Art and truth

[Belinda]

Belinda

Art addresses the human condition. The human condition does include emotions and high passions. But that is far from being all that human life includes. Real people struggle to find meaning, love, and order in a chaotic and cruel world, and this is why art is not defined by shared emotions.

In contrast with expressions that a person can find subjective meanings in, art is about "ideals" people can feel. Secularism has pretty much denied ideals" in pursuit of subjective values which only means that art has lost its value. Dimitry Fadeyev explains:

Throughout the ages man has expended a great deal of energy and effort on the creation of beautiful art dedicated to his ideal. He poured forth his heart and soul into forms that honored and represented his meaning and purpose, laboring day and night on projects that took lifetimes to complete. He sacrificed everything to give this world a tiny glimpse of the ideal, a glimmer of perfection, a ray of Beauty to ignite the heart and nourish the soul. Where the ideal is a conscious representation of man’s purpose, art is its emotional counterpart, the fuel that keeps the journey going. Without art there is no energy to pursue the ideal; without the ideal art falls apart into purposelessness.

The state of today is that both the ideal and art have suffered an almost total collapse. Modern political philosophy rests on a single word: growth; modern art is described by a single word: everything. Without a clear conception of Man, we have to suffer the inanities of modern political “issues” that can only be decided by emotion – primarily fear – since those debating lack the moral principles on which to base answers to their questions. Without its moral framework, art has been reduced to base experimentation. In the world of modern art everything goes, everything is permitted, originality being the measure of worth. As the scales of emotion have replaced reason in the political sphere, purposeless sensory exploration has displaced beauty, meaning and morality in art....................

There are no objective ideals in the modern technological world. Lacking ideals people cannot feel the value of freedom so it must be sacrificed to the secular equality of psychological egoistic slavery. Art no longer exists in the modern world of today and its competing expressions.

Then what would you call it when people expressed love by dumping a statue of a slavery business man into the harbour? This was not economic growth or purposeless sensory exploration nor of any economic benefit. It was righteousness and righteous anger in an expressive symbolic act.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Art addresses the human condition. The human condition does include emotions and high passions. But that is far from being all that human life includes. Real people struggle to find meaning, love, and order in a chaotic and cruel world, and this is why art is not defined by shared emotions.

In contrast with expressions that a person can find subjective meanings in, art is about "ideals" people can feel. Secularism has pretty much denied ideals" in pursuit of subjective values which only means that art has lost its value. Dimitry Fadeyev explains:

Throughout the ages man has expended a great deal of energy and effort on the creation of beautiful art dedicated to his ideal. He poured forth his heart and soul into forms that honored and represented his meaning and purpose, laboring day and night on projects that took lifetimes to complete. He sacrificed everything to give this world a tiny glimpse of the ideal, a glimmer of perfection, a ray of Beauty to ignite the heart and nourish the soul. Where the ideal is a conscious representation of man’s purpose, art is its emotional counterpart, the fuel that keeps the journey going. Without art there is no energy to pursue the ideal; without the ideal art falls apart into purposelessness.

The state of today is that both the ideal and art have suffered an almost total collapse. Modern political philosophy rests on a single word: growth; modern art is described by a single word: everything. Without a clear conception of Man, we have to suffer the inanities of modern political “issues” that can only be decided by emotion – primarily fear – since those debating lack the moral principles on which to base answers to their questions. Without its moral framework, art has been reduced to base experimentation. In the world of modern art everything goes, everything is permitted, originality being the measure of worth. As the scales of emotion have replaced reason in the political sphere, purposeless sensory exploration has displaced beauty, meaning and morality in art....................

There are no objective ideals in the modern technological world. Lacking ideals people cannot feel the value of freedom so it must be sacrificed to the secular equality of psychological egoistic slavery. Art no longer exists in the modern world of today and its competing expressions.

Then what would you call it when people expressed love by dumping a statue of a slavery business man into the harbour? This was not economic growth or purposeless sensory exploration nor of any economic benefit. It was righteousness and righteous anger in an expressive symbolic act.

You are celebrating negative reactions which by definition cannot be art. With that reasoning a famous painting depicting the rape of a woman is also art. It expresses love and righteous anger against the nature of certain women. Negative emotions such as justified anger against women or statues is pure expression and cannot be considered art

[Sculptor]

They say: "True art!"
But what makes art true, what are the criteria for its truth?
It is clear that neither the photographic accuracy of the image of the object, nor the accurate playing of the notes.
It is possible to paint an object that does not exist in the nature at all, and a robot can play notes in a more accurate way than any musician.

And what makes art to art?

What do you mean "true art"?
Is it art that is true, or art whose message is true?

[Janoah]

What do you mean "true art"?

to answer this question, it is necessary to determine what is "truth".
I have my concept of truth, but this is a theme for a separate topic.

***Is it art that is true, or art whose message is true?***
It is art that is true.
Regarding the "message", behold the eunuch can send a message about what sex is ..

[Belinda]

Nick I certainly do not "celebrate" "reactions". Good art is characterised by good intention on the part of the artist.True, some great artists have been well paid for their performances or their artefacts, however being paid for some service does not preclude the artist's intentions to portray goodness and truth.

No pornogrphy is made from intentions to be good or true. All pornography is commercial for first intention to final production. If a rape is the subject of a picture whether or not it is pornography depends on the meaning intended by the artist. Actually it is obvious enough to all but unsophisticated children when a picture or a text is intended to tell the truth or intended to titillate the senses.

[Nick_A]

Nick I certainly do not "celebrate" "reactions". Good art is characterised by good intention on the part of the artist.True, some great artists have been well paid for their performances or their artefacts, however being paid for some service does not preclude the artist's intentions to portray goodness and truth.

No pornogrphy is made from intentions to be good or true. All pornography is commercial for first intention to final production. If a rape is the subject of a picture whether or not it is pornography depends on the meaning intended by the artist. Actually it is obvious enough to all but unsophisticated children when a picture or a text is intended to tell the truth or intended to titillate the senses.

But suppose the artist claims that the woman deserved to be raped so his painting is justified. Then it must be art, right?

[Belinda]

Nick I certainly do not "celebrate" "reactions". Good art is characterised by good intention on the part of the artist.True, some great artists have been well paid for their performances or their artefacts, however being paid for some service does not preclude the artist's intentions to portray goodness and truth.

No pornogrphy is made from intentions to be good or true. All pornography is commercial for first intention to final production. If a rape is the subject of a picture whether or not it is pornography depends on the meaning intended by the artist. Actually it is obvious enough to all but unsophisticated children when a picture or a text is intended to tell the truth or intended to titillate the senses.

But suppose the artist claims that the woman deserved to be raped so his painting is justified. Then it must be art, right?

That is incorrect, because what someone 'deserves' is not what they should get; I hope you are not a punitive man. More particularly a rapist is taking what is not his and doing so in a violent way causing great suffering to the victim.

Any artist who is also a violent criminal of who encourages violent crime such as murder or rape , against individuals will be unable to produce works of art. Works of art are characterised and defined by love of truth, justice, goodness, and beauty.
Any artefact that is defined by greed, cruelty, injustice, and narcissism is not a work of art. Works of art are not defined by evidence of skill.

[Walker]

Good collaborative art is more rare than good individual art.


Example of good collaborative art:

"Poor,Poor Thing"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sq-g-UXuMk

If you don’t know the work, Harvey is a Big Púca.

[psycho]

I suppose there are situations that would help to focus what is what we consider art.

For example. In ancient Greece, statues were functional objects that served very effectively as political and social propaganda. But the discovery of these objects prior to the beginning of the Italian Renaissance, took away all the functionality for which they were created.

In both cases are these objects considered art? An artist created them and their creation had more than one goal. Which was the reason why they were valuable in Greece and why they were valued in Italy?

I am particularly drawn to Van Gogh's paintings. Being a skeptic myself, my gaze on reality takes away all magic. I am not amused by considering teleleologies. Reality has no intention of going anywhere.

When I look at the sky, I only see a wonderful and infinite question. But without supernatural intent or patterns.



Upon seeing the painting Starry Night and distinguishing that Van Gogh represented the stars turning in spirals, following some order unknown to us, it was that I understood that Van Gogh was a naive and innocent soul. And I had that impression again in each of his paintings.

What his art transmits to me is that there are pure souls among us. To me, who is super skeptical.

Regards.

[Belinda]

Psycho wrote:

For example. In ancient Greece, statues were functional objects that served very effectively as political and social propaganda. But the discovery of these objects prior to the beginning of the Italian Renaissance, took away all the functionality for which they were created.

It is true that works of art are good and true according to what their cultural milieu considers to be good and true. Cultural milieux undergo changes and works of art are typically the vanguard of social change, and also express communal values when communal values are set in their ways. Van Gogh was an artist from the age of Romantic individualism .

"In ancient Greece, statues were functional objects that served very effectively as political and social propaganda " . By contrast with Romantic individualism, ancient Greek art of the type you describe was, classically, expressive of communal values.

[Impenitent]

starry snippy earlobes

-Imp

[psycho]

Psycho wrote:

For example. In ancient Greece, statues were functional objects that served very effectively as political and social propaganda. But the discovery of these objects prior to the beginning of the Italian Renaissance, took away all the functionality for which they were created.

It is true that works of art are good and true according to what their cultural milieu considers to be good and true. Cultural milieux undergo changes and works of art are typically the vanguard of social change, and also express communal values when communal values are set in their ways. Van Gogh was an artist from the age of Romantic individualism .

"In ancient Greece, statues were functional objects that served very effectively as political and social propaganda " . By contrast with Romantic individualism, ancient Greek art of the type you describe was, classically, expressive of communal values.

My impression is that what is expressed by the artwork has to be a new idea (for the majority of the population). That idea does not necessarily have to be what the artist tried to express.

In ancient Greece, the artist built sculptures according to the aesthetic and social values ​​of their culture. But not all of these ideas were new. Some of these works reflected new aesthetic ideas. But distinguishing those ideas in the context of their circumstances can only be the effective task of an expert in the art of that time.

But when these objects arrived in Italy, the ideas they conveyed were new (at least forgotten for millennia). After many centuries of vehemently ignoring the carnal, the body, the material world, the solidity of each human, these sculptures made evident the value, the beauty, the harmony of the body and the incompleteness of a only spiritual humanity.

Regards.

[Walker]

Van Gogh probably had OCD and as such, couldn’t control the physical energy. He was a slave to painting and the energy kept him moving to distraction from life, so he painted quite a lot, until his paint ran out and Theo bought more. He sensed the cause of his “differentness” and put it into the paintings. His paintings are bursting with energy, energy is his signature characteristic. Content is incidental, energy jumps from even the portraits he did. I figure that he channeled his energy because if uncontrolled with no outlet, his mind would turn to mild hallucinations such as shimmering grass in the wind, or the more wine effects of mind and eyes spinning at night under bright stars, etc. As an artist, his state of being affected his creations.

Monet’s considerable technical gifts and sense of color translated the world through a filter of literal myopic fog, so the viewer must participate more, and thus becomes in that way a part of each Monet seen.

[psycho]

Van Gogh probably had OCD and as such, couldn’t control the physical energy. He was a slave to painting and the energy kept him moving to distraction from life, so he painted quite a lot, until his paint ran out and Theo bought more. He sensed the cause of his “differentness” and put it into the paintings. His paintings are bursting with energy, energy is his signature characteristic. Content is incidental, energy jumps from even the portraits he did. I figure that he channeled his energy because if uncontrolled with no outlet, his mind would turn to mild hallucinations such as shimmering grass in the wind, or the more wine effects of mind and eyes spinning at night under bright stars, etc. As an artist, his state of being affected his creations.

Monet’s considerable technical gifts and sense of color translated the world through a filter of literal myopic fog, so the viewer must participate more, and thus becomes in that way a part of each Monet seen.

I agree with you that he was most likely "divergent" but I cannot distinguish that he externalized his work in an attempt not to be.

It seems to me more likely that he was experimenting and trying to find something that satisfied him.

His paintings seem to obey tides. Portraits, buildings, landscapes, everything seems to be fluid.

I don't think his art was primarily a result of his mental health problems.

Regards.

[Belinda]

In any case an eccentric individual may be better than a normal individual at demonstrating or portraying truth, beauty, and goodness.