I believe that some members of nonhuman species engage in artistic expression on a par with human artistry; and that some, at times, experience ecstatic states, or metaphysical awareness from their own creation, or the appreciation of an other's artistic works. I believe that some birds, elephants, cetaceans, primates, monkeys, and canines produce art (some aural, some visual, some architectural).
I enjoyed your examples of feline art - they are extremely visually orientated beings, however, your point is well taken in that we are unable to determine (human limitation) what their intentions are for producing this art.
My Question:
Do you think art is necessarily metaphysical, meta-hedonistic, and should produce distinguishable evolution through insight, epiphany, increased understanding or awareness of self, others, or one's world to be considered as art?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Scruton's Claim of the Superiority of Instrumental Music
Scruton's claim is based on his belief that music has been designed as an inherently moral and religious tool for the evolution of humankind as individuals into morally and aesthetically superior societies. He uses the musical forms of historic Western/European societies as the standard against which he judges current musical forms. He chose traditional formation dance as the instrument to illustrate his claims of a properly ordered (and sexually obsessed) community, and that modern dance represents a decline in morals as well as music (p. 119).
I disagree with Scruton’s claims for a number of reasons. First, he is applying an historical culture-specific standard to the tapestry of a globalized, modern, culturally integrated (or at least, exposed) expression of music and dance. His references are temporally and spatially inappropriate for such modern globalized societies. Second, formation dance is well practiced in country music, contra-dance, polkas, Celtic and other traditions. Third, his claims ignore the universal biological element of music’s affect on sentient organisms.
Music is an undeniable force of life; sentient beings are compelled to respond to it. The degrees of response experienced by a species and by an individual exist on a continuum. I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Scruton's assessment that music has potential for offering a character forming nature for us; some of its affect - the biological and emotional responses it elicits from its audience can be aspirational.
The majority of these responses have their origins in biology. I believe these original and primarily functions were engineered to facilitate reproduction in sentient beings (maybe this is why Scruton can't disengage dance from sexual expression?). As a species or an individual evolve, the physiological functions formerly served by music (or any inessential for life function an organism has evolved beyond) can be replaced by aesthetic, hedonistic, or spiritual patterns. Music’s primary role can shift; it can become a tool for socio-political purposes, or artistic and/or spiritual evolution of individuals or societies. I think music has always served individuals in this way, although I think the degree to which that occurs has been undervalued. Today’s society is a diverse, multicultural aggregate of class, age, and spiritual beliefs; and music is clearly a reflection of the societies that consume it.
My Questions:
1. Is globalization a greater influence on modern music than melody, harmony, tonality, or musical style?
2. What impact (if any) has globalization had on religiousness as it relates to music?
I disagree with Scruton’s claims for a number of reasons. First, he is applying an historical culture-specific standard to the tapestry of a globalized, modern, culturally integrated (or at least, exposed) expression of music and dance. His references are temporally and spatially inappropriate for such modern globalized societies. Second, formation dance is well practiced in country music, contra-dance, polkas, Celtic and other traditions. Third, his claims ignore the universal biological element of music’s affect on sentient organisms.
Music is an undeniable force of life; sentient beings are compelled to respond to it. The degrees of response experienced by a species and by an individual exist on a continuum. I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Scruton's assessment that music has potential for offering a character forming nature for us; some of its affect - the biological and emotional responses it elicits from its audience can be aspirational.
The majority of these responses have their origins in biology. I believe these original and primarily functions were engineered to facilitate reproduction in sentient beings (maybe this is why Scruton can't disengage dance from sexual expression?). As a species or an individual evolve, the physiological functions formerly served by music (or any inessential for life function an organism has evolved beyond) can be replaced by aesthetic, hedonistic, or spiritual patterns. Music’s primary role can shift; it can become a tool for socio-political purposes, or artistic and/or spiritual evolution of individuals or societies. I think music has always served individuals in this way, although I think the degree to which that occurs has been undervalued. Today’s society is a diverse, multicultural aggregate of class, age, and spiritual beliefs; and music is clearly a reflection of the societies that consume it.
My Questions:
1. Is globalization a greater influence on modern music than melody, harmony, tonality, or musical style?
2. What impact (if any) has globalization had on religiousness as it relates to music?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Is Philosophy an Art? A response to Ed’s response.
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?
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?
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)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)