The Philosophy Discussion Forum

I have argued thousands of times that Art can be taught. Art is a type of language, there are practical ways to learn by rote. The same as a person learning to write using the ABC's. This type of learning is all perspiration.

The thing that makes each writer unique is the individual personality, which is too vast and varied to understand on any practical level. It is soul. It is metaphysical. It is Inspired...from where or what, I have no clue. But I do know that it is what makes art great.

I get inspired looking at great art, but I wonder how I know it is great. I am not talking about a Picasso or a Van Gogh here...where we know it is great because we have been told it is great. We have seen works like that in museums with maximum security. "Surely, they must be valuable, if such care is given to their care." Okay. But this is not what I am getting at. I am talking about that intangible quality that when you stumble across a work of art that you have never seen nor heard of before and it stops you dead in your tracks and you say, "WTF?!?" I am talking about art that the sky opens up for a moment and you get a glimpse of heaven and your heart jumps out of your chest.

Yes, we've all seen good art. But what makes great art?

Inspiration.

Recently, I have noticed that many people do not understand the difference between inspired art vs. art that is all about perspiration. Perspiration art is very very good. It's great sofa art. It makes you feel good looking at it...or in the case of music...hearing it.

Inspired Art is beyond this world. It doesn't care about your sofa. It doesn't care what you think about it. It can make you feel small. It can make you feel insignificant. Those of you who are able to discern the difference, know what I am talking about.

It's the difference between Adele and Amy Winehouse. I have had people tell me that to them adele sound like Amy. I just look at them in confused amazement that they can't hear the difference. This is not a matter of opinion. If you understand art....you know Amy Winehouse's art/voice transcends 'beautiful music'. Adele has a great voice...yes...like celine and the rest...but Amy's is inspired. There is not contest...and it's not opinion. It's just the way it is. it's in her soul.

I recently came across this artist. And I feel defeated and inspired. It's a wonderful feeling. Ahhh...art....beautiful inspired art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETRn_4P6LfU

My gut feeling is that this is good art but I couldn't give a rational reason for thinking it. I know I find it fascinating to look at but, likewise, I couldn't explain why. Would I need to know the reason for these things in order to appreciate it fully?

My gut feeling is that this is good art but I couldn't give a rational reason for thinking it

Your gut reaction is your conditioning. You are conditioned to think and see things a certain way, and then you interpret those feelings as coming from a core fundamental element within you, and as such are seen as true in some sense?

Pluto wrote: Your gut reaction is your conditioning. You are conditioned to think and see things a certain way, and then you interpret those feelings as coming from a core fundamental element within you, and as such are seen as true in some sense?

I can live with that.

Harbal wrote:My gut feeling is that this is good art but I couldn't give a rational reason for thinking it. I know I find it fascinating to look at but, likewise, I couldn't explain why. Would I need to know the reason for these things in order to appreciate it fully?

That is a good question, Harbal. I have no idea. But I can say that , while I appreciate art, it is not enough for me to have a favorite artist that last a lifetime. It's impossible for me to remain monogamous to one artist for life...i'm an art slut...lol.

There is no appeal, for me at least, to see the same art for the rest of my life (Hence the reason I could never get tattoo'd...When I ran out of space on my body it would be a devastating day for me. Having to see the same art day in and day out, would be a nightmare no matter how good it was!)

So, when I see something fresh, that is done well, it makes my heart sink that I didn't think of it, but still glad someone else did! It is the same with science. We can be inspired when someone discovers something, but each discovery is different. Some are more important and awe producing that others. So, say someone discovers a cure for warts. We say, " Yay! Finally! that's great!" But then someone comes along and finds the cure for cancer and blows wart guy out of the picture. There is no comparison. But then someone comes along that finds a cure for mortality...and so on. This is how I see art.

There is a judgment there, that is all about being able to discern degrees of greatness. It's the same as having good judgment in politics. We see people all the time predict a possible outcome for major decisions made on the world stage. Some people are able to discern what consequence will come of policies put in place by presidents. It's not about having a crystal ball. It's about having better judgment in such matters than most. It's about being able to understand on a larger scale the various complexities of possible situations that could arise and the probability of certain outcomes becoming a reality. It's this same type thing going on when understanding what makes art great.

You can see a work of art and think it's good. How does it compare with another work of art. Does it excite? Is every inch of it a masterpiece, or is there only one focal point that is genius? An exciting work of art does not have one ho hum inch in the entire piece. Like a good book, there is no one page that is bad...it's all amazingly good. You can open the book to any page and be blown away. Does that mean you only want to read one book for the rest of your life? no. You are always looking for that rush that only a great book can give. You just know.

For some people the greatest book would be the bible..they would say that no other book could be written that is better....but would they be right? Could they be trusted to know what is good art if they fear God would punish them if they didn't say the bible was the best book ever? In the case of this, can they be trusted to have good judgment? Are they able to discern what makes anything great if they have been conditioned to believe that if they say anything other than God, it would be fundamentally wrong? I think this is what pluto was getting at in a way when he said, "
Your gut reaction is your conditioning. You are conditioned to think and see things a certain way, and then you interpret those feelings as coming from a core fundamental element within you, and as such are seen as true in some sense?". But I hope he corrects me if I'm wrong....

Artisticsolution:

While I am interested in art in general, I don't get excited by it. I suppose music is the thing that comes closest to making me feel the way you do about art. The thing that resonated most was when you were talking about moving on from one thing to something new.

artisticsolution wrote: Recently, I have noticed that many people do not understand the difference between inspired art vs. art that is all about perspiration. Perspiration art is very very good. It's great sofa art. It makes you feel good looking at it...or in the case of music...hearing it.

Three comments on perspiration.

There are all kinds of very well executed, arresting pictures that are not art at all, in the traditional meaning of the word. Little or no perspiration goes into computer-generated images which, nevertheless, may be quite stunning to the viewer. Often, you don't know whether you're looking at something that took a great deal of effort, or something that was put together from stock footage and texturized, or whatever the paint program can do to it at the click of a mouse. Either might evoke an emotional and/or intellectual and/or spiritual and/or aesthetic response from the beholder. Any image, regardless of its origin, might speak to a psyche. - - -

Of course, if we know the origin, we start pre-judging and setting up emotional obstacles, rather than reacting spontaneously. That's "conditioning", I suppose. Everyone has attitudes and learned responses and experiences and convictions. You can't get away from that. Appreciating a big powerful cougar image - rather than an intricate tapestry - is also a result of conditioning. Say, rather, we are influenced by our acculturation. That doesn't rule out gut reactions, or negate raw emotion - it just regulates them. In the 15th century, most people would have considered the highly-charged animal images rather outré: the proper subjects for a sculptor were saints and generals. Fashion in art changes according to cultural drift.


Perspiration ain't what it used to be, either. Compared to Michaelangelo, modern sculptors hardly need to break a sweat. The powerful tools and wealth of materials available now make perspiration obsolete. This also means that all forms of fine art are open to more people, including large scale sculpture: no physical limitations. And the basic skills are far easier to master. You open a block of clay that's been perfectly mixed to your needs, kaolin content, cone temperature, colour... or put your own ingredients through a pug mill - no going to the riverbank and bringing it home in buckets. Open a tube of perfect paint, one of 180 available hues, the right consistency and wetness - no pounding pigment in a mortar.

However, this doesn't mean that they will all have the same skill level. You can teach the use of materials ands tools, but some students will never do it well, no matter how long they practice, while some will pick it up fast and make it their own. Aptitude for each kind of skill makes a huge difference: a student who can handle clay pretty well might be hopeless with a pencil and mediocre with a brush, and some will never be more than adequate in the use any tool. A student who has excellent colour sense may struggle with perspective... and so on. But no untalented student will ever be more than competent at any of those skills - while a Beth Cavener or Nano Lopez (I was even more blown away by his work than hers) has a facility with any tool they pick up. Each of their throw-away doodles makes me feel like a water-buffalo with a pencil.

Talent matters.

So does vision - or whatever you call that inner drive to communicate in images. But inspiration doesn't translate into art until the relevant craft(how to use tools and materials) has been learned - - - and practised and practised and practised.
Neither inspiration nor perspiration can stand alone.

Problem, though. Because tools and training are so readily and widely accessible, there are so many artists now, very many competent draughtsmen, illustrators, photographers, watercolourists, cartoonists and poster painters, and probably even more graphics designers. And all of their works, as well as all the works of all of their predecessors and less skilled competitors are reproduced in very many media, sizes and formats. The3 average urban dweller now is inundated with visual images every waking moment (and I'm not even considering auditory stimuli or psychological challenges.)

He's perpetually stunned. With that kind of sensory overload, you can't really expect him to tell good art from bad, inspired images from manipulative ones. He just wants to go home and look at plain provincial blue walls.

He's perpetually stunned. With that kind of sensory overload, you can't really expect him to tell good art from bad, inspired images from manipulative ones. He just wants to go home and look at plain provincial blue walls.

That's it, perpetually stunned. So what to make art-wise. Do I add to the chaos or do I try to create images which are empty in some way, that they might soak up all the chaos in the viewer. To make a picture which when looked at is an anti-virus software for the mind. Painting as Firewall?

One time at a fund-raiser, I helped run a booth selling handcrafts. We had many different items - colourful, flamboyant, shiny, clever and cute. And some small (3-6") animal figures made of steel. Plain, unadorned grey steel. They were the most popular item with men (well, that's obvious enough: guys like metal) and children. ???

I started thinking: These poor little bairns are subjected to Disney gaudy from the day they open their eyes. When the see something that's not yellow and green and orange and red and purple and blue, that doesn't light up, flash or whirl or do anything , they are drawn to it. Its serenity and simplicity and solidity.

So, make something restful. The eyes and souls need a safe haven. Soak up the chaos is a very good way of putting it.
Of course, I would also like it to have some intellectual challenge, some kind of secret arrow pointing upward - but that might be just me.

Skip wrote:
Problem, though. Because tools and training are so readily and widely accessible, there are so many artists now, very many competent draughtsmen, illustrators, photographers, watercolourists, cartoonists and poster painters, and probably even more graphics designers. And all of their works, as well as all the works of all of their predecessors and less skilled competitors are reproduced in very many media, sizes and formats. The3 average urban dweller now is inundated with visual images every waking moment (and I'm not even considering auditory stimuli or psychological challenges.)

He's perpetually stunned. With that kind of sensory overload, you can't really expect him to tell good art from bad, inspired images from manipulative ones. He just wants to go home and look at plain provincial blue walls.

Well, this sensory overload is only going to get worse as the population gets bigger. I don't think it's a problem though, as there is no way to view all of the art in the world, it's always going to be impossible.

Also, about the urban dweller being inundated with visual images, I am not expecting him to tell good from bad, I don't care if he doesn't look at all. His loss imo. But I will say this...porn is also inundated, would you say that the man who is inundated with porn images stops wanting to have sex with women ? I guess some do, but others would still want a woman (or man as the case may be).

Not to mention that there are many beautiful women out there, they are not all interchangeable. Yes, one may be prettier than the next but it's soul that tells you who to love.

It is soul that tells you what to love in art too. It is also soul who tells the artist what to paint. Perspiration is simply a tool at the artists disposal. It is his soul that makes the painting. Talent can be taught to some extent but Soul is unique to each individual...like a personality.

I am reminded of a story I love/ed dearly," The Little Prince". He has a Rose whom he loves very much. He thought the rose was the most special rose in the universe...until he traveled. He realizes that his rose was a dime a dozen, for he had seen beautiful roses everywhere. Until he finally realized that it wasn't the rose that was special, in particular, it was his love for the rose that made her special.

Corny, I know...but then I am an old softy...

It is soul that attracts us to something. That is why it is so important for art to exist for Art's sake alone. I love art by perspiration and inspiration, But inspired art is when someone is good at their craft and good at communicating on a personal level...soul to soul. The combination is killer, imo.

btw skip....my numbers were good but my kidney numbers were not...wth? I was diagnosed only a couple of years ago and they told me they caught it early...wth? I snuggled up to my husband the day I got the bad news and sweetly said, "Honey...can I have one of your kidneys please?" Then I said with a pout and puppy dog eyes , 'I broke mine."

artisticsolution wrote: Well, this sensory overload is only going to get worse as the population gets bigger. I don't think it's a problem though, as there is no way to view all of the art in the world, it's always going to be impossible.

True. But does he even want to? There are some people who seek out art wherever they can find it, and some who scorn it without really knowing what it is they reject (Let's face it: the arts community have sometimes been quite hard on the uneducated viewer.) but many, many more, who simply cannot care. And, yes, it is their loss - as well as the artists': they may both have missed a wonderful connection.

...But I will say this...porn is also inundated, would you say that the man who is inundated with porn images stops wanting to have sex with women ? I guess some do, but others would still want a woman (or man as the case may be).

This is a very tricky question. I'm inclined to think there is a very similar problem. That exposure to debased and ugly sex may very well influence some men to perform ugly sex - that porn may very well be a factor in the breakdown of social relations - while it turns some men (and many women) off sexual experimentation and make them afraid to reach out, to explore their sexuality at all. I believe it can be very destructive indeed. On the other hand, while some offensive sexual images are unavoidable, most pornographic material is available only on demand, rather than thrust upon people in the subway, in the workplace, in the supermarket, in their leisure time and all the time, whether they want it or not. Not every man is unwillingly subjected to sexual overload. You can't say that about advertising art.

Not to mention that there are many beautiful women out there, they are not all interchangeable. Yes, one may be prettier than the next but it's soul that tells you who to love.

Love is not based on visual impact. Art appreciation is. You never get a chance to wake up next to, or unload grief on or discuss politics with or learn to cook from a Van Gogh. Starry Night has one chance to impress itself on your consciousness through one sense. If you see it at the right time of your life, for the first time, properly displayed, it's a soul-expanding encounter. If you've seen a hundred copies of it on coffee mugs, coasters, neckties and cereal boxes, its' just another picture.

Talent can be taught to some extent

I absolutely disagree. Unless you have a radically different definition of talent from mine. I taught art long enough to know that facility withy the use of tools can be taught, theory and structure can be taught, the properties of materials and optimal proportions can be taught, but talent is something they either bring or don't. They're born with it or not.

The Little Prince has nothing to do with this. Dime-a-dozen art will never be any good, no matter who likes it or how much. Big-eyed children on black velvet may have been popular; some people may have believed them special, but they were schlock and will forever remain schlock. Roses, on the other hand, are all unique and beautiful, simply because they are alive.

That is why it is so important for art to exist for Art's sake alone.

I think I know what you mean, but I'd cut it a bit more slack and let it exist for communication, emotional contact, tribal and ideological iconography, psychotherapy - maybe a couple of other reasons.

btw skip....my numbers were good but my kidney numbers were not...wth? I was diagnosed only a couple of years ago and they told me they caught it early...wth? I snuggled up to my husband the day I got the bad news and sweetly said, "Honey...can I have one of your kidneys please?" Then I said with a pout and puppy dog eyes , 'I broke mine."

Did he say yes without skipping a beat? My partner would have. Soul to soul.
So, how are you now?

Oh...no I meant to say that I just got the bad news about my kidneys now. I have been diabetic for 2 years. I'm okay...just saying

artisticsolution wrote:Oh...no I meant to say that I just got the bad news about my kidneys now. I have been diabetic for 2 years. I'm okay...just saying

Oh, well, that's a relief. Diabetes is manageable - my SO has been doing it successfully for over a decade, and has only recently been put on medication. The key is discipline: keeping your weight down, regular exercise and staying away from the foods you know will try to kill you.

Numbers are not necessarily catastrophic. Kidneys can be managed, too, if they're not too badly broken.

Who ever thought it was a good idea to put our great and wonderful spirits into these error-prone vehicles?