Can we learn from art?

[alicialiv]

I am generally someone who is very interested in art and am planning to pursue a career in art, but I believe that we cannot "learn" from art because it cannot generate truth. It cannot be truth, it can only imitate a previously discovered truth. I guess the main focus here would have to go beyond art and instead define what exactly is learning, truth, or knowledge. If you apply Plato's a,b,c,d chart artists create an imitation of "a" -which is the sense experience of a reality we cannot know and that is not real. Plato would say artists are the furtherest away from "d" which is the ulitmate nature of reality. I'm really wondering what anyone else thinks. :)

[cuppajoe_9]

Dude, nothing can 'generate' truth. By definition, you cannot make new truths, you can only describe truths that are already there. Everything you learn from is an imitation of a previously discovered truth. In any case, you haven't defined the word 'art'. Many people would call Plato himself an artist, in that writing, even writing non-fiction, is usually considered an art. It requires imagination and creative skill to translate abstract concepts into readable language.

Good luck with that career.

[amanda_isabel]

yeah, i guess you can't learn anything from art. art is a form of expression, not a body of knowledge.

on the contrary, i believe you can learn a lot from art, like paintings, for example. generally, because art is a form of expression, it also the expresses the culture that surrounds the artist, which may be a good reference point for history.

but i gues the biggest thing you can learn from the arts is something about yourself. if you feel you can cponnect with a certain piece because it is, let's say, the reflection of your inner self that you long to reveal, then you have learned something you cannot from anywhere else, because it has shown you more about your identity.

[Kurtz]

Nietzsche has a lot to say about the role of the artist. You should look at many aphorisims in "The Gay Science" and especially "The Birth of Tragedy". Another important thing to look at is Winckelmann's "Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works" and also Lessing's "Laocoon". Read the latter and then see if your opinion changes. Good luck.

[holograph]

yes, we can learn from art. art in terms of poetry, painting, writing, song. learn in terms of a self discovered truth about the world without and within. by truth i mean any idea that evokes deeper understanding. i jsut wrote a series of confusing sentences. i think thats what i mean.

joe, the truths that already exist are infinite. meaning, any new idea automatically directs you closer to the "truth." art does not describe the truth. it uncovers it layer by layer.

[cuppajoe_9]

joe, the truths that already exist are infinite. meaning, any new idea automatically directs you closer to the "truth." art does not describe the truth. it uncovers it layer by layer.What's the difference?

[Gallantry]

we can most definitely learn from art....I'll do some snooping to support my view but, I can definitely say that is my view. I think art is an outstanding way of presenting reality to many people. Some people never confront truth until it spits them in the eye because of some form of art. Literature and music are the two biggest forms of art that influence me. From good literature and good music you can learn alot, maybe not alot of solid facts but nevertheless...learning. Since when have there been solid facts about many things anyways?

[Redzeppelin]

Here's a risky statement: art has the capability and potential to reveal the truth to us because good art should point us to reality in some way. That statement is risky because then we step into the quicksand of "well, then anything that tells the truth is art." Not so. But art that lies to us really has no purpose - and I think there is much out in the world masquerading as "art" which is doing little more than lying to us with the artist's subjective reality (which may or may not connect to actual reality).

[SheykAbdullah]

I think art has things to teach us, not necesarily about 'truth' but about ourselves, how we view the world, and even natural phenomena. The artist can explore the way light behaves as well as a physicist, just in a different way, and the subjects painters choose often indicate certain things about the society in which they live. For example through the efforts of Baroque artists we can learn about their view of religion from the period, through the Neo-Classicists we can learn about the ideal view of the state held by many of the revolutionaries, etc.

[livelaughlove]

It's exactly as SheykAbdullah said --- through art, we learn about ourselves (and this only applies to visual art, i.e paintings, drawings, etc). The art itself can prompt questions and feelings which lead to us further discovery of our own perception of the world.

[Redzeppelin]

OK - I agree with that. But may I add that what it tells us about ourselves should (hopefully) be a truth? Aren't the most venerated artists those who faithfully reproduced what light is and does? Art points us to truth - whether that truth is about ourselves, our world, our hearts, our fellow human beings, our future, our past, our destiny.

[livelaughlove]

Definitely. We think it's the truth because it is what we see/feel. But our perceptions are all different, and thus so are our truths. So what for me reveals a truth, may mean something completely different to someone else. This is the power of art. There's also a question of whether there is a universal truth, something that everybody acknowledges as truth or reality.

[jgx]

'Art' as a concept is, for me, too vast and too difficult to pin down. I feel awkward saying anything definitive about it or about how it can affect people.

Now I know that music,poetry,opera,novels,paintings have influenced generations of humanity for thousands and thousands of years.

Now I said 'influenced' not 'taught'.

There are so many dynamics going on between audience and a work of art that to decide whether or not all 'art' 'teaches' us is going to be one hell of a task.

I suppose one take on this would be for folks to simply list all of the different ways art has influenced them, people they know, their community, and people and communities that they have studied, read about, learned about...

Art, has in my life, touched me so deeply I have sobbed; left me numb;angered me;made me feel overwhelmed and over stimulated. There have been art forms that have enabled me to understand human anatomy more clearly...there are art forms that have given me deep insights into my own internal world and the internal world of others (or at least my best aproximation of another persons inner world). And then there is art that did nothing to me at all.

I increasingly find abstract discussions where a dozen different concepts are being discussed...I am never really sure what is actually being said.

The old oak tree surrounded by a small rusted cage that I see each morning out my window. That is a "tree" and yet it really is also the entire universe.

[Bii]

I always see art as a form of expression or communication rather than something that can teach us 'truth' or provide knowledge. I believe that art is a way of communicating those things which are impossible to put adequately into words, as language is, in general, so completely insufficient. You can easily see this from your own experience where, particularly when experiencing emotion, perhaps viewing a beautiful sunrise, it is often impossible to communicate exactly what this scene brought to you, in a way that the other person can understand, but by communicating this in a non-linguistic way you may have more success in sharing that experience and making the other person feel what you felt. I think, that if art teaches us anything it is more about the nature of humanity and the subjectivity of perception rather than any universal truth, if such a thing actually exists (which I'm not convinced about!).

Probably the fundamental question here is rather 'what is art'? I think the answer to that differs depending upon the person who is producing it, and the person viewing or experiencing it, and I'm not sure there is an objective definition. The person producing the art will have in mind what they are looking to convey, in some cases this will be as accurate a representation of a scene as they can master, in some cases they will be looking to express a theme, a thought or an emotion. How this is perceived by the receipient is completely different, however. The receipient may only see that, by possessing that work of 'art' that this demonstrates their power, influence and wealth, and completely miss the message being conveyed by the artist. So I suppose you perhaps ought to establish, for yourself, what art means to you and from there you can determine whether art is capable of teaching you the truths you seek to find?

[Redzeppelin]

I always see art as a form of expression or communication rather than something that can teach us 'truth' or provide knowledge. I believe that art is a way of communicating those things which are impossible to put adequately into words, as language is, in general, so completely insufficient.

Art is expression and communication - but communication generally can be said to fall into at least two categories: statements of truth and lies. The best art communicates exactly what you said - "those things which are impossible to put adequately into words" - but what it puts into words is something that the partaker of the art will acknowledge to be "true." If art expresses a lie to us, then what was the value of that communication?



Probably the fundamental question here is rather 'what is art'?

You're right - because the best way to analyze the function of something is to make sure you've properly defined that that something is.

[jgx]

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;310701]Art is expression and communication - but communication generally can be said to fall into at least two categories: statements of truth and lies. The best art communicates exactly what you said - "those things which are impossible to put adequately into words" - but what it puts into words is something that the partaker of the art will acknowledge to be "true." If art expresses a lie to us, then what was the value of that communication?





Communication is too complex a dynamic to be easily broken down into only two groups: statements of "truth" vs "lies". We have our work cut out for us here since, on the one hand, many agree that there is a type of communication that goes on between the art and the audience which goes beyond words. And so it would follow that words will fall far short in the attempt to describe that communication.

So that is one concern I have.

Another is that "truth" is not the opposite of "lies". I would think it more precise to say "truth" vs "that which is not truth". That is "X"vs not "X" rather then X vs C.

In fact in this case if "X" is truths and "C" is lies then "C" contains elements of "X". A lie must contain a "truth" since a lie that has no "truth" at all will not be understood.

Thus, if "C" a lie has "X" truth/s within it then there certainly can be value in "C" lies since there is certainly a value in "X" truth.

I would assert the implicit meaning of the above quote is more accurately described as such: if a work of art deceives, confuses the audience then is there, in that case, a valid negative ethical value of that art since being confused and/or being deceived is considered a unhealthy, harmful condition to be in?

Now my personal reply to art that deceives or confuses is that even knowing that is not enough to assert the body of work has a negative value.

The only instance in which I would feel comfortable in condemning a work of art is if the deception and the consequent confusion led to the audience acting in harmful ways to themselves, to each other...

I can think of many many works of art, schools of art, genres that use confusion quite effectively...dada, modernism, surrealism, comedy, mystery...


respectfully,
jgx
aka
ghideon;)

[Redzeppelin]

Communication is too complex a dynamic to be easily broken down into only two groups: statements of "truth" vs "lies".

I figured somebody'd nail me on that - that's why I said "at least" in my post. I'm well aware that language has many categories. But expression/communication is an attempt to pass something from the mind/heart of an individual (that which is inside) to another individual (making what is internal now external). Could you give me an example of a communicative statment that isn't a truth or non-truth (which seems to qualify to me as a lie)?



Another is that "truth" is not the opposite of "lies".

I understand this point, but I think it's a semantic quibble.


if a work of art deceives, confuses the audience then is there, in that case, a negative value of that art since being confused and/or being deceived is considered a unhealthy, harmful condition to be in..I can think of many many works of art, schools of art, genres that use confusion quite effectively...dada, modernism, surrealism, comedy, mystery...

I agree - but I don't think confusion is a synonym for deception. Disorientation can be valuable as a method of communicating - but disorientation isn't the act of deception. And, if art isn't necessarily communicating a truth or a lie, then what is it communicating? If you say "beauty" - can't I respond with "what is it saying about beauty and is its statement about what is beautiful true?"

[Bii]

Originally posted by Redzeppelin
Could you give me an example of a communicative statment that isn't a truth or non-truth (which seems to qualify to me as a lie)?

Again this comes down to perception. Take, for example, someone who is describing an event which has happened, say a witness to a crime. They describe to the police what they saw and in their mind they are telling the truth, say, for the sake of this example, they say that the event took place at exactly 6pm. However, CCTV footage reveals that the event took place at 6:30pm. The information they have communicated is therefore not true but is neither a lie. The question therefore arises, if someone believes something to be true, does that make it truth?


Originally posted by Redzeppelin
if art isn't necessarily communicating a truth or a lie, then what is it communicating?

I think the point is that it is simply communicating. Does communication require a higher purpose? I often find it the case that many people, in general, speak just for the sake of it, with little consideration to whether that communication serves any purpose at all?!!

[jgx]

I figured somebody'd nail me on that - that's why I said "at least" in my post.



Well...then I am proud I was the one....hehe.


[QUOTE]Could you give me an example of a communicative statment that isn't a truth or non-truth (which seems to qualify to me as a lie)?

No. By the simple fact that you are asking for a "statement" then I can not come up with a "statement" that can not be described as "true" nor "un-true".

I would say that art communicates more then "statements" and so there is much going on between the artist, the work of art, and the audience that may not be termed true or not true.


I understand this point, but I think it's a semantic quibble.

OK. I do pay obsessive attention to words. I guess I just get a kick out of it and it has opened many doors and also closed a few.

However, be that as it may, since the discussion is about language and communication then "semantics" seems to be important. Perhaps not to the degree I place on them but...




Disorientation can be valuable as a method of communicating - but disorientation isn't the act of deception. And, if art isn't necessarily communicating a truth or a lie, then what is it communicating? If you say "beauty" - can't I respond with "what is it saying about beauty and is its statement about what is beautiful true?"

Ahaha...I think I've got...well...part of the issue here...when you ask me what art is communicating I am pretty much forced to answer by making a statement...and that statement (simply by the nature of 'statement') can be read and examined as to it being 'true' or 'not true'.

The deal though is that art communicates in ways that statements can not do justice to. Because art communicates in ways that can not be organized into true or false I write much more about that since the subject-object nature of language(particularly when used in an analytical way) will give a misrepresentation of the very "?" I am trying to describe.


I do not know how to offer proof of an entity, a being-ness,a relationship that exists on a plane different then the plane of proof-validation of proof...this-that...

This is one of those cases where the very act of observation changes that being observed...I guess, then, my response to "what is it saying..." is..."buble gum shadows not since..":p

[Redzeppelin]

Again this comes down to perception. Take, for example, someone who is describing an event which has happened, say a witness to a crime. They describe to the police what they saw and in their mind they are telling the truth, say, for the sake of this example, they say that the event took place at exactly 6pm. However, CCTV footage reveals that the event took place at 6:30pm. The information they have communicated is therefore not true but is neither a lie. The question therefore arises, if someone believes something to be true, does that make it truth?

But ultimately, that statement is verified to be a "lie" (though unintentional).



I think the point is that it is simply communicating. Does communication require a higher purpose? I often find it the case that many people, in general, speak just for the sake of it, with little consideration to whether that communication serves any purpose at all?!!

True - but art is rarely as spontaneously produced just for "the heck of it" at least in the same way we waste words. I didn't say art had to communicate any "higher purpose" - truth need not be profound to be true. If the sun is shining and I say "The sun is shining" I have spoken a mundane truth. Second - communication is a general category of expression - what's the subcategory of what art communicates?


I would say that art communicates more then "statements" and so there is much going on between the artist, the work of art, and the audience that may not be termed true or not true.

I would agree - but once we decide to externalize what art does, we must make a statement of some sort. And, since art was created by a human being, then the same limitations that I experience, s/he experiences, I believe that tells me that I should be able to make a statement about what the art communicates.



However, be that as it may, since the discussion is about language and communication then "semantics" seems to be important. Perhaps not to the degree I place on them but....

Fair enough.


The deal though is that art communicates in ways that statements can not do justice to. Because art communicates in ways that can not be organized into true or false I write much more about that since the subject-object nature of language(particularly when used in an analytical way) will give a misrepresentation of the very "?" I am trying to describe.

I'm not suggesting that art's message can be boiled down into a greeting card aphorism - but I am saying that communication - in order to be effective - must be concerned with the truth. Anything else and communication then becomes just noise with which to entertain (but not inform, enlighten, or delight) ourselves.

[genoveva]

I suppose one take on this would be for folks to simply list all of the different ways art has influenced them, people they know, their community, and people and communities that they have studied, read about, learned about...



This would be a wonderful exercise!

[genoveva]

I believe that we cannot "learn" from art because it cannot generate truth.

I guess the main focus here would have to go beyond art and instead define what exactly is learning, truth, or knowledge.

You've got a lot of issues here. I personally believe you can learn from art. Hmm.. what are all those Art History classes about anyway?:idea: Art obviously generates someone's "truth", someone's expression of their experience or view of life. Too, we can learn from lies.

Defining learning, truth, and knowledge are a whole 'nuther thing. Does learning=truth? Not always. Think of all the lies that are taught to our students in school. Check out James Lowen's Lies My Teacher Told Me for starters.

[Bii]

Originally posted by Redzeppelin
But ultimately, that statement is verified to be a "lie" (though unintentional).

I wouldn't say this was a lie, but rather I would define the statement as 'wrong'. The term 'lie' seems to require intent to deceive, rather than simply being factually incorrect.



Originally posted by Redzeppelin
If the sun is shining and I say "The sun is shining" I have spoken a mundane truth.

Is this 'true' or an 'artistic' way of expressing a simplistic perception of what the sun appears to be doing? Would a scientist argue that the sun doesn't 'shine' but, in fact emits light as a result of nuclear fusion. Would this make your statement a 'lie' or factually incorrect?


Originally posted by Redzeppelin
I'm not suggesting that art's message can be boiled down into a greeting card aphorism - but I am saying that communication - in order to be effective - must be concerned with the truth. Anything else and communication then becomes just noise with which to entertain (but not inform, enlighten, or delight) ourselves.

I'm not sure I agree that all communication should be concerned with 'truth' but I would agree that all communication, in whatever form, be it verbal or artistic should have a purpose, even if that purpose is purely to entertain (wouldn't life be boring without it?!). Perhaps then the greatest purpose of art is to challenge the way people think, and force them to consider the message, rather than accept things on face value which is so easy to do with purely verbal communication.

[Redzeppelin]

I wouldn't say this was a lie, but rather I would define the statement as 'wrong'. The term 'lie' seems to require intent to deceive, rather than simply being factually incorrect.

But of the two accounts offered, the wrong one didn't tell the truth.


Is this 'true' or an 'artistic' way of expressing a simplistic perception of what the sun appears to be doing? Would a scientist argue that the sun doesn't 'shine' but, in fact emits light as a result of nuclear fusion. Would this make your statement a 'lie' or factually incorrect?

OK - but how legitimate is this counter? Haven't you simply substituted the more technical jargon for a simple observation - yet both describe the same process?


I'm not sure I agree that all communication should be concerned with 'truth' but I would agree that all communication, in whatever form, be it verbal or artistic should have a purpose, even if that purpose is purely to entertain (wouldn't life be boring without it?!).

Fine. But what I don't understand is the resistance people seem to have to the idea that art is concerned with truth? People keep saying it's about "communication" but then they won't specify what it is communicating. Incomprehensible communication holds little value. Ditto with art. Art should have a purpose you say - OK. I'm fine with entertainment, but is art merely entertainment? Or is art entertainment that reveals the truth? Is a romance novel "art"? Is Hamlet "art"? If both are, then what's the difference - unless one reveals a truth, while the other actually "lies" (would anybody really defend romance novels as being "truthful"?)?

[jgx]

Truth, art, lies,communication.....


It is difficult to define a term while, at the same time, using the same term.
This becomes even more complicated when the broader discussion is about communication since it is impossible to discuss, examine, the concept of communication without communicating. Meta meta meta...

I am not so sure that when people disagree they even "agree" on what the "disagreement" is about. In day to day life it is sometimes easy...I was supposed to water the plant but I did not. If, by the strike of mindnight I did not apply water to the plant then I did not water it. I might have thought about it, wanted to, not wanted to...but the fact is I did not do it.

But if we think that discussions about "truth" "communication" "art" can be as easily resolved then we are mistaken. Now I hope nobody does think that a discussion about those terms(and quite a few others) are easy to talk about.

(I see the group all nod yes...that those are not easy subjects) OK cool. Then either we figure out how to set up the discussion in ways that could increase clarity, understanding...either we figure out some general framework, context, for the discussion...and even then there will be many questions, conflicts...or we simply admit that, in all reality, there can be no final agreement or even, in most cases, progress in terms of coming away from the discussion with greater clarity, with new perspectives, insights.

Instead people will make their own positions stronger and stronger and as this goes on people do not move towards greater wisdom, insight but rather a rather solipsistic affirmation that their way was the right one after all.;)

[jgx]

But expression/communication is an attempt to pass something from the mind/heart of an individual (that which is inside) to another individual (making what is internal now external). Could you give me an example of a communicative statment that isn't a truth or non-truth (which seems to qualify to me as a lie)?



One thing we can agree with, I hope, is that communication exists. OK.

And that it can be described as from X via Y to A...

where X is the artist, speaker, poet, painter....

where Y is the painting, poem, statement, book

where A is the audience, reader, listener...



So from X via Y to A.

[Yelena]

It seems to me that it is possible to learn from art. Even though art is not "objective", it is purely "subjective", as pretty much everything in this world, we can still learn from that "subjective" created by an artist. Say, you experienced smth and you wrote a poem. I read it and understand the message, hence, in the back of my mind, i inderectly experience what you had experienced before you wrote that poem. (sorry if its confusing...lol)

[jgx]

expression/communication is an attempt to pass something from the mind/heart of an individual (that which is inside) to another individual (making what is internal now external). Could you give me an example of a communicative statment that isn't a truth or non-truth (which seems to qualify to me as a lie)?



OK...now it gets more complicated.

If X is the artist...now we have a statement about parts of X..."mind/heart" and a description of where these parts are "internal" then "external".

I would agree that, in this case, all X's have "mind" and all X's have "heart" although I am not so sure as to the nature of mind or heart or even knowledge of where they are located. I do agree that communication involves a type of relationship and thus could be described as an "attempt to pass something from mind/heart" to A. But since there are many different understandings of what is mind and what is heart I still think it is better to simply agree that communication involves from X via Y to A.

A discussion as to the nature of X and A is one topic.

The relationship that goes on between X and Y is another topic.

[jgx]

If X is all artists then X includes

Picasso
Warholl
Milton
Stevie Wonder
Clint Eastwood (director)
Ginsburg
Dickinson
Wagner
the Sex Pistols
Lenny Bruce
Muhamad Ali



this is just my attempt to get a list started...whatever the list eventually includes...lets try to make a list of say...30.then whatever we say about X...must be true for all members of X. If we need to break down X into sub-groups then fine...but this, I think, could really move things forward.

So those are some artists that I know of....lets add more....can we even make a list of 30 and all agree???;)

[cuppajoe_9]

Here's an experiment: listen to Beethoven's Sonata Pathétique. You will learn something. You will learn what it's like to be Beethoven.

[Bii]

I am not so sure that when people disagree they even "agree" on what the "disagreement" is about.

I entirely agree (?!) it is extremely difficult to discuss an issue without being clear on what the issue is. Taking this thread as an example, we have discussed 'art' 'communication' and 'truth' but as yet have not come to a standing as to what these terms mean to us. Perhaps by defining what those terms mean to us (and whether an agreement on that point can be reached is a different matter) it would be easier to see and understand other points of view. One of the problems, it seems, with any linguistic form of communication, is that words can be mis-interpreted, or mis-used so the message is lost or blurred.



But if we think that discussions about "truth" "communication" "art" can be as easily resolved then we are mistaken. Now I hope nobody does think that a discussion about those terms(and quite a few others) are easy to talk about.

Absolutely not, but the debate is interesting ;)



...or we simply admit that, in all reality, there can be no final agreement or even, in most cases, progress in terms of coming away from the discussion with greater clarity, with new perspectives, insights.

Agreed, but isn't the debate in itself important? Is agreement necessary?

From looking back through the posts, apart from the fact that it has gone on and off subject, I get the feeling that there is a general agreement that we can learn from art, albeit that I'm not sure if any of us are clear what it is that art can teach us. That being said, if art had no function I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be produced anymore.



Say, you experienced smth and you wrote a poem. I read it and understand the message, hence, in the back of my mind, i inderectly experience what you had experienced before you wrote that poem
I agree that is the objective, but in practice often the message given by art is unclear or missed, which is why it causes so much debate. I still think this comes down to the fact that art is largely a tool of communication, and is used to communicate feelings rather than facts. I wonder, if we were telepathic, would art still exist?

[Bii]

But of the two accounts offered, the wrong one didn't tell the truth.

Neither did it tell a lie?


OK - but how legitimate is this counter? Haven't you simply substituted the more technical jargon for a simple observation - yet both describe the same process?

So, in the fourteenth century, when people said "the world is flat" were they telling the truth, because they didn't know better?


Fine. But what I don't understand is the resistance people seem to have to the idea that art is concerned with truth? People keep saying it's about "communication" but then they won't specify what it is communicating.

I think the difficulty here is that there's no real understanding of what is meant by truth, perhaps if you could define what you mean by this it would make your position clearer. For my part I believe it is difficult to specify what art is communicating, as what it is communicating will depend upon 1) the intention of the artist and 2) the interpretation of the viewer. I also think that art communicates feelings or emotions because linguistic forms of communication don't convey this well. I'd give you an analogy, but linguistic forms of communication don't convey this well!!

[Redzeppelin]

Neither did it tell a lie?!!

OK - but the accounts are in opposition, and both accounts can't be true if they contradict each other (unless you're going to tell me that the two accounts were from different vantage points and, as such, were both correct).



So, in the fourteenth century, when people said "the world is flat" were they telling the truth, because they didn't know better?

That example is an illustration of how time can take a perceived truth and turn it into - what should I call it? - a "non-truth"? The example is not comprable to your first because, technical jargon aside, the sun is shining. Even if a scientist would question my terminology, the event I'm describing and the language I chose is still correct.




I think the difficulty here is that there's no real understanding of what is meant by truth, perhaps if you could define what you mean by this it would make your position clearer. For my part I believe it is difficult to specify what art is communicating, as what it is communicating will depend upon 1) the intention of the artist and 2) the interpretation of the viewer. I also think that art communicates feelings or emotions because linguistic forms of communication don't convey this well. I'd give you an analogy, but linguistic forms of communication don't convey this well!!


OK - I agree with these points. I'll drop the "truth" crusade. I'm pretty much an idealist and believe that art should have a higher purpose - namely, truth. But I'm not trying to convince anybody I'm right - I'm just asking others to tell me what it does communicate if not truth.

[blackbird_9]

Okay, how about this idea. Art is an opinion. O_o Since when do we not learn from opinions? Don't other points of view and ideas give us a different and/or better understanding of something?
As for all this truth and non-truth conversation...If so-and-so painted a picture of Shakespeare with a bald head, it would not be that outragous to assume that Sakespeare was, at one point, bald. True. Brava. It's just as true as if you read it out of a history book. Thus, learning from art.

Then perhaps we have a painting of a woman's lips floating in the sky. Obviously, there is no truth to lips actually floating in the sky. Here, Man Ray presents his idea to you. Lips in the sky? What a concept! The second you ask yourself why, you're immidiatly taking this image and building your own thoughts on it. He has therefore given you a new perspective on something. Not all knowlage is concrete either. It can make you feel a certain way, in which case, you're learning about yourself. Maybe you get all hot-and-bothered because you have a new fetish for lips. Who knows..
To explain more clearly, look at Plato. He's an artist. He's expressing his ideas. From learning about his opinions, you can grow and build your own.

My appology, I was distracted for a long period of time and no longer feel like adding to this, sorry if it's a fragment of an argument. Bleh...

[jgx]

OK - but the accounts are in opposition,

I think, imagine, hope that the tension tug pull of "opposition" remains a forever feature of this universe. Up and downs...happies and "god freaking omg" we live within dark and muddy places of opposition everywhere.

Now we do feel pain:bawling: when our legs are broken. There are bottom line facts and they need not be ignored. To deal with them we adopt a perspective on reality(a very specific type of perspective) in which we reduce the complexity of the world into knowable parts which can be discussed and then responded to. When your house is on fire you don't want someone giving you a lecture on "well...it is not on fire really...I mean there is this 'fire' and this 'house' but I do not think 'on' describes the relationship between the two." If it was my house I just might put some hurt "on" the fellow who would say that.

And so when Big Things are at stake reason, facts, arguments and the ability to make sense of it all becomes of paramount importance. To the extent that objects called 'art' can be part of the Big Things then it seems reasonable to apply a particular perspective on such objects/entities. This is certainly the case when discussing how art may promote violence or how art may be getting used as propoganda and giving validation to quite unethical acts.

But it should never be forgotten that we are always reducing reality when we use the above Big Thing view or any other. And one view does not trump any other view.

[jgx]

Hey...yo...me...I have had plenty of crusades as well...and if one thing is for surety...they are as tough to give up as a "damn where's that other dime" addiction.

Why? Well guess its cause the crusades got some juice going on...they are real in a real way...I mean if it gets somebody's heart a thump thumpin then some somethin is goin goin...flags, iron, steel, fire, knights crusades...or Bobby Kenedy's Crusade against poverty...ya...

Now what goes down in the truth/fact realm of a crusade of a passion action pressing flesh hard moving dancing out there even if you know your gona get it...

Idealism is a wonder...it is aspiration...but...the buda say passion get in way...must let go of passion for reason and truth ground in ones being to expand beyond.

ps
I was one hot head sob radical lefty in college a long time ago...still got it there still...but its different...not gone...but breathe more....and feel more rotten/good

[Bii]

That example is an illustration of how time can take a perceived truth and turn it into - what should I call it? - a "non-truth"?

So, it is possible to have something in-between truth and a lie, which was the point I was making (I think?!). For me the expression lie always implies intention to deceive, although I accept that might not be a universal interpretation. Had the terms right and wrong been used then I'd
have been inclined to agree with you.


OK - I agree with these points. I'll drop the "truth" crusade. I'm pretty much an idealist and believe that art should have a higher purpose namely, truth.

Nothing wrong with a bit of idealism, and if it's something you strongly believe in, why should you give it up?

I'd be really interested to hear how you perceive truth, or what you mean by truth as I think that way it'd be clearer why you hold the view so strongly. Can truth actually exist in a form that we, mere humans, can understand? I think that's why I have difficulty with the concept, in my experience I can understand how someone might get an idea, or thought which they cannot move from their head to the outside world by means of words. Sometimes pictures speak louder than words, to spawn a cliche. Truth, however, truth is something I'm not sure I've ever experienced, or ever will.

Going back to art, is there a distinction to be had between good art and bad art? For example, lots of art is produced because it may be that art is an individual's strongest skill and they need to earn money by it (in fact I think that has been the case for a lot of now well known artists). So, for example, if an artist paints a landscape, primarily because they need cash, is the message from that painting 'I need cash'? If so, is that a form of truth?


Art is an opinion
or a statement, or a message, or a feeling.

[Chava]

"Keith Tyson" Large field Array - so what is your take on this form of art?

[genoveva]

Okay, how about this idea. Art is an opinion. O_o Since when do we not learn from opinions? Don't other points of view and ideas give us a different and/or better understanding of something?

Yes, art is someone's perspective.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, art is someone's perspective.

True. Question, though: must we be able to identify with that perspective to consider the work art? Or can it totally alienate us and still be considered art?

[hyperborean]

I'm not an artist, but I appreciate what art has to offer. Nietzsche actually classified famous artists like Michelangelo and Da Vinci as personifications of the ubermensch (overman).

[Dreadnought]

Hah, my friend, I am in complete disbelief and disagreement as to what you are saying.

What is "art" except another realm of expression, analogous to your precious realm of literature? How can you begin to define the visual and musical arts as far-away representations of "truth" when you simultaneously embrace another art form, literature, as closer to the "truth."

For example, to paraphrase a quote from Aldous Huxley; "That which comes closest to expressing the inexpressible, besides silence, is music."

For me, it suffices to say that this "truth" you speak of is the genius of humanity and the beauty which it creates.

[Redzeppelin]

Hah, my friend, I am in complete disbelief and disagreement as to what you are saying.

I have no idea who "friend" is, but I'll respond anyway.


What is "art" except another realm of expression, analogous to your precious realm of literature? How can you begin to define the visual and musical arts as far-away representations of "truth" when you simultaneously embrace another art form, literature, as closer to the "truth."

What does all this mean? "Art" is a general category, of which music, literature and "visual" are all subcategories. No particular art form holds a monopoly on "truth."



For me, it suffices to say that this "truth" you speak of is the genius of humanity and the beauty which it creates.

"Genius" and "beauty" can be used to manipulate and lie with - so I don't believe they (in and of themselves) constitute "Truth."

[Dreadnought]

I have no idea who "friend" is, but I'll respond anyway.



What does all this mean? "Art" is a general category, of which music, literature and "visual" are all subcategories. No particular art form holds a monopoly on "truth."




"Genius" and "beauty" can be used to manipulate and lie with - so I don't believe they (in and of themselves) constitute "Truth."


My post was in response to the thread starter...

I was following his line of thought when I separated "art" from Literature

[Redzeppelin]

Got it - thanks for clarifying.

[McGrain]

Sorry to be pedantic, but of course we can learn from art. If this wasn't the case it seems unlikely that so much art would be sourced in schools.