Does Art Serve Any Purpose?

[prickly_pete]

You know obviously, you should go to the doctor because you have no knowledge about the disease, biochemestry and just getting some drugs is a supersticion as modern as demons on fax-machines?

Yeah, cough drops are a superstition lol.

Look at what I've reduced some of you to. I'm dropping knowledge some cats can't even handle.

[JCamilo]

Seriously? Cough drops are not a cure for disease. It is exactly the kind of argument that some will tell you: despite all biological knowledge you have to study, your daily life has no application to it. Cough drops do the same effect as our old aunties teas, some small treat on effects, nothing else. It does not tell you anything about the disease you may have (which is caused by factors the cough drops wont treat), which is up for a doctor to tell you: dude, cough drops do not heal tuberculosis...

[prickly_pete]

Wow, just wow.

[IceM]

*sighs*


It doesn't have any bearing on our conceptual world. I'd even go far as to say that all of the people who do read the classics that this is just a hobby and doesn't have any bearing on their conceptual world either - it can't I don't think, we're too firmly entrenched in our own culture and epoch to undergo the type of world-chaning transformations you're all suggesting are possible. It would be very difficult (well, impossible actually) for the Iliad to be experienced and lived the same way it was for the Greeks because for that to happen we'd have to be in a position where we could accept that natural phenomena are caused by Gods, objects have personalities, etc. In the same way to fully experience and live Shakespeare we'd have to be entrenched in a world where blood feuds, laying ones life down for Kings, and writing sonnets for our sweethearts was considered common practice. This simply isn't possible. Such behavior today is laughable if not extraordinarily dangerous.

We don't have access to that society, that world anymore. I think its monumentally arrogant to act like we do. We know that artists aren't tapping into some kind of "universal truth" (fluff) and that the cogency of their work is contingent on specific socio-historical conditions - why pretend otherwise? Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world? Why pretend like one artist (or one kind of artist) has a priveleged access to truth and the 'human condition'? These are antiquaited, reactionary, and long since debunked ways of looking at things.

If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter (again, not talking about all literature, just stuff that is no longer used by the vast majority of people) and something that should be reserved for specialists. Science isn't really part of our cultural life either, but its definitely part of our conceptual world. You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat.

I disagree with a lot here. I will agree, however, that our culture isn't the same as that of Homer's, Shakespeare's, Chaucer's, and everyone else whose work is considered to be a classic. But so what? One would think that the distinct differences between the two cultures would create a greater interest in the works tells us, not what is told within the work. Certainly I will not cry out to Zeus if my girlfriend dumps me. But the cultural void between my day and Homer's should tell me, that, while the literal cultural idiosyncracies (polytheism, women as gifts) are different, there must be something of metaphysical worth in that work. I believe Coleridge called it the "suspension of disbelief." We understand what occured isn't real, yet can still appreciate what the art has to offer.

That being said, literature, as does music and art, expresses what could not otherwise be expressed. I maintain, what events could capture the similar beauty of 1812 Overture, of Liebestraum, of works only art is capable of presenting. The humanities enlargen and enhance our ability to experience the conceptual world. They enhance creativity and build empathy. That alone is priceless.

You're confused. We might not all be physiologists but a basic understanding of the human body is built into our conceptual understanding of the world and this doesn't have anything to do with schooling or instruction. Even people with no education to speak of, even a 5th grade drop out, knows that if s/he's sick s/he should goto the drug store and get some Robitusson instead of, say, trying to get the evil spirits out of their body through bleeding. Where or how one aquires this I'm not quite sure, but at any rate its obvious it doesn't happen because you took a course on nutrition.

What does this mean? It means from birth we've aquired the conceptual world typical to people living in modern technological societies and that we've already learned 'how things are done' in other words. Apply this to art then, we're approaching, say, the Iliad with alot of conceptual baggage. The natural world is just part of that baggage (a major part of it), but we're part of a particular social and cultural world that brings its own baggage as well. We're not living in an aristocratic society. We don't exchange women as gifts. We don't consult oracles. We don't go down to our ships and cry because our war prize was taken from us and ask the Gods to help the opposition gain ground in the war. This is all behavior that is indicative of a primitive society that we no longer have access to which prevents us from living that art - applying it to our daily lives - in any real way.

By contrast if I watch the NBA Finals and see a nice crossover I can attempt to use that in the intraumural league I play in. If I see a popular movie with a funny line I can apply that to any number of situations. I can play popular music in the car and we can all sing along to it. I see the clothing in a music video and if I think it complements my physique I can try and emulate it. This, this is what art is about and the only way it can truly be lived.

The same isn't true of the Iliad. That cannot be used. It might, broadly speaking, have general themes (war, jealousy, etc.) that are common to all human societies but all books manifest some general themes such as these. What matters though is whether they can be lived in any real way. We might enjoy the Iliad as a story, but the drastically different society in which it was created prevents it from actually being lived...

...so go ahead and try to run down to a ship and cry because your war trophy was taken, or act like trees have personalities, make a pledge to die for Obama, or take your lover down to a river bank and read sonnets for all I care. Isn't going to get you very far.

As Stluke as mentioned, if life were reduced to practicality and necessity, life would be narrowed, and even many of the great maths and sciences would be unnecessary to everyday living. The humanities provide experiences otherwise undefinable in your conceptual world. They expand upon our appreciation of life by creating what could not be created otherwise.

Look at what I've reduced some of you to. I'm dropping knowledge some cats can't even handle.

Don't flatter yourself.

[JCamilo]

You should not discuss with one who thinks the pratical use of Biology that you learn in school has anything to do with him going to a pharmacy and buying some drops for coughing.

Soon,we will only take bath with clear water after we learnt it is H20.

[prickly_pete]

metaphysical

So now we're not only trying to resserect dead literature, we're trying to ressurrect dead philosophical projects as well. Shoot, why not go back to human sacrifice while we're at it lol.

This thread is spiraling out of control lol.

[Drkshadow03]

I disagree with a lot here. I will agree, however, that our culture isn't the same as that of Homer's, Shakespeare's, Chaucer's, and everyone else whose work is considered to be a classic. But so what? One would think that the distinct differences between the two cultures would create a greater interest in the works tells us, not what is told within the work. Certainly I will not cry out to Zeus if my girlfriend dumps me. But the cultural void between my day and Homer's should tell me, that, while the literal cultural idiosyncracies (polytheism, women as gifts) are different, there must be something of metaphysical worth in that work. I believe Coleridge called it the "suspension of disbelief." We understand what occured isn't real, yet can still appreciate what the art has to offer.

I agree. Since one of the stated purposes of literature is to give us an insight into other time periods and cultures, this aspect of what literature or art does would increase the further an older culture moves away from our everyday cultural experiences.

However, I am always surprised when reading older worker just how little has changed. One scene that has always stood out to me in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is The Canon’s Assistant’s Tale. His tale is about a corrupt alchemist who tricks a priest out of his life-savings by performing sleight-of-hand tricks and pretending he can transmute coal into silver. Reading this I couldn't help think about Bernie Madoff ripping people off people and their life-savings. Sure, we no longer have alchemists, but the heart of this tale is a guy who dupes another out of his life-savings with the belief that by investing it in his arts he can make him richer.

There are other tales, archetypical characters, and situations in the book that have modern applicability and parallels too. I think the same could be said of Homer or Shakespeare or any ancient writer.

Most of us don't pray to Zeus anymore, but we still fight brutal wars where soldiers are kept long periods away from their families. It's not hard to imagine a modern soldier on tour for two years in Iraq and then kept on longer with stop-loss policy couldn't relate to Ancient Greek soldiers complaining about how long they've been away from their families fighting the Trojan war.

We might not all react with the age of Achilles or freak out because we didn't get the slave-girl we wanted (since that is foreign to our culture), but I'm sure most people at some point have felt horribly slighted and felt like they weren't given their just deserts by a boss or a parent or someone in charge of them. Some to the point of deciding, "I'll keep working here and do my time, until I'm ready to retire, but I'm never doing anything extra for that guy while he stills leads this company."

I think the power of literature is when we discover the universal (those experiences, situations, feelings, emotions that are naturally part of the human condition) within the particular (those elements that are part of different cultures and times).

[G L Wilson]

Knowledge is power, prickly_pete.

[IceM]

It'd be pointless to read fiction literally, knowing none of it is true.

Great works of literature are heralded classics because they offer each generation of reader something beneficial. It is the responsibility of each reader to decide the influence of the work on him or herself. You've chosen to reject my other pretenses that the humanities offer an experience that transcends your conceptual world. That is your decision, yet your rejection is not a rebuttal of my assertion.

Besides delivering a gratifying experience, the humanities provide knowledge and wisdom for those capable of receiving it. Two years removed from reading the Odyssey, I still find myself inspired by Ulysses's perseverance. Similarly, I find an affinity with Stephen Dedalus, with Tom Joad, with other characters whose experience provides me with knowledge I would not have received elsewhere. The bulk of that experience influences my judgment, and how I live.

Human sacrifice is a religious practice. I hope in your future postings you remain on-topic.

[prickly_pete]

You've chosen to reject my other pretenses that the humanities offer an experience that transcends your conceptual world.

You can't transcend your conceptual world - by definition even. There are some who operate in a different conceptual world than we do - these are the people on the subway having conversations with ghosts. You can't get outside of what you're already imposing on the world. The whole idea is laughable.

[prickly_pete]

It's not hard to imagine a modern soldier on tour for two years in Iraq and then kept on longer with stop-loss policy couldn't relate to Ancient Greek soldiers complaining about how long they've been away from their families fighting the Trojan war.

I've thought about this myself before. Actually I fought in Iraq (and I do mean fought, I wasn't some typewriter clerk sitting on a FOB all year) and one of the things that most struck me was how drastically different war is even compared to wars a few decades ago. There's no way that my and someone of the same rank who was at Stalingrad had even remotely similar experiences (aside from seeing people get killed). Generally speaking seeing someone get blown up is probably the same as it was 70 years ago but this is a pretty general level of abstraction and if we're going to work in generalities why would the Iliad be preferable to An Angel From Hell or Saving Private Ryan for that matter?

At any rate, I'm pretty skeptical about this line of reasoning - that art and literature is about affirming how we're all basically the same. Seems to do a great violence to the text, I would think, not to mention being a fairly uninspiring reason for reading at all.

[G L Wilson]

Then Odysseus wasn't suffering from post-traumatic stress in the Odyssey?

[My2cents]

I don't know if it's already been mentioned here, I'm thinking it has been, I can't imagine it being overlooked, but just in case it hasn't been touched upon, a major purpose of art is to give the reader, the viewer, the listener a vicarious experience of something that he/she would otherwise never really know what it would feel like to experience. It's something very intangible in other words, something that has no practical application, but for all that something very priceless and invaluable -- like a precious memory.

[G L Wilson]

I don't know if it's already been mentioned here, I'm thinking it has been, I can't imagine it being overlooked, but just in case it hasn't been touched upon, a major purpose of art is to give the reader, the viewer, the listener a vicarious experience of something that he/she would otherwise never really know what it would feel like to experience. It's something very intangible in other words, something that has no practical application, but for all that something very priceless and invaluable -- like a precious memory.

Absolutely spot on.

[WyattGwyon]

*sighs*

It doesn't have any bearing on our conceptual world. I'd even go far as to say that all of the people who do read the classics that this is just a hobby and doesn't have any bearing on their conceptual world either - it can't I don't think, we're too firmly entrenched in our own culture and epoch to undergo the type of world-chaning transformations you're all suggesting are possible. It would be very difficult (well, impossible actually) for the Iliad to be experienced and lived the same way it was for the Greeks because for that to happen we'd have to be in a position where we could accept that natural phenomena are caused by Gods, objects have personalities, etc. In the same way to fully experience and live Shakespeare we'd have to be entrenched in a world where blood feuds, laying ones life down for Kings, and writing sonnets for our sweethearts was considered common practice. This simply isn't possible. Such behavior today is laughable if not extraordinarily dangerous.

We don't have access to that society, that world anymore. I think its monumentally arrogant to act like we do. We know that artists aren't tapping into some kind of "universal truth" (fluff) and that the cogency of their work is contingent on specific socio-historical conditions - why pretend otherwise? Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world? Why pretend like one artist (or one kind of artist) has a priveleged access to truth and the 'human condition'? These are antiquaited, reactionary, and long since debunked ways of looking at things.

If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter (again, not talking about all literature, just stuff that is no longer used by the vast majority of people) and something that should be reserved for specialists. Science isn't really part of our cultural life either, but its definitely part of our conceptual world. You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat.

Nearly all of your examples of ancient beliefs and practices no longer relevant to our conceptual world are in fact still in common practice, you are just too literalistic to see it. Probably half of the world's population, including millions of born-agains in your country, do believe that natural phenomena are caused by gods—and if you consider existence a natural phenomenon, the percentage is much higher. Blood feuds?: Read any news from Mexico lately? Laying lives down for kings?: Is the quest for WMDs where they don't exist any more absurd a mission than recapturing some noble's tart? Heard of the Viet Nam War maybe? And people still write poetry and songs in pursuit of love. Did you actually put any thought at all into these examples?

This quotation proves you incapable of anything approaching critical thought:

"Why pretend like one book - or one set of books - has application to all human societies? How is this any different than how a jihadist views his own text and its applicabiltiy to the world?"

Uh, it's different because we aren't advocating death for those who don't appreciate Shakespeare; we aren't offering any particular book as a guide to specific ritualistic behavior, etc., etc. — once again, no though has gone into your statement.

"If literature isn't something that can be lived and applied to our everday social interactions as a cultural dialogue than its a dead letter"

You seem to be the only one in this discussion incapable of applying it to our everyday lives, as your ill-chosen examples all too amply illustrate.

"You'd find yourself having real difficulties in our world if you started attributing sickness to malicious deamons, saying that trees have personalities, or saying the earth is flat."

How is thinking the earth's current species once took a boat-ride with a 956 year old man or that blowing one's self up in a murderous act to improve one's sex life substantially different than saying the earth is flat? And, of course, trees do have personalities.

In conclusion, you are either a troll or someone without the critical skills to carry on an intelligent conversation on these matters. In either case you aren't worth any more of my time.