from an internally driven and unconscious primordial process absent intentions towards others.
My Questions:
1. What is the originator of great artists' artistry, and where does it come from?
2. Is the causal source different for cognitively-intentional art than it is for art birthed through incogitative processes?
3. Is there only a single Source for all creators of spontaneous or non-intentional art (are we all dipping our brushes into a single
reservoir from our individual and therefore unique positions)?
This reminded me of a response I wrote to one of Keane's older posts. Keane asked, "Is all art derived from creative introspection and subsequent realization?" I reviewed and edited that response as follows:
I agree that how we define art and creativity is essential for a determination of relational or independent properties. I think art minimally must reflect the incorporeal spark of its creator’s nature (physiological or spiritual). I believe great art is the co-creative product of the mind/body/essence of a corporeal being and their environment, and if they are fortunate, of the essence of their environment (meaning the artist was influenced by spiritual essence of the creative physical environment). One of the beliefs that I hold is that there are incorporeal spirits aligned with, responsible for, and inhabiting, natural communities.
I do not think that it is a necessary condition that all art must be derived from creative introspection and subsequent realization. I think art can also be created instinctively or subconsciously, and with or without subsequent realization for the creator or a given observer.
To the specifics of Barry's question:
I think that sometimes it can be the "intent" of those who create great art to express that "silent knowledge" to those of us who do not have sufficient energy to tap into that knowledge for ourselves, but I think that often great art (or art in general) is manifested from an internally driven and unconscious primordial process absent intentions towards others.
My Questions:
1. What is the originator of great artists' artistry, and where does it come from?
2. Is the causal source different for cognitively-intentional art than it is for art birthed through incogitative processes?
3. Is there only a single Source for all creators of spontaneous or non-intentional art (are we all dipping our brushes into a single
reservoir from our individual and therefore unique positions)?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Response to Jacob's question: How do I define art?
I think art is, by its nature, relational. It requires a creator and an audience/ observer/s [who also may be its creator (potentially an audience of one)]. How we define art and creativity is essential for determination of relational or independent properties. What humankind considers as art are constructs. Whether they are the consequence of sociocultural, intuitive, or spiritual constructs, each person will have a unique (and therefore, subjective) relationship to art.
While art may be recognized/understood through cogitative processes with consequent realizations, those processes are not necessary for the creation, or recognition, of an object/concept as art.
Art may be produced intentionally, or from a non-cognitive source (subconscious, biological, or spiritual derivatives). A creative process is necessary to realize art, though the process may be actualized subconsciously - through a primeval directive rather than through cogitative intent.
An artistic product may have form, or, it may be immaterial (thoughts, discourse, constructs, concepts, etc.). I believe art is the co-creative product of the mind/body/essence of a corporeal being and others, or/and their environment.
Philosophy is the intellectual and creative pursuit and accumulation of wisdom; its purposeful inquiries result in novel awareness of self and surroundings. There is a form and artistry to both the philosophical process and its effects (as well as a history and merit). Therefore, I view philosophy as an art.
My Question:
Do you think other beings are producers of art? If so, how do (or do they) determine whether a creation of theirs, or another being’s, is art?
While art may be recognized/understood through cogitative processes with consequent realizations, those processes are not necessary for the creation, or recognition, of an object/concept as art.
Art may be produced intentionally, or from a non-cognitive source (subconscious, biological, or spiritual derivatives). A creative process is necessary to realize art, though the process may be actualized subconsciously - through a primeval directive rather than through cogitative intent.
An artistic product may have form, or, it may be immaterial (thoughts, discourse, constructs, concepts, etc.). I believe art is the co-creative product of the mind/body/essence of a corporeal being and others, or/and their environment.
Philosophy is the intellectual and creative pursuit and accumulation of wisdom; its purposeful inquiries result in novel awareness of self and surroundings. There is a form and artistry to both the philosophical process and its effects (as well as a history and merit). Therefore, I view philosophy as an art.
My Question:
Do you think other beings are producers of art? If so, how do (or do they) determine whether a creation of theirs, or another being’s, is art?
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Art of Philosophy
From today's discussion on what constitutes art, and what is considered a minor or major art, I must ask the questions: Is philosophy an art? Is there an "Art of Philosophy"? If philosophy is an art, is it a "major" or a "minor" art?
I believe philosophy is an art because it is a relational activity between persons, or between a person and their thoughts (which are created by a person's relationship (perception) with an observed or imagined object (tangible or intangible - includes thoughts), or other being; and this art form is practiced through forms of communication. When exercised properly (observer/receiver of philosophical communication experiences some cognitive response that furthers their spiritual/mental evolution), I would consider philosophy to be a "major" art. In order for philosophy to be classified as a "major" art, I would expect merit and gain for both the originator and the receiver of a philosophical discourse. Philosophy practiced without these elements would be "minor" and unworthy of the descriptor of either art or philosophy.
Questions:
1. Is philosophy an art? If you consider it an art, do you consider it a "major"or "minor" art?
2. Do all creative endeavors, including food preparation, presentation, and consumption, have the potential to be either a "major" or a "minor" art depending on the artistry of the creator and the sociocultural relativity of the observer to the object created (successfulness and quality of communication)?
2a.In other words, should a poorly executed painting of a meaningless object be classified under the category of a "major" work of art simply because it is falls under the "major" art forms category, while a sublimely prepared and artistically-presented sumptuous culinary masterpiece is held to evaluations as a "minor" art because "some" have classified it in the "minor" arts category.
I believe philosophy is an art because it is a relational activity between persons, or between a person and their thoughts (which are created by a person's relationship (perception) with an observed or imagined object (tangible or intangible - includes thoughts), or other being; and this art form is practiced through forms of communication. When exercised properly (observer/receiver of philosophical communication experiences some cognitive response that furthers their spiritual/mental evolution), I would consider philosophy to be a "major" art. In order for philosophy to be classified as a "major" art, I would expect merit and gain for both the originator and the receiver of a philosophical discourse. Philosophy practiced without these elements would be "minor" and unworthy of the descriptor of either art or philosophy.
Questions:
1. Is philosophy an art? If you consider it an art, do you consider it a "major"or "minor" art?
2. Do all creative endeavors, including food preparation, presentation, and consumption, have the potential to be either a "major" or a "minor" art depending on the artistry of the creator and the sociocultural relativity of the observer to the object created (successfulness and quality of communication)?
2a.In other words, should a poorly executed painting of a meaningless object be classified under the category of a "major" work of art simply because it is falls under the "major" art forms category, while a sublimely prepared and artistically-presented sumptuous culinary masterpiece is held to evaluations as a "minor" art because "some" have classified it in the "minor" arts category.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)