Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:23 am**

thedoc wrote:
Lacewing wrote:
thedoc wrote:Art is outside of human perception.
How is that? When I create art, it's definitely based on my human perception.
Are you sure that it is only your own human efforts that make the art, or is there something else that is working through you, that creates the art?

Oh there's probably something working through me ALL THE TIME... but that doesn't change the fact that it is NOT beauty alone that inspires art, AND art is clearly part of the human experience and perception. Please explain your reasoning for the statement you made, instead of just asking me more questions which seems to be a diversionary tactic YOU are using.

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:28 am**

Lacewing wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Lacewing wrote: How is that? When I create art, it's definitely based on my human perception.
Are you sure that it is only your own human efforts that make the art, or is there something else that is working through you, that creates the art?
Oh there's probably something working through me ALL THE TIME... but that doesn't change the fact that it is NOT beauty alone that inspires art, AND art is clearly part of the human experience and perception. Please explain your reasoning for the statement you made, instead of just asking me more questions which seems to be a diversionary tactic YOU are using.

Great art is usually attributed to the artist, but could there be something more that pushes the great artist to create great art? I'm not suggesting anything specific, I'm just wondering if there might be something beyond the human being that creates the great art?

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:30 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Look harder, open your closed mind, you that believes you are better than others, such that you would exile them, then when shown you are the one that has the problem, you hold a grudge, much to your further failing.

Oh my god... I knew it was a mistake to talk to you. You are the one that holds a fucking grudge FOREVER, SOB... that you MUST BRING UP in every interaction. Get over it already. Your entire post is nonsense and avoids taking responsibility for your stupid-ass comments and arrogance and projections. You know nothing... and you answered nothing. Thanks, though, for refreshing my memory of what a waste of time it is talking to you.

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:36 am**

thedoc wrote:
Lacewing wrote:
thedoc wrote: Are you sure that it is only your own human efforts that make the art, or is there something else that is working through you, that creates the art?
Oh there's probably something working through me ALL THE TIME... but that doesn't change the fact that it is NOT beauty alone that inspires art, AND art is clearly part of the human experience and perception. Please explain your reasoning for the statement you made, instead of just asking me more questions which seems to be a diversionary tactic YOU are using.
Great art is usually attributed to the artist, but could there be something more that pushes the great artist to create great art? I'm not suggesting anything specific, I'm just wondering if there might be something beyond the human being that creates the great art?

YES, OF COURSE, SO WHAT? I already acknowledged this (see bolded text above) and asked you to explain the reasoning for your statement, rather than asking more questions. Are you unable to provide your reasoning for such a statement: "Art is outside of human perception"? Why do YOU think that human perception is NOT part of the art?

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:37 am**

thedoc wrote:Beauty and Ugly are human constructs,
All concepts are constructs of the human mind!

outside of human perception,
This is total BS, nice try.

there is no beautiful or ugly, it's all just natural.
That's your take, pretty dull, but you're entitled. But beauty is seen by these eyes in all that is nature, as without it we wouldn't exist.

Art is outside of human perception.
Again, a very ignorant thing to say.

art1 [ahrt]
noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

If you require me to break it down for you, I will!

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:58 am**

Lacewing wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Look harder, open your closed mind, you that believes you are better than others, such that you would exile them, then when shown you are the one that has the problem, you hold a grudge, much to your further failing.
Oh my god... I knew it was a mistake to talk to you.
Then why do it?

You are the one that holds a fucking grudge FOREVER, SOB... that you MUST BRING UP in every interaction.
Exaggeration, does not the truth make.

Get over it already.

Your entire post is nonsense
Nonsense is often seen by the blind.

and avoids taking responsibility for your stupid-ass comments
So you have resorted to name calling, don't blame me that the truth hurts.

and arrogance and projections.
Not arrogant, just a student that actually pays attention.

You know nothing... and you answered nothing.
You speak of your inability to understand, nothing more!

Thanks, though, for refreshing my memory of what a waste of time it is talking to you.
Good, maybe you have finally learned your place, now stay in it! Or not... Matters not to me. Though I'd prefer you to step it up a notch, as it's just far too easy!

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 6:45 am**

Greta wrote:You have just excluded a huge proportion of art that exposes and reflects the non-beautiful,

... Just ask a gazelle struggling under a hungry lion.[/quote]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That's just as beautiful, as planet earth is a 'symbiotic' biosphere.

I don't think the gazelle would share your opinion. Nor do I think you'd think so if it was you or a loved one being eaten by a predator. Everything seems more beautiful at a distance aside from Zenlike immersion and peak experiences.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Your complaint is actually with your understanding of what is naturally beautiful and what isn't. But don't be alarmed, many humans, especially females, have problems accepting that as one dies, another lives; without one dying, another dies.

@ "the emotional female" line. Do you believe that we collapse from the vapours when our delicate sensibilities are offended too?

It's easy to accept abstractions if we don't open our eyes, harder to accept significant deprivation and torment. That comes home when it happens to you. It is possible to feel ambivalence - to both be saddened and to accept.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The ecosystems of our planet include natural checks and balances, without which the crucial balance in nature would cause serious problems with all life. Look at humankind at seven billion strong, with respect to global warming and virus epidemics, to see what imbalance creates. And it shall only get worse, because humankind is selfishly stupid!

I have respect for the care that people show in expressing this kind of view about this issue, but disagree with the ideas. Humans are part of the biosphere. There is no imbalance. If the biosphere wanted something different from its component parts then we'd be doing it. Humans believe they are in control, despite our long-term inability to control the behaviours of societies we are compelled and naturally selected to create. The biosphere is moving into a new phase of which we are part. The idea that humanity operates over and above the entire planet is the result of human delusions of grandeur, generally prompted by religious claims of human divinity.

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:05 am**

Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections. Is THAT art?

Would that be an updated version of this?: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7506786

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:23 am**

Dubious wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections. Is THAT art?
Would that be an updated version of this?: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7506786

That's my understanding but there's so many stories it's hard to know what actually happened, although an accident seems most plausible.

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:03 am**

Harbal wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections. Is THAT art?
Yes, they broadcasted the story on radio 4, although I didn't hear it all. I think the incident had more to do with insanity than art.

What's the difference?

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:04 am**

Lacewing wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections.
Just like a man to give a totally inappropriate gift!

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:24 am**

Greta wrote: It's a long way from the transcendent art, music and dance powwows of supposedly "primitive" people. I sometimes wonder if our artistic regression is a temporary trend or if art and music will disappear as we become ever more machinelike.

I think there will always be room for the art of the people. And the output seems undiminished. The only thing stopping it is the thought that many people seem to have that they need some sort of permission to do art, and can be put off by peer pressure - or at least are bereft of the slightest encouragement to pursue it.
In my town every years for consecutive four weeks in May and also in December people open up their houses all over the town. The event draws in thousands of artists.
http://aoh.org.uk
This practice has spread to neighbouring towns.
http://www.openhouseart.co.uk/art-trail/steyning-arts
http://www.worthingartistsopenhouses.com

Technology can extend artistic efforts, but I do not think it will ever replace it. You can make a sculpture from a 3D scanner/printer, but they lack something. Why not have both. Reproduction prints have not stopped people painting. I think there is room for more.

The beauty of art is in the making as far as I am concerned. When people ask me what is my favourite sculpture, I always say the next one.

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:27 am**

thedoc wrote:
Lacewing wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections.
Just like a man to give a totally inappropriate gift!
I believe he gave it to a prostitute who didn't return his affection. So what would be an appropriate gift to a prostitute. (Be careful how you answer, or even if you answer).

She was NOT a prostitute.

Prostitution in Arles was regulated and you haf to be over 21 to be registered. Rachel was only 19 and worked as a cleaner and a serving girl in the local bar.
The media, who got their story wrong with several discrepant accounts 'sexed it up' and called her a prossy.

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:29 am**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Harbal wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections. Is THAT art?
I think the incident had more to do with insanity than art.
What's the difference?

Both insanity and art can be manifested in a variety of ways so I don't think a general comparison would be very meaningful. I don't know enough about either to compare specific aspects of them. All I will say is that even if self mutilation could be considered a legitimate form of artistic expression it would require a degree of insanity to practice it.

Posted: **Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:30 am**

Greta wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see that an artist would rather focus on the beauty ...
That's very narrow. You have just excluded a huge proportion of art that exposes and reflects the non-beautiful,.

And even the ugly and disturbing.

http://jakeanddinoschapman.com

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/desi ... 60x494.jpg

Philosophy Now Forum

What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?

Re: What is an Artist?