Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sorry walker, but I have to primarily agree with HC, as much as it pains me to do so.

What art is best, is dependent upon what someone likes the most. It's subjective!
But, an art piece is an object and the method in which it was created might be extremely difficult and time consuming, such that only someone that is familiar with the process can sense the beauty of it's objective reality, which surely can factor into their subjective opinion as to it's worth.

Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.

I never apologize for my current limitations or what I currently am, as I am indeed aqueous, as at least I can fathom, sorry walker, that intelligent people learn until they die, realizing they are an artwork in progress, where they are both the sculptor and the stone at the same time. Where one starts and finish's to sculpt is arbitrary, saying absolutely nothing of the artists abilities. Still my value is subjective, dependent solely upon what it is that one is capable of sensing within my work. Unfortunate for them, it's true that many turn a deaf ear and a blind eye.

At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. Does a consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows. Fidelity to the inherent qualities of the medium is how Michaelangelo knew to remove all that was not the form envisioned in marble. Artists such as Duchamp were reactionary though he did possess technical skill. In other words, their work would have much less meaning unless connected with what preceded it, in art and culture. Realists in any medium require minimal audience participation. Naturalists exaggerate realism in any medium. Realism can also be romanticized, and there is market for that in the velveteen Elvis crowd where the viewer fills in the missing realism. A lot of modern art was academic reaction, distortions upon distortions upon distortions of realism. Meaning required context for appreciation, though early reactions to variations on realism had inherent quality without education, e.g., the experience of Cezanne’s use of advancing colors in the background, and receding colors in the foreground.

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Walker wrote: Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.

I never apologize for my current limitations or what I currently am, as I am indeed aqueous, as at least I can fathom, sorry walker, that intelligent people learn until they die, realizing they are an artwork in progress, where they are both the sculptor and the stone at the same time. Where one starts and finish's to sculpt is arbitrary, saying absolutely nothing of the artists abilities. Still my value is subjective, dependent solely upon what it is that one is capable of sensing within my work. Unfortunate for them, it's true that many turn a deaf ear and a blind eye.

At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. Does a consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows. Fidelity to the inherent qualities of the medium is how Michaelangelo knew to remove all that was not the form envisioned in marble. Artists such as Duchamp were reactionary though he did possess technical skill. In other words, their work would have much less meaning unless connected with what preceded it, in art and culture. Realists in any medium require minimal audience participation. Naturalists exaggerate realism in any medium. Realism can also be romanticized, and there is market for that in the velveteen Elvis crowd where the viewer fills in the missing realism. A lot of modern art was academic reaction, distortions upon distortions upon distortions of realism. Meaning required context for appreciation, though early reactions to variations on realism had inherent quality without education, e.g., the experience of Cezanne’s use of advancing colors in the background, and receding colors in the foreground.

Oops, got it wrong. Maybe because the original words were spoken by a monster character.

"Never be ashamed of who you are."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag

However, just because a monster character said the words, does that mean that everything a monster says is monstrous? If not, why?

Walker wrote:How arrogant. It’s not all about you. I presented a philosophy question.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Walker wrote:How arrogant. It’s not all about you. I presented a philosophy question.

Fuck you, you called me a monster, take your hits boy! Your protection fear racket, (character armor) is showing, while mine is too, so what you gonna do? Hey, it was you that initially brought it up, while you exuded that which you knew so well, go figure.

I don't believe you ever can be civil with me. You started off on the wrong foot and still here we are! I'm only ever your reflection! Sure I'm sensitive, I cry for the entire world, Atlas has nothing on me!

Dalek Prime wrote:Yeah, but what is an artiste?

Dalek Prime wrote:Yeah, but what is an artiste?

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Walker wrote:How arrogant. It’s not all about you. I presented a philosophy question.

Fuck you, you called me a monster, take your hits boy! Your protection fear racket, (character armor) is showing, while mine is too, so what you gonna do? Hey, it was you that initially brought it up, while you exuded that which you knew so well, go figure.

I don't believe you ever can be civil with me. You started off on the wrong foot and still here we are! I'm only ever your reflection! Sure I'm sensitive, I cry for the entire world, Atlas has nothing on me!

Good grief. I have no reason to call you a monster. In fact from my impression, you’re anything but that.

However, the character from the clip is a monster. And, the actor is an artist.
Thus the philosophical question.

Get over yourself, get the chip off your shoulder.

Ignorance is clouding your perception.
This is incorrect though, it's that both ignorance combined with knowledge can sometimes cloud our perception.

This is why you must maintain good intent.
If not your mind will devour itself.
It's true what you say, humans sometimes do that to themselves. If you knew of my history, you'd understand my guardedness! While it's true that I try and love everyone, I trust no one! One has to be prepared for the back stabbers, the main threat. As in my case, I'm no one to toy with, face to face.

The Art of Noise with Max Headroom - Paranoimia (Official Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6epzmRZk6UU

osgart wrote:an artist finds unique relationships hidden in nature or solely in the imagination. Relationships that inspire. Or perhap the artist wants to capture a feeling that moves one. I love impressionism. Maybe the artist wants to create the feeling. To invoke the soul. To emphasize awareness of a beautiful moment. An artist makes you enthused with life and wanting to live.
When i visited monticello it was art to be there. Like hallowed ground full of design and curiousity. I literally felt independence and wonder. That a single idea can breathe life.