Philosophy Now Forum

Walker, are you and Joni Mitchell saying that art is defined by self expression?

If so, I agree that that function of art is beneficial to a very great extent. However would you not call it art that was produced by men who made art works to fit with the demands of some human institution such as the Church, the Monarch, the political party, or rich private persons who wanted to be in fashion?
Are great medieval cathedrals not art because the feelings of the individual craftsmen were not considered?

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.

I like your description. You have to wonder what Michelangelo would have thought of the idiot with his cans of pooh.

Belinda wrote:Walker, are you and Joni Mitchell saying that art is defined by self expression?

If so, I agree that that function of art is beneficial to a very great extent. However would you not call it art that was produced by men who made art works to fit with the demands of some human institution such as the Church, the Monarch, the political party, or rich private persons who wanted to be in fashion?
Are great medieval cathedrals not art because the feelings of the individual craftsmen were not considered?

The verse is about Beethoven, as Mitchell understands him by understanding herself.

As I see it, a cathedral is art when the experiencer of the cathedral feels an emotional uplift, for whatever reason … association with the believed deity, appreciation of craftsmanship, the scale of size and time encompassed in the work, the design, the cardinal directions of cathedral elements, the use of light, the lack of power tools, and so on.

Emotional uplift is caused by an expansion of awareness in which the horizon of limitations grows more distant. A work of art is subjective in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness. Art cannot exist without artist and witness both. A work of art is objective in the sense that the witness necessary to create the third entity does not exist as a single entity.

Walker wrote:

Belinda wrote:Walker, are you and Joni Mitchell saying that art is defined by self expression?

If so, I agree that that function of art is beneficial to a very great extent. However would you not call it art that was produced by men who made art works to fit with the demands of some human institution such as the Church, the Monarch, the political party, or rich private persons who wanted to be in fashion?
Are great medieval cathedrals not art because the feelings of the individual craftsmen were not considered?

The verse is about Beethoven, as Mitchell understands him by understanding herself.

As I see it, a cathedral is art when the experiencer of the cathedral feels an emotional uplift, for whatever reason … association with the believed deity, appreciation of craftsmanship, the scale of size and time encompassed in the work, the design, the cardinal directions of cathedral elements, the use of light, the lack of power tools, and so on.

Emotional uplift is caused by an expansion of awareness in which the horizon of limitations grows more distant. A work of art is subjective in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness. Art cannot exist without artist and witness both. A work of art is objective in the sense that the witness necessary to create the third entity does not exist as a single entity.

Well Beethoven is generally classed as Romantic composer as opposed to the classical tradition.
Are you saying that it's sufficient to classify something as art when the experiencer feels an emotional uplift? I'd give this criterion pride of place but it cannot be the only one because then natural objects and sounds could be classed as art which would be an eccentric point of view. And Nazi -dominated art work would be classified as art. The mess created with paint and paper by a toddler would be classified as art because the child's parents are pleased.

"in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness " I agree. At this juncture we get into hermeneutics. I too believe that the subject is crucial to meaning and evaluation, although some would argue that meaning and evaluation are objective activities.

The cathedral affects subjects as you describe. However the intentions of the cathedral's creators are slightly akin to modern advertisers whose techniques play upon the senses and prejudices of the people who experience whatever it is, together, in the case of cathedrals, with the rich man who paid for it all for the purpose of impressing the people with the power of the regime, and its God.

Belinda wrote:

Walker wrote:

Belinda wrote:Walker, are you and Joni Mitchell saying that art is defined by self expression?

If so, I agree that that function of art is beneficial to a very great extent. However would you not call it art that was produced by men who made art works to fit with the demands of some human institution such as the Church, the Monarch, the political party, or rich private persons who wanted to be in fashion?
Are great medieval cathedrals not art because the feelings of the individual craftsmen were not considered?

The verse is about Beethoven, as Mitchell understands him by understanding herself.

As I see it, a cathedral is art when the experiencer of the cathedral feels an emotional uplift, for whatever reason … association with the believed deity, appreciation of craftsmanship, the scale of size and time encompassed in the work, the design, the cardinal directions of cathedral elements, the use of light, the lack of power tools, and so on.

Emotional uplift is caused by an expansion of awareness in which the horizon of limitations grows more distant. A work of art is subjective in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness. Art cannot exist without artist and witness both. A work of art is objective in the sense that the witness necessary to create the third entity does not exist as a single entity.

Well Beethoven is generally classed as Romantic composer as opposed to the classical tradition.
Are you saying that it's sufficient to classify something as art when the experiencer feels an emotional uplift? I'd give this criterion pride of place but it cannot be the only one because then natural objects and sounds could be classed as art which would be an eccentric point of view. And Nazi -dominated art work would be classified as art. The mess created with paint and paper by a toddler would be classified as art because the child's parents are pleased.

"in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness " I agree. At this juncture we get into hermeneutics. I too believe that the subject is crucial to meaning and evaluation, although some would argue that meaning and evaluation are objective activities.

The cathedral affects subjects as you describe. However the intentions of the cathedral's creators are slightly akin to modern advertisers whose techniques play upon the senses and prejudices of the people who experience whatever it is, together, in the case of cathedrals, with the rich man who paid for it all for the purpose of impressing the people with the power of the regime, and its God.

I've never heard Beethoven described as a composer of the Romantic period. Although I love some of the Romantic composers they certainly aren't in the same league as Beethoven. I've always thought of him as a Classical composer who broke through boundaries and paved the way for the Romantics, but not as part of the Romantic era.

Belinda wrote:

Walker wrote:

Belinda wrote:Walker, are you and Joni Mitchell saying that art is defined by self expression?

If so, I agree that that function of art is beneficial to a very great extent. However would you not call it art that was produced by men who made art works to fit with the demands of some human institution such as the Church, the Monarch, the political party, or rich private persons who wanted to be in fashion?
Are great medieval cathedrals not art because the feelings of the individual craftsmen were not considered?

The verse is about Beethoven, as Mitchell understands him by understanding herself.

As I see it, a cathedral is art when the experiencer of the cathedral feels an emotional uplift, for whatever reason … association with the believed deity, appreciation of craftsmanship, the scale of size and time encompassed in the work, the design, the cardinal directions of cathedral elements, the use of light, the lack of power tools, and so on.

Emotional uplift is caused by an expansion of awareness in which the horizon of limitations grows more distant. A work of art is subjective in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness. Art cannot exist without artist and witness both. A work of art is objective in the sense that the witness necessary to create the third entity does not exist as a single entity.

Well Beethoven is generally classed as Romantic composer as opposed to the classical tradition.
Are you saying that it's sufficient to classify something as art when the experiencer feels an emotional uplift? I'd give this criterion pride of place but it cannot be the only one because then natural objects and sounds could be classed as art which would be an eccentric point of view. And Nazi -dominated art work would be classified as art. The mess created with paint and paper by a toddler would be classified as art because the child's parents are pleased.

"in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness " I agree. At this juncture we get into hermeneutics. I too believe that the subject is crucial to meaning and evaluation, although some would argue that meaning and evaluation are objective activities.

The cathedral affects subjects as you describe. However the intentions of the cathedral's creators are slightly akin to modern advertisers whose techniques play upon the senses and prejudices of the people who experience whatever it is, together, in the case of cathedrals, with the rich man who paid for it all for the purpose of impressing the people with the power of the regime, and its God.

Be honest now. We’re talking about art.

Emotional uplift is caused by an expansion of awareness in which the horizon of limitations grows more distant.

A Nazi experiencing a work would experience the emotional uplift of art if his, or her, horizons of limitations grew more distant as a result of witnessing the work.

A parent experiencing a work by their own child would experience the emotional uplift of art if their horizons of limitations grew more distant as a result of witnessing the work.

A natural object is a work of art if there is an artist and a witness to create the third entity of art. With natural objects we know the witness. So, who's the artist?

I think the intent of the Cathedral creators was to honor, express, or revere the glory of God. Bach likely wasn't the only one with that work ethic.

Minus music, more of Mitchell’s take on Beethoven, with only the objective standards of the moon and stars encompassing enough to include his horizon.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jonimitc ... stune.html

“No tongue in the bell
And the fishwives yell
But they might as well be mute”

Walker wrote:

Belinda wrote:

Walker wrote: The verse is about Beethoven, as Mitchell understands him by understanding herself.

As I see it, a cathedral is art when the experiencer of the cathedral feels an emotional uplift, for whatever reason … association with the believed deity, appreciation of craftsmanship, the scale of size and time encompassed in the work, the design, the cardinal directions of cathedral elements, the use of light, the lack of power tools, and so on.

Emotional uplift is caused by an expansion of awareness in which the horizon of limitations grows more distant. A work of art is subjective in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness. Art cannot exist without artist and witness both. A work of art is objective in the sense that the witness necessary to create the third entity does not exist as a single entity.

Well Beethoven is generally classed as Romantic composer as opposed to the classical tradition.
Are you saying that it's sufficient to classify something as art when the experiencer feels an emotional uplift? I'd give this criterion pride of place but it cannot be the only one because then natural objects and sounds could be classed as art which would be an eccentric point of view. And Nazi -dominated art work would be classified as art. The mess created with paint and paper by a toddler would be classified as art because the child's parents are pleased.

"in the sense that art is a third entity created by the artist and the witness " I agree. At this juncture we get into hermeneutics. I too believe that the subject is crucial to meaning and evaluation, although some would argue that meaning and evaluation are objective activities.

The cathedral affects subjects as you describe. However the intentions of the cathedral's creators are slightly akin to modern advertisers whose techniques play upon the senses and prejudices of the people who experience whatever it is, together, in the case of cathedrals, with the rich man who paid for it all for the purpose of impressing the people with the power of the regime, and its God.

Be honest now. We’re talking about art.

Emotional uplift is caused by an expansion of awareness in which the horizon of limitations grows more distant.

A Nazi experiencing a work would experience the emotional uplift of art if his, or her, horizons of limitations grew more distant as a result of witnessing the work.

A parent experiencing a work by their own child would experience the emotional uplift of art if their horizons of limitations grew more distant as a result of witnessing the work.

A natural object is a work of art if there is an artist and a witness to create the third entity of art. With natural objects we know the witness. So, who's the artist?

I think the intent of the Cathedral creators was to honor, express, or revere the glory of God. Bach likely wasn't the only one with that work ethic.

Minus music, more of Mitchell’s take on Beethoven, with only the objective standards of the moon and stars encompassing enough to include his horizon.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jonimitc ... stune.html

“No tongue in the bell
And the fishwives yell
But they might as well be mute”

If by "horizon of limitations"you mean autonomous search after truth, then I think that the entireity of the act of artistic creation is more perspiration than inspiration. Art appreciation also involves hard work if the art is worthy. Artworks that require no effort for their interpretation are probably commercially viable but facile.

Regarding Nazi art, I was referring to how that regime denied freedom of thought to artists and the general population.

I don't understand your comment about natural objects unless you mean that Godditit.

Regarding cathedrals both medieval and modern do you really have such an optimistic view of the spending of obscene amounts of money in the name of Jesus and his care for the poor?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've never heard Beethoven described as a composer of the Romantic period. Although I love some of the Romantic composers they certainly aren't in the same league as Beethoven. I've always thought of him as a Classical composer who broke through boundaries and paved the way for the Romantics, but not as part of the Romantic era.

Well to each his own, as often mentioned, especially in the amorphous realms of art but I would certainly disagree that some Romantics aren't in the same league as Beethoven. To my mind there are a few who are close and one who may even surpass Herr Beethoven which to some is equal to blasphemy. As usual it all depends on what you're receptive to.

Dubious wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've never heard Beethoven described as a composer of the Romantic period. Although I love some of the Romantic composers they certainly aren't in the same league as Beethoven. I've always thought of him as a Classical composer who broke through boundaries and paved the way for the Romantics, but not as part of the Romantic era.

Well to each his own, as often mentioned, especially in the amorphous realms of art but I would certainly disagree that some Romantics aren't in the same league as Beethoven. To my mind there are a few who are close and one who may even surpass Herr Beethoven which to some is equal to blasphemy. As usual it all depends on what you're receptive to.

Beethoven was par excellence the man that defines what is "Classical Music". The Romantic and Nationalist period begins 1850 or 1820 depending on who you listen to, when the the Classical period ends. According to standard musical history, anyway. I've even herd the end of the Classical period dated 1827 for the simple reason that it was the death of Beetoven


No one I ever met or heard of has called him "romantic"

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Beethoven was par excellence the man that defines what is "Classical Music".

Par excellence?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I've even herd the end of the Classical period dated 1827 for the simple reason that it was the death of Beetoven

That's what I've always understood. Besides, his music doesn't even resemble the Romantics.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've never heard Beethoven described as a composer of the Romantic period. Although I love some of the Romantic composers they certainly aren't in the same league as Beethoven. I've always thought of him as a Classical composer who broke through boundaries and paved the way for the Romantics, but not as part of the Romantic era.

Well to each his own, as often mentioned, especially in the amorphous realms of art but I would certainly disagree that some Romantics aren't in the same league as Beethoven. To my mind there are a few who are close and one who may even surpass Herr Beethoven which to some is equal to blasphemy. As usual it all depends on what you're receptive to.

Beethoven was par excellence the man that defines what is "Classical Music". The Romantic and Nationalist period begins 1850 or 1820 depending on who you listen to, when the the Classical period ends. According to standard musical history, anyway. I've even herd the end of the Classical period dated 1827 for the simple reason that it was the death of Beetoven


No one I ever met or heard of has called him "romantic"

I never called him a "romantic" composer though he was one of the main sources of what followed.

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:
Well to each his own, as often mentioned, especially in the amorphous realms of art but I would certainly disagree that some Romantics aren't in the same league as Beethoven. To my mind there are a few who are close and one who may even surpass Herr Beethoven which to some is equal to blasphemy. As usual it all depends on what you're receptive to.

Beethoven was par excellence the man that defines what is "Classical Music". The Romantic and Nationalist period begins 1850 or 1820 depending on who you listen to, when the the Classical period ends. According to standard musical history, anyway. I've even herd the end of the Classical period dated 1827 for the simple reason that it was the death of Beetoven


No one I ever met or heard of has called him "romantic"

I never called him a "romantic" composer though he was one of the main sources of what followed.

I think that was Belinda who was talking bollocks: "Well Beethoven is generally classed as Romantic composer as opposed to the classical tradition."

Dubious wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've never heard Beethoven described as a composer of the Romantic period. Although I love some of the Romantic composers they certainly aren't in the same league as Beethoven. I've always thought of him as a Classical composer who broke through boundaries and paved the way for the Romantics, but not as part of the Romantic era.

Well to each his own, as often mentioned, especially in the amorphous realms of art but I would certainly disagree that some Romantics aren't in the same league as Beethoven. To my mind there are a few who are close and one who may even surpass Herr Beethoven which to some is equal to blasphemy. As usual it all depends on what you're receptive to.

No it doesn't. Some people might not even like his music--that doesn't alter its greatness. His music is as near to perfection as you can get. It has everything: drama, humour, suspense, blissful resolution, pathos, joy...Astonishing genius.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dubious wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've never heard Beethoven described as a composer of the Romantic period. Although I love some of the Romantic composers they certainly aren't in the same league as Beethoven. I've always thought of him as a Classical composer who broke through boundaries and paved the way for the Romantics, but not as part of the Romantic era.

Well to each his own, as often mentioned, especially in the amorphous realms of art but I would certainly disagree that some Romantics aren't in the same league as Beethoven. To my mind there are a few who are close and one who may even surpass Herr Beethoven which to some is equal to blasphemy. As usual it all depends on what you're receptive to.

No it doesn't. Some people might not even like his music--that doesn't alter its greatness. His music is as near to perfection as you can get. It has everything: drama, humour, suspense, blissful resolution, pathos, joy...Astonishing genius.

This describes not only Beethoven who wasn't the only "Astonishing genius" in the history of music. We've been through this before. Mozart, along with Beethoven and Bach are usually regarded in almost every listing as the triumvirate of supremacy in music; it's hard to imagine anything better. But if you wish to regard any one of these giants as inferior to someone near the bottom of the list, that's your choice which in turn depends on what your receptive to...and that's all I'm saying.