Printable View
Oh thats fine. Just be aware that if you ever walk into the Sistine Chapel the chances are monumentally small that you'll have any clue of what's actually going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
In other words though, its a personal thing that has absolutely no purpose in public schools. Am I getting that right?
The Sistine Chapel is a masterpiece, what's not get?Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly_pete
Form is the better part of man. Are we to deny a man's genius because he is different to us?
That's just the thing tough. Just looking at it and calling it a "masterpiece" doesn't get you anywhere. Definitely doesn't convey the sense that you've aquired anything new by looking at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Perhaps not but it's a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly_pete
You act as though art is something that the viewer has access to instantaneously and ignore how meaning is largely achieved through referencing other works indirectly. Look at School of Athens for instance - just an cursory viewing would tell you that unless you know something about Greek Philosophy that painting probably isn't going to make alot of sense.
And what is your point? All art employs a language and all languages must be learned. This is true whether we are speaking of a contemporary novel, an Elizabethan sonnet, a Chinese Tang poem, an Impressionist painting, a Baroque opera, a classical symphony, or a Modernist ballet.
I largely share the belief of Oscar Wilde who proclaimed that "All art is quite useless." Of course, as always, Wilde had tongue firmly in cheek and one must read the rest of his introduction to The Picture of Dorian Gray to fully grasp his intention.
If there is a value to art I believe that it primarily lies with it worth to the individual. Walter pater puts it best in his Conclusion to The Renaissance:
Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,–for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?
To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist’s hands, or the face of one’s friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch...
One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve–les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among “the children of this world,” in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion–that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.
1868.
Of course this does not seem to be the "usefulness" of art of which you speak. Rather, it seems you ask of utilitarian purpose... a rather pedestrian idea despised by most artists (Didn't Mallarme note that the most "useful" room in the home was the toilet?). Yet certainly this is something that is asked by governments and school boards when it comes to funding the arts. The usual response is to point out that the various arts support learning in other fields: mathematics, science, history, etc... but I would suggest that the arts have another central value: instilling empathy.
When we read... or turn to the arts in general, we often discover the voice of others who do not necessarily reaffirm our own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... The strongest artists don't pander to us. Rather, they offer up an honest expression of their own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... and as a result they force us to broaden our thinking to other possibilities. As Anna Quindlen proclaimed, "Books (and I would expand this to include the whole of the arts) are a means to immortality." (Kafka, among others, agreed, comparing reading with an "intercourse"... a dialog with the dead.) Quindlen continued "through (the arts) we experience other times, other places; we manage to become more than our own selves." If art has a utilitarian value, it lies here... in the ability to spur on an empathy... a greater understanding of others.
Actually, in terms of the perception of the good stuff, I don't think there's much difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
The crap stuff, yes - there's a perceived difference.
Is that wrong though? Is it wrong to look at art as something social? I mean, art is clearly trying to communicate something or some idea and in that sense it's just as much of a language as any other. But whereas I can see the need to aquire the language of mathematics in an advanced society I don't see any reason to aquire the language of painting or poetry or music.Quote:
Rather, it seems you ask of utilitarian purpose... a rather pedestrian idea despised by most artists
I would argue that you're actually looking at art the wrong way by saying that its basically confined to some mental process or spiritual realization in the viewer. I think it would be more accurate to look at it as something that one applies in a shared cultural dialogue in his/her everyday life. If it isn't doing that than what's the point? If I went and got my bachelor's in English how many people would I be able to talk about Ezra Pound with? By contrast, if I see a movie or watch a baseball game I can apply that in any number of given situations with virutally anybody I meet. That's why I brought up the totem pole. The totem pole would've been understood by everyone in the tribe insofar as they could refer to it and use the stories it told in everyday life - it was part of a shared cultural language. Whereas, say, Michaelangelo - how relevant is that to anyone in the 21st Century?
I mean, awareness of other views and places - this can just as easily be accomplished by a newspaper as anything else. Consciousness of the existence of other cultures was achieved through advances in printing and communications and also increase in literacy. It didn't really have anything to do with exposure to art at all.
I very much agree with St.L. on many points.
Not all artworks needs to be understood by taking a class, just as not all art viewers need to be taught how to appreciate a painting. There is a certain learning curve. If you are going to really understand art at a deep level, yes, you will have to invest learning time. Is art useless as Oscar Wilde so kindly points out? I can accept the idea that experiencing art makes life better. It is an experience that insights passion, but also fuels the cognitive mind. It exercises the brain and calms the body; almost like a prayer, even if it last for a few moments. For this simple reason, art should continue to be taught and experienced in school. The world needs the creative mind, as it has always needed it. This is why art, in its constant struggle to be supported by humanity, still is defended and held in high esteem.
I'd agree. I just wonder though how much art is really achieving and how important it actually is if its not firmly intrenched in the social and cultural lives of most people. Popular movies seem way more relevant to being a functioning member of our culture than painting or poetry. You could definitely get by in life here without having read a single word of Shakespeare. I think you'd be pretty debilitated socially if you'd never seen a movie though. See what I'm saying?Quote:
I can accept the idea that experiencing art makes life better. It is an experience that insights passion
I see your point. Art is not valued by the average citizen, at least, in the US. But this is yet another reason why it should be an important part of the school curriculum. But to take it too another extreme, we could say that math and science are also not valued. How many people go through an average day and use very little math? From a societal view point, education is the backbone of the transmissions of a society's values. Therefore should we stop teaching math after 6th grade, just because it is not valued? Some would agree with this idea, but than they would be ignorant to a certain degree. This is just one narrow part of a much larger argument attempting to answer a complicated question. This is not an argument about education.
I'm saying its not valued because it's irrelevant - not because people made a conscious decision to just not care about art. What would be wrong with courses on film or sports - activities that are far more relevant to the vast majority of people primarily because these are activites that people have been indoctrinated in and have already aquired an familiarity with without having to think twice about it. Why would you teach a class on Raphael? How is that relevant to the cultural lives of Americans, or Brits, or Germans for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by jersea
You need some math to function in our society. You need no Shakespare.Quote:
How many people go through an average day and use very little math?
Our society values math deeply. Now that doesn't mean most people go home and do linear algebra after dinner but what our society values above all else is economic and technological advancements. That simply isn't possible unless tens of millions of students aquire highly technical skills through math and science.Quote:
From a societal view point, education is the backbone of the transmissions of a society's values. Therefore should we stop teaching math after 6th grade, just because it is not valued?
What a society values may not correspond directly to the personal habits of most of its members. Having served in Iraq I would say that most people in the Middle East probably don't go home and read the Koran after work. But its still a big part of school curriculums without any disapproval because it underscores the importance of piety, self-discipline, subordination of women, the clan, and the community - values that that society treasures the same we treasure economic and technological innovation.
But yeah, I'd agree that whether it should be taught in schools isn't whats really at stake here...I'm just mentioning it now because sometimes its fun to talk about these things
I get what you are saying Pete. Is art irrelevant? I can't say I agree with that viewpoint. Is it irrelevant to the average person? If it is, it shouldn't be. My argument on math, as you pointed out, does not bolster my defense for the arts as well as the plausible view presented by St. Luke's. I'm a teacher and I will defend the arts till my last breath.
It is fun to discuss these things and I am glad that no one is taking anything personally. It's hard to avoid that sometimes. Thanks for serving in the war!! Glad you are back home.
prickly_pete, you raise elitism as if it were a bad thing. People deserve the intertextuality that we talked about earlier, it is not essential but then nothing is. Breathing is not essential, however we still breathe every day.
Does art have a future?
What would the world be like without art or higher forms of culture.
What would be deemed creative? What of excellence?
How would those certain individuals learn to live if they didn't have
much further means of expression besides science and the popular.
How much education does a person really need to survive in this world?
Could it perhaps be that art can serve as meaning and purposes beyond
the merely utilitarian. Couldn't human life perhaps mean something more
then just the culture of the masses?