Art and truth

[Belinda]

Fur elise was written for a woman who I believe rejected him. It may be wonderful expression but written for pragmatic purpose. Nothing rational about this so why call intense emotional need art rather than expression?

'Art' usually and popularly applies to expressive artefacts, but it did not always do so. The expression of individuals' feelings is a social trend that began to make itself felt in late 18th century Europe.
Beethoven was an exponent of the expressive in music. Elise was a shy and modest young woman and 'Fur Elise' is a musical description of her personality. Beethoven is listed as one of the great Romantic composers.

That is an essential question: is romantic expression art or just expression? I don't believe it isart since by definition it is illusion. There is no communication of human value which can be remembered..

Please note I wrote 'Romantic' with a capital R. It's very very unlikely that leading and established historians are deluded that there was an identifiable movement in art and thought at a recognisable period in European history.

[Nick_A]

Science is the communication of intellectual facts. Art is the communication of emotional values.

"He who has Art and Science also has religion, But those who do not have them better have Religion ... Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ..

How true.

[Belinda]

Science is the communication of intellectual facts. Art is the communication of emotional values.

"He who has Art and Science also has religion, But those who do not have them better have Religion ... Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ..

How true.

If a man lacks art and science he is ignorant so he reacts to unrefined emotions. Religion at least keeps him under the control of a regimen.

[Nick_A]

Science is the communication of intellectual facts. Art is the communication of emotional values.

"He who has Art and Science also has religion, But those who do not have them better have Religion ... Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ..

How true.

If a man lacks art and science he is ignorant so he reacts to unrefined emotions. Religion at least keeps him under the control of a regimen.

That may be the purpose of the exoteric secular expressions of religions but the esoteric awakening aims of religion make good use of both science and art

[Dubious]

He who has Art and Science also has religion, But those who do not have them better have Religion. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

It would have been nice of Goethe to expound on a such a useless, meaningless statement causing it to be a little less useless. Goethe was indeed a great poet as well as an equally great dissembler nowhere near as wise as he's usually made out to be.

[Janoah]

Fur elise was written for a woman who I believe rejected him. It may be wonderful expression but written for pragmatic purpose. Nothing rational about this so why call intense emotional need art rather than expression?

'Art' usually and popularly applies to expressive artefacts, but it did not always do so. The expression of individuals' feelings is a social trend that began to make itself felt in late 18th century Europe.
Beethoven was an exponent of the expressive in music. Elise was a shy and modest young woman and 'Fur Elise' is a musical description of her personality. Beethoven is listed as one of the great Romantic composers.

That is an essential question: is romantic expression art or just expression? I don't believe it isart since by definition it is illusion. There is no communication of human value which can be remembered..

that is, you do not consider music as art at all (something related to Plato's statements)?
Or could you give an example of a piece of music you consider art?

[Walker]

And here we return to the original question, what are the criteria for the truth of art, because art can be false..

Hello. If it doesn't touch the heart, it isn't art.

This requires viewer participation, and the capacity for art appreciation, which as far as we know excludes animals.

There may be dolphin enthusiasts who disagree.

[Janoah]

touch the heart,

however, vulgarity also touches the heart.
Let's say, electronic "music", rhythmically hammering on the head, easily gathers crowds, but a bunch of pensioners gather for Beethoven, and even then, if at a discount.
Cows, on the other hand, conservatively give more milk on classical music, not to an electro-musical jackhammer. There may be donkeys who disagree with cows.

[Walker]

however, vulgarity also touches the heart.

Art must touch the heart to be art, however all that touches the heart is not art.
(I thought of letting this first sentence stand as it is, because it adds a strange twist in light of what follows. However, it is not true as a stand-alone.)

Art must touch the heart to be art, however not all that touches the heart, is art.
(Revising is what makes writing, art, otherwise one is just bleating like a goat. Do goats bleat?)

Shouldn't that be obvious?

No doubt Dracula would agree with the second part. A stake through the heart is not art, although the staking out could be artfully done as an intellectual exercise. Reactionary visual art to whatever art has come before is also an intellectual exercise. Then comes along say, a Jackson Pollock, an intellectual reactionary who became famous by touching the heart. If you have stood in the presence of one of his originals, you would feel it in your heart, if you're capable.

That's why he was so popular in his own time.

*

Quite often, sheer technical excellence will elevate a work to art status, but only if it touches the heart, and that only happens when the third party viewer has the capacity to appreciate technical excellence. Animals don't. A dog will lift its leg on a fine piece of antique furniture, unless it's conditioned not to, but not lifting its leg doesn't make a dog an art aficionado.

[Belinda]

What Walker means is "art should express feelings".

Yes, but what if the feelings are immoral or mad?

I note music and maths are often appreciated by the same indivoduals.

I note that to appreciate any musical genre you have to learn the genre.

[Walker]

What Walker means is "art should express feelings".

Among other things.

Also meant is elicit, or to be fun, elicitations.

In fact, if you read closely, elicit is emphasized more than expressed is stressed.

Art is a three-party arrangement.

The work, the artist, the witness.

This obviously begs the question: If nature is art and you are the witness elicitating beauty *, who is the artist?


* witness elicitating beauty = If you are the witness from whom beauty is being elicited by the work of art, which was created by the artist ...

[Walker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHIhsq9qHPk

Touches my feelings.

George Duke/Frank Zappa

[Belinda]

What Walker means is "art should express feelings".

Among other things.

Also meant is elicit, or to be fun, elicitations.

In fact, if you read closely, elicit is emphasized more than expressed is stressed.

Art is a three-party arrangement.

The work, the artist, the witness.

This obviously begs the question: If nature is art and you are the witness elicitating beauty *, who is the artist?



* witness elicitating beauty = If you are the witness from whom beauty is being elicited by the work of art, which was created by the artist ...

The artist, same as the prophet, the good scientist, and the seer is the vanguard of human progress. For all of those leaders of ideas the compass bearing to be followed has the parameters of truth, goodness, and beauty.

For any favour let us not confuse art with entertainment !

[Walker]

What Belinda means is that a lot of folks carry the Puritan Ethic, that to be good it has to hurt or at least be a sacrifice, it has to be trudging across the tundra mile after mile, and it surely better not entertain.

That’s why folks are so eager to wear the masks and sort through the garbage before it’s collected. All that routine participation puts some order to the world when fundamental change is afoot. It puts you in control because you chose to do the right thing and virtue is at least its own reward, if not the source of communal admiration, support, and reinforcement.

It’s why filth is tolerated in San Francisco. To reach the good one must go through the fire, or the poo, which ever may be the prominent condition … but certainly entertainment is the path to perdition and just a step away from worshiping mammon, for that deep-rooted Puritan Ethic.

[Belinda]

What Belinda means is that a lot of folks carry the Puritan Ethic, that to be good it has to hurt or at least be a sacrifice, it has to be trudging across the tundra mile after mile, and it surely better not entertain.

That’s why folks are so eager to wear the masks and sort through the garbage before it’s collected. All that routine participation puts some order to the world when fundamental change is afoot. It puts you in control because you chose to do the right thing and virtue is at least its own reward, if not the source of communal admiration, support, and reinforcement.

It’s why filth is tolerated in San Francisco. To reach the good one must go through the fire, or the poo, which ever may be the prominent condition … but certainly entertainment is the path to perdition and just a step away from worshiping mammon, for that deep-rooted Puritan Ethic.

Sorry I sounded like like a real wee Calvinist. I should rather have said that art proper is more than entertainment .

Entertainment is A Good Thing ! It is a good ingredient of art. Entertainment is necessary but is not sufficient to be called art.