Art and Morality

[chaz wyman]

I didn't see the point in discussing why or why not what I wrote was filmic or not. What I wrote reminded me of the movies and so I said 'filmic'. I don't really understand what you're talking about but I saw the words 'you cannot represent culture...' and I switched off.

This is a Philosophy website. Words are all in philosophy. If you are careless with words then you not only fail to communicate your ideas, but you also can appear foolish. If you really do not understand what I am talking about then maybe you should re-read what I wrote - there is nothing whatever complicated or obscure about my comments.

Art to me is more about 'you can' rather than 'you cannot'.
FIlm is a purely visual art. Tell me how you would represent your poetic reflection using film!
You can do what you like, except everyone is limited by the simple practicalities of existence. There are things you CAN do with film, CAN do with a painting, CAN do with words - but using the wrong word CAN appear stupid.
As for obscurantism, it isn't my intention to deceive, like you yourself said, what I wrote is more like poetry and perhaps in these times more apt/able to speak of/communicate on, the now.

That's fine, but you cannot expect precision of communication. With the poetic medium you CAN and do have to accept to fail to convey your feelings and, more importantly your meaning as reading your poetry I am free to interpret it as I see fit.
You might want to comment on 'now', but that will only be a pale reflexion upon your personal now, and will not be anything like my 'now'.

Clear thinking and logic is good but not so if it's the only thing. An artist does whatever s/he can to summon up that which lies hidden. If I choose to say 'Culture is a dark cloud' then this is okay no problem.

Sure that is fine to say. But there are two things here. 1) This is not filmic. Any attempt to represent such an idea with film would either be impossible without a banal literalism. Tell me how you would do it and prove me wrong.
2) You can't expect me to understand what you mean by it. What is implied by a cloud? Why is it dark? These things might connote things to you that they do not to me. Thus you have said nothing meaningful or worthwhile.

I'm not sure how great obscurantist writers in the past have managed to get away with it, but it appears to me that they tend to thrive by attracting a larger range of interpretations, not their own. In this way they get to sell more books without alienating people who would otherwise disagree with them. Once they have their following the sheep who have enjoyed their writing carry on through habituation and group think. They will have become Benjaminists, or Adornoists whose 'great' works, signify much by saying nothing at all.
You are not Walter benjamin or Theodore Adorno and cannot draw on your followers. Ordinary mortals like you and mean have to stick our necks out and say what we mean, and defend it.

[artisticsolution]

I understand what you are saying Chaz, but I am not so sure I agree that it matters whether or not we want our words to be understood or whether we just want them to communicate a feeling. I think both are perfectly good forms of human interaction. Sometimes I prefer to just get windswept by a string of pretty words. To you they might not have meaning...but to me, without them would be a life not worth living. So that in itself gives meaning.

[Pluto]

To Chaz
Okay, these ideas of correct/best practice are inside your head but of course I can see things differently to you. And will say them freely. If in your opinion they appear as foolish when compared to your supposedly opposite sentiments then so be it. I am beyond the limits of appearing clever or dumb.

How I would interpret my words in film, I haven't thought about it. (film is a mysterious art that we know not yet what it does, it has too much in itself, a life of its own, for me to experiment with it presently). The words exist to aid the paintings and to further communicate how I think of them.

You yourself are an abundance of intellect and wonder, me being concise in my communication would always be, as I am, by my present state of thought, limited. If I may aim or conjure up those plains far out, however vague, it is enough.

I see that when I say Culture is a dark cloud, it will or may mean something different to you. A dark cloud in drought ridden Africa may come over as a god send. But these are the conundrums to be dealt with. Perhaps my target audience is Europe, presently. Here a dark cloud is a dark cloud.

That is also my thinking, what is a cloud and what does it mean if it's dark. To me the look and sound of these words as a coupling are good. It strikes the right chord.

Benjamin and Adorno were ordinary mortals with not so ordinary ideas, perhaps. There is no genius.

[Pluto]

I understand what you are saying Chaz, but I am not so sure I agree that it matters whether or not we want our words to be understood or whether we just want them to communicate a feeling. I think both are perfectly good forms of human interaction. Sometimes I prefer to just get windswept by a string of pretty words. To you they might not have meaning...but to me, without them would be a life not worth living. So that in itself gives meaning.

Yes AS, this is something of interest to myself. Though they don't neccessarilly need to be pretty. Just upbeat, going forward.

[artisticsolution]

Yes Pluto, I think we are saying the same thing. I mean "pretty" in the sense of aesthetically pleasing...even ugly horrible things can bring about such reactions. I don't think most people understand it that way though....

[artisticsolution]

And to add on to that thought...it is very hard to communicate when language is so limiting. People want words to have definitions but then they shun the definitions in lieu of popular held beliefs/feelings about such words. There are "bad" words and there are "good" words....and most people fight tooth and nail to belong to the set of "good" words. They have a flip out when you talk positively about a word which has been given a negative connotation. It's almost as if they have no idea that words have certain definitions which don't necessarily HAVE to correspond to the "trendy" definition set by society. It's all quite frustrating trying to convey a complex meaning of an idea with someone who is stuck in mob mentality. They just don't give you any leeway...always trying to make conformity happen and if it doesn't...then the one who doesn't conform is usually the outcast.

I am soo tired of seeing the same thing over and over....like typist and bill and barbara are good examples.... some went after them with a vengeance...and now they are gone...and the forum is not the same. And the funny thing is...it's not as if I would rather them be back....I mean in the sense that I favor them over the ones who , for lack of a better word, "bullied" them (I don't think of those who like conformity as bullies per se...but I can't think of a better word for what I am saying). What I am saying is...although I did not favor typist or bill or barbara....and perhaps even favored some of their antagonists....I can definitely say...the forum kinda sucks now...save for Tom trying to save it (bless his little heart.)

Anyway, this is what I was talking about about aesthetically pleasing in a way...in that, even if one doesn't like the typing or thinking style of a certain person, there is a need for their input...to keep ideas flowing and excitement in the air.

What are your thoughts pertaining to what I've said and art and morality?

[chaz wyman]

I understand what you are saying Chaz, but I am not so sure I agree that it matters whether or not we want our words to be understood or whether we just want them to communicate a feeling.

You are definitely setting up a false dichotomy. When we wish to express feelings on this medium we need extra specially good language. Language is ambiguous at the best of times - how much more so when we need to express something as complex and unique as a feeling.
Case in point: The comments I was referring to might be evidence of feeling, but they did not convey anything in particular in that sense. Metaphors such as clouds, darkness , drinking, as so on that ~I was responding to have an infinite range of possible connotations.

I think both are perfectly good forms of human interaction. Sometimes I prefer to just get windswept by a string of pretty words. To you they might not have meaning...but to me, without them would be a life not worth living. So that in itself gives meaning.

Yes but you ought not to expect any one to empathise, as they will not collect the same or similar feelings. That leaves one to wonder why you would want to offer them to a bulletin board, if not to communicate.

[chaz wyman]

To Chaz
Okay, these ideas of correct/best practice are inside your head but of course I can see things differently to you. And will say them freely. If in your opinion they appear as foolish when compared to your supposedly opposite sentiments then so be it. I am beyond the limits of appearing clever or dumb.

How I would interpret my words in film, I haven't thought about it. (film is a mysterious art that we know not yet what it does, it has too much in itself, a life of its own, for me to experiment with it presently).
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why call a thing 'filmic" if you had not even considered the medium to which you are referring?
The words exist to aid the paintings and to further communicate how I think of them.

But the point is, this is a textual medium - I have no reference to your face, body language, culture, or any of the range of presuppositions that your metaphors such as 'darkness', and clouds and culture relate to. All you offer then is a range of confused options. You are not communicating anything I could possibly react to except with confusion and misinterpretation.
Let's just take one word you used: culture.
This has a range of possible meanings.
1) High culture - such as that lady is cultured as she frequents the opera and adores classical sculpture.
2) Kulturgeschichte - A range of normitive traditional beliefs and practices which comprise a group of people, often a nation or race.
3) A localised set of practices such as 'gansta rap' culure, or 'Chav' culture.
When you juxtapose that with a 'dark cloud', which could mean a range of things, you have singularly failed to communicate even your most simple feelings about what and how you are reacting to a thing I cannot possibly know.

You yourself are an abundance of intellect and wonder, me being concise in my communication would always be, as I am, by my present state of thought, limited. If I may aim or conjure up those plains far out, however vague, it is enough.

And yet you have managed to saying nothing to me about "art and morality", 'culture', or anything else except a vague reference to the fact that you are feeling a bit poetic today.
If that was your intention then fine.

I see that when I say Culture is a dark cloud, it will or may mean something different to you. A dark cloud in drought ridden Africa may come over as a god send. But these are the conundrums to be dealt with. Perhaps my target audience is Europe, presently. Here a dark cloud is a dark cloud.

Sorry. If you have something to say about culture, then say it. Why would I be so interested in you to pick your brains over it. You are not Walter Benjamin you know!


That is also my thinking, what is a cloud and what does it mean if it's dark. To me the look and sound of these words as a coupling are good. It strikes the right chord.

Have fun with that. But don't try to pretend that you have communicated anything, nor that it is 'filmic'.


Benjamin and Adorno were ordinary mortals with not so ordinary ideas, perhaps. There is no genius.

Try reading Negative Dialectics and get back to me sometime.

[chaz wyman]

And to add on to that thought...it is very hard to communicate when language is so limiting.

Yes, that is why precision and agreement about meaning is so important.

People want words to have definitions but then they shun the definitions in lieu of popular held beliefs/feelings about such words. There are "bad" words and there are "good" words....and most people fight tooth and nail to belong to the set of "good" words.
This is just a game of semantics, though. A good discussion precedes from people agreeing that they can use words in the same way - without falling into the error of thinking they are arguing the issues when all they are doing is arguing about the meaning of a word. Wittgenstein is very useful on this point.

They have a flip out when you talk positively about a word which has been given a negative connotation.

I had a good example recently. Bobevenson used the word 'godforsaken', and I responded by saying that this state was a thing sincerely to be wished for. He responded by insisting that 'godforsaken' was defined as wretched, and laughed at me because I was wishing for a wretched state. What I meant was that we would all be better off without so much religion, and would be happier if god did not take any interest in us. Thus the word 'godforsaken' comes pre-packed with a negative that demands that god has to be a good thing. A state of affairs which I simply cannot agree with. He failed to see the subtlety of my argument which I am sure you perfectly understand.
This leaves me to reflect that precision and being able to unpack connotations in words is very important, and the less ambiguity the better.



It's almost as if they have no idea that words have certain definitions which don't necessarily HAVE to correspond to the "trendy" definition set by society.
Indeed - as above.
It's all quite frustrating trying to convey a complex meaning of an idea with someone who is stuck in mob mentality. They just don't give you any leeway...always trying to make conformity happen and if it doesn't...then the one who doesn't conform is usually the outcast.
Exactly.

I am soo tired of seeing the same thing over and over....like typist and bill and barbara are good examples.... some went after them with a vengeance...and now they are gone...and the forum is not the same. And the funny thing is...it's not as if I would rather them be back....I mean in the sense that I favor them over the ones who , for lack of a better word, "bullied" them (I don't think of those who like conformity as bullies per se...but I can't think of a better word for what I am saying).

I think the problem with Typist is that he would not accept another persons' self identity. In my case, although I am literally an atheist, BEING and atheist and saying that I am an atheist are two different things. The label 'atheist', for me, does not involve me in any particular belief, it is just a marker for me not accepting any god. I did not wish to be pigeon holed or caricatured as an 'Atheist' with all the accretions and connotations that Typist wanted to attach to me and that ter; it does not make me a follower of Dawkins or Dennet for example. But neither did I wish for anyone to confuse me with a person who was not clear about his atheism; not an agnostic, or a "I believe in something" type person. As soon as you are labelled you find yourself having to defend yourself against a range of accusations which do not necessarily apply.

What I am saying is...although I did not favor typist or bill or barbara....and perhaps even favored some of their antagonists....I can definitely say...the forum kinda sucks now...save for Tom trying to save it (bless his little heart.)

I thought Barbara was interesting, but she would not budge, clarify, or argue her case, except with extreme effort. She wrote volumes, but was not here to communicate or discuss. Shame really. I was never write sure what her purpose was. I think she needs a personal blog, not a Forum.


Anyway, this is what I was talking about about aesthetically pleasing in a way...in that, even if one doesn't like the typing or thinking style of a certain person, there is a need for their input...to keep ideas flowing and excitement in the air.

What are your thoughts pertaining to what I've said and art and morality?

Where? Should I look back in this thread?

[chaz wyman]

TO RE-CAP

I said:

One thing is for sure. There has always existed the myth that morality has broken down and it was better in the good old days.
We always trade the normative assumptions by referencing a mythical past, when the normative condition has never actually existed, because people are always in a state of challenging the demands of the moral majority as they prefer to live their lives as they see fit.
One could argue that we are actually in a better moral environment today as the more permissive society has enabled people to follow their life choices without bucking the system. Gay marriage is a greater moral state than living a gay life whilst homosexuality was illegal.
All we now need is for society to mind its own business on a range of other issues that can be defined as victimless crimes so that other people can live their lives free from moral censure, and still enjoy recreational drugs.

NB: "permissive" is not meant with any negative connotations. 'Permitting' is a good state to be in.
The drugs bit is just an example of a victimless crime - not the essence of the text.

Pluto responded

I have opted for a filmic interpretation of the events as I see them. It is the beginning of a story:
A dark cloud had descended over the earth. Culture reflected back this cloud in many different forms. The beings of earth drank it up and internalised its darkness. One being on earth stood alone, an artist. In an attempt to keep hold of the light, paintings were made. What you see here are a few of them.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Chaz,

C:Case in point: The comments I was referring to might be evidence of feeling, but they did not convey anything in particular in that sense. Metaphors such as clouds, darkness , drinking, as so on that ~I was responding to have an infinite range of possible connotations.


AS:You mean they did not convey anything in particular to you? It could be that the same words convey something to another. I think it is perfectly acceptable to throw around a string of words in order to get a sense of a personality. If you say something about clouds and darkness and someone replies...that tells you right there that yours words caught their attention whether negatively or positively by how they respond. They could respond with a teacher type mentality and try to help reign your thoughts into something constructive...or the words might be just as whimsical and emotive to engage an interactive play....or any number of different responses from different personalities.

C:Yes but you ought not to expect any one to empathise, as they will not collect the same or similar feelings. That leaves one to wonder why you would want to offer them to a bulletin board, if not to communicate.


AS:I don't think that is necessarily true. You have no way of knowing whether or not a person will empathize or have the same or similar feelings. They very well could. To offer them to a bulletin board would be helpful because you hit a broader target audience in order to see what type of feedback you get.

[chaz wyman]

Hi Chaz,

C:Case in point: The comments I was referring to might be evidence of feeling, but they did not convey anything in particular in that sense. Metaphors such as clouds, darkness , drinking, as so on that ~I was responding to have an infinite range of possible connotations.


AS:You mean they did not convey anything in particular to you? It could be that the same words convey something to another.

You misunderstand. They convey something to me too. But it is not likely to be that which was intended by the author.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to throw around a string of words in order to get a sense of a personality. If you say something about clouds and darkness and someone replies...that tells you right there that yours words caught their attention whether negatively or positively by how they respond. They could respond with a teacher type mentality and try to help reign your thoughts into something constructive...or the words might be just as whimsical and emotive to engage an interactive play....or any number of different responses from different personalities.

I'm not saying that it is not 'acceptable.' I am saying that it is not a clear means of communication

C:Yes but you ought not to expect any one to empathise, as they will not collect the same or similar feelings. That leaves one to wonder why you would want to offer them to a bulletin board, if not to communicate.


AS:I don't think that is necessarily true. You have no way of knowing whether or not a person will empathize or have the same or similar feelings.
It would have to be by sheer chance. People's experiences are far too unique to guarantee the same meaning.
They very well could. To offer them to a bulletin board would be helpful because you hit a broader target audience in order to see what type of feedback you get.

Maybe you should look back and see what I typed about obscurantism to Pluto?
I think that this approach might attract more people, but it is trying to avoid putting your neck on the line and saying something that can be critiqued - because it is obscure - that is dishonest.
So - what was meant by the clouds/ drinking/ lone artist metaphor?
My guess is nothing. It was a vague collection of metaphors without design to appear to be clever when in reality there is very little thinking behind them. In fact when pressed the author has declined to support any statement following from the text.

[Pluto]

The text I wrote is not designed to be obscure, you've got it the wrong way round, it's an attempt to communicate something that is obscure. To say it's dishonest is ridiculous as it's more like trying to communicate something honestly. The text stands alone, finished. You want to hear the mechanics behind it, so that you then may judge it according to your own standards, but I'm not interested in doing that. It would destroy the original and I don't want to do that. Like I say, it's finished, the text stands as the thing itself, if it does nothing for you, just forget about it.

[chaz wyman]

The text I wrote is not designed to be obscure, you've got it the wrong way round, it's an attempt to communicate something that is obscure. The text stands alone, finished. You want to hear the mechanics behind it, so that you then may judge it according to your own standards, but I'm not interested in doing that. It would destroy the original and I don't want to do that. Like I say, it's finished, the text stands as the thing itself, if it does nothing for you, just forget about it.

What ever way you put it - you have conveyed nothing to me.
All you have left is questions about your ability to communicate.
You pretend that you have something worthwhile, but have said nothing. QED - my comments on obscurantism.

[Pluto]

Primarily, as a painter, I communicate visually. It is rare that I am happy with any text I write concerning my pictures, this text:

A dark cloud had descended over the earth. Culture reflected back this cloud in many different forms. The beings of earth drank it up and internalised its darkness. One being on earth stood alone, an artist. In an attempt to keep hold of the light, paintings were made. What you see here are a few of them.

...is something that for now I'm happy with, it says what I want it to say and creates the right context for the pictures. This is what I'm interested in, not whether you feel that questions have been left or other such breast beating bullshit.