The Visual Arts: Exploring the History of "Fine Art" and Beyond

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild
Thus its probably a good thing that the judgments concerning what is good or bad in art don't rely upon individuals lacking any real grasp of visual art.

I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them. Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters. But not everybody want to be a repeater.

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.

Bruno, renaissance magician and occultist, explained this with such clarity.

Thirdly, the bondings arising from vision

The spirit is also bonded through vision, as has been said frequently above, when various forms are observed by the eyes. As a result, active and passive items of interest pass out from the eyes and enter into the eyes. As the adage says, ‘I do not know whose eyes make lambs tender for me’.

Beautiful sights arouse feelings of love, and contrary sights bring feelings of disgrace and hate. And the emotions of the soul and spirit bring something additional to the body itself, which exists under the control of the soul and the direction of the spirit. There are also other types of feelings which come through the eyes and immediately affect the body for some reason: sad expressions in other people make us sad and compassionate and sorry for obvious reasons.

There are also worse impressions which enter the soul and the body, but it is not evident how this happens and we are unable to judge the issue. Nevertheless, they act very powerfully through various things which are in us, that is, through a multitude of spirits and souls. Although one soul lives in the whole body, and all the body’s members are controlled by one soul, still the whole body and the whole soul and the parts of the universe are vivified by a certain total spirit.

Hence, the explanation of many spiritual feelings must be found in something else which lives and is conscious in us, and which is affected and disturbed by things which do not affect or disturb us. And sometimes we are touched and injured more significantly by those things whose assaults we are not aware of than we are by things which we do perceive. As a result, many things which are seen, and forms which are absorbed through the eyes, do not arouse any consciousness in our direct and external sensory powers. Nevertheless, they do penetrate more deeply and lethally, so that the internal spirit is immediately conscious of them, as if it were a foreign sense or living thing. Thus, it would not be easy to refute some of the Platonists and all of the Pythagoreans, who believe that one human person of himself lives in many animals, and when one of these animals dies, even the most important one, the others survive for a long time.

Hence, it would obviously be stupid to think that we are affected and injured only by those visible forms which generate clear awareness in the senses and the soul. That would not be much different from someone who thinks that he is injured more or less only by blows of which he is more or less conscious. However, we experience more discomfort and suffering by being pricked by a needle or by a thorn irritating the skin than we do by a sword thrust through from one side of the body to the other, whose effect is later felt a great deal more, but at the time we are unaware of the injury caused by its penetration of parts of the body. So, indeed, there are many things which stealthily pass through the eyes and capture and continuously intrude upon the spirit up to the point of the death of the soul, even though they do not cause as much awareness as do less significant things. For example, seeing certain gestures or emotions or actions can move us to tears. And the souls of some faint at the sight of the spilling of another’s blood or in observing the dissection of a cadaver. There is no other cause of this than a feeling which binds through vision.
Giordano Bruono, Cause, Principle and Unity, And Essays on Magic. p. 137-138

[Cioran]

I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them. Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters. But not everybody want to be a repeater.

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.

By modern art, do you mean modernism, which movement began to end or change around the early 1960s, or merely contemporary art, the art of today, which is a post-modern proliferation of styles and concerns that includes the increasing use of the computer?

Your response tends to reinforce stlukesguild's point, and undercut your own, I'm afraid. If he doesn't get to decide that a visual education is needed to appreciate art, why do you get to decide that modern art (whatever you mean by that) "kills sensitivity to beauty"? Maybe that's true for you, but not for everyone else (and certainly not for me). In essence, you are trying to be as absolutist and normative as you accuse stlukesguild of being.

Your sweeping generalization really does bring out the point that ought to be made: eyes can be educated or uneducated. A visual education can be had, or not had, just like any other kind of education. If one does have a visual education, one can at least appreciate the goals and intentions behind art that one may not like on a visceral level. That is, one who is visually edicated can understand why a piece is appreciated as art even if one doesn't like the work himself.

I don't much care personally for the works of Renoir, but I certainly understand what makes those works great art.

[stlukesguild]

I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them.

Art is a language. Like all languages it is something that must be learned. One learns through experience. This can be had formally through schooling... and/or it can be self-taught. A great deal of of visual sensitivity is self-taught... learned in response to the visual stimuli that are continually around us. But visual artists employ a vocabulary that goes beyond what we might deem as "reality" and uses elements of abstractions, symbols, conventions and traditions of formal structures that are not inherently understood. We all employ the language spoken by our nation and culture and people around us. In my case this is English... yet this does not mean that I could inherently grasp Shakespeare or Donne or Spenser without any prior experience. The language of art is not always the same as the everyday language around us.

Visual Art is first and foremost a visual language. The narratives, the mythology, the occult references, the subject matter are all secondary to the visual form. When an artist looks at a painting the first thing they are looking at is the logic... the aesthetic "beauty" of the artist's organization and manipulation of visual elements: line, color, shape, texture, transparency and opacity... the brushwork, etc... Oscar Wilde put it well in stating "Art finds her own perfection within, and not outside of, herself. She is not to be judged by any external standard of resemblance."

You speak of sensitivity to "beauty", and yet many of the painters you continue to offer up suggest a lack of sensitivity to the difference between aesthetic "beauty", which includes the sublime... even the horrific... and the interpretation of "beauty" as merely that which is "pretty". There is nothing wrong with art that embraces traditional notions of "beauty" offering up images of gorgeous landscapes, flowers, animals, beautiful women, and exquisite still-life objects... but "beauty" is not so limited.

Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters.

In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.
Bruno, renaissance magician and occultist, explained this with such clarity.

Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.

[mortalterror]

Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

[Cioran]

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

And if you don't study any maths, then a page full of numbers and symbols is apt to strike you as gibberish and you won't like trying to figure it out. But in that case, you can always say that the mathematician likes the stuff because it makes him feel smarter than you.

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild

You speak of sensitivity to "beauty", and yet many of the painters you continue to offer up suggest a lack of sensitivity to the difference between aesthetic "beauty", which includes the sublime... even the horrific... and the interpretation of "beauty" as merely that which is "pretty". There is nothing wrong with art that embraces traditional notions of "beauty" offering up images of gorgeous landscapes, flowers, animals, beautiful women, and exquisite still-life objects... but "beauty" is not so limited.

Where did I say that I like paintings I have discussed on your Art Thread, for example? My criticism was very obvious and it can’t be misunderstood. Did I say that I like a few painters involved in occult I posted here? Absolutely not. Did I say that I like paintings I posted on my thread? I was very clear why I posted them. How directed do I need to be so that you will not misinterpret my words? BTW, You don’t have any idea what painters I like.

Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.

Ridiculous and wholly irrelevant, eh? You repeat it again. It reminds me about Joseph Goebbels, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Have you forgotten what I wrote on Voyeurism in Sex thread? BTW, you have never responded to my post.

Argue with prof. Dahrendorf, prof. Eliade and his disciple prof. Couliano, who are just the latest scholars who considered De vinculis in genere as a masterpiece of political manipulation. Please don’t forget that the first to recognize the importance of Bruno’s text were the Rosicrucians, as indicated in the texts of P. Arnold and F. A. Yates on the movement’s history.....You would have to reject more people then.
http://www.online-literature.com/for...m-in-Sex/page5

I have also shared my experience why I have become curious about the power of images upon our minds and emotional states.

A few years ago, I spent a few hours looking at mythology paintings. After, I felt totally depleted and emotionally drained. I wanted to uplift my spirit and to look at different paintings. I spent a few seconds to think what art I wanted to see. I was shocked when I wanted to see Hieronymus Bosh. Well, it took 1 day to look at different art until I have returned to the same emotional state. I knew the power of art and its healing qualities but I didn’t know at that time that art can be used to enslave or to entrap our minds.

My experience encouraged me to do intense research how images affect our emotional and mental states and I wanted to know from where C. Jung got the idea about using art in therapy. Luckily, there are many scholars who studied in depth G. Bruno’s work and considered his work as a cornerstone of political thought and mass manipulation. None of the art theory programs teaches that. They teach the theory of Freud and Jung….I have never taken seriously Freud but I didn’t like Jung’s theory either. My research helped me to understand why I felt uncomfortable about his theory.

[stlukesguild]

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

I'll chance being a "repeater" and say again: "In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate most Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?"

[stlukesguild]

Ridiculous and wholly irrelevant, eh? You repeat it again. It reminds me about Joseph Goebbels, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Have you forgotten what I wrote on Voyeurism in Sex thread? BTW, you have never responded to my post.

Yes... largely irrelevant. As more members that myself have noted, Bruno is a minor figure largely of interest only to those interested in the philosophy, theology, and theories of the Italian Renaissance. I have stumbled upon his name once of twice... far less than you have referenced him. He is rarely mentioned in any major works of literature, philosophy, art history, or art theory... but you continue put him forth as someone that ought to be considered a major player within the discussion of art.

Argue with prof. Dahrendorf, prof. Eliade and his disciple prof. Couliano, who are just the latest scholars who considered De vinculis in genere as a masterpiece of political manipulation. Please don’t forget that the first to recognize the importance of Bruno’s text were the Rosicrucians...

None of your professors... nor the Rosicrucians... have the least relevance to art. You are obsessed with the use of art in political manipulation... and while the Nazis, the Soviets, and even the American Government of the "cold war" era attempted to employ art to their political goals, there was little real success for the simple reason that in most instances the artists of any real merit didn't buy into the program being sold.

[Varenne Rodin]

I love this thread. I love being an artist, especially now. Art is no longer funded in the public schools where I live. I had to teach myself. I am still and always learning. When I'm not sculpting, painting, or sketching, I am looking at art. As much as I can. People can be very judgmental. Some choose a genre, or an era, or a style that they like or tolerate the most and proclaim everything else to be rubbish. I don't suffer from such an affliction. I want all of it. I want to be it. I don't care how people categorize anything that I do. At least I'm contributing to a precious human tradition and feeding my consciousness.

I love the pictures and information you post, stlukesguild. I feel like I should pay you or something.

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild
Yes... largely irrelevant. As more members that myself have noted, Bruno is a minor figure largely of interest only to those interested in the philosophy, theology, and theories of the Italian Renaissance. I have stumbled upon his name once of twice... far less than you have referenced him. He is rarely mentioned in any major works of literature, philosophy, art history, or art theory... but you continue put him forth as someone that ought to be considered a major player within the discussion of art.

Of course, he is not often mentioned. He is not even mentioned in art therapy programs. Don’t you think that it is quite strange considering the fact that Carl Jung got his idea from the occult?

But there are number of brilliant scholars who realized the importance of his work, calling it a most intelligent work of political manipulation. Do you really think that they would teach us at school how we have been manipulated and controlled? It would be too dangerous to keep in line people who think for themselves.

None of your professors... nor the Rosicrucians... have the least relevance to art. You are obsessed with the use of art in political manipulation... and while the Nazis, the Soviets, and even the American Government of the "cold war" era attempted to employ art to their political goals, there was little real success for the simple reason that in most instances the artists of any real merit didn't buy into the program being sold.

Oh, St. Luke. It has relevance to art. Art is a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control.
Hmm….. do you call being obsessed my curiosity to find out how images affect our mental and emotional states? I don’t look at art just for pleasure. Actually, masons and occultists helped me tremendously……by deleting my posts or closing threads. I must say thank you to those who couldn’t control anxiety as they gave me many clues......perhaps unintentionally.

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called “authority” says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but ‘authority” put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

[mortalterror]

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

I'll chance being a "repeater" and say again: "In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate most Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?"

I'm not disagreeing with a whole century of artists, but rather suggesting that your own interpretation is a tad muddled.

[stlukesguild]

I'm not disagreeing with a whole century of artists, but rather suggesting that your own interpretation is a tad muddled.

As it seems that you find my appreciation of Anselm Kiefer to be one example of such "muddled" thinking, how much have you actually looked at Kiefer? How many paintings or sculptures by him have you seen in person? I know, you assume that is irrelevant, but it really isn't. It's hard to gain a grasp of a 20 or 30 foot wide painting from a 4 inch image on the computer screen. In spite of the fact that you would have us believe that Kiefer is an example of "bad" and "esoteric" art, his work is admired by a broad range of curators, art historians, and art critics... including a number that might be deemed "conservative" in their opinions: Robert Hughes, Donald Kuspit, and Hilton Kramer among them. One might also consider the fact that Kiefer demands some of the highest prices per painting or sculpture of any living artist... in spite of the fact that he is largely unknown to the general public, lacking the shock value that makes Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, or Jeff Koons overpriced art stars.

[stlukesguild]

Of course, he is not often mentioned. He is not even mentioned in art therapy programs. Don’t you think that it is quite strange considering the fact that Carl Jung got his idea from the occult?

Well... you quite know my thoughts on Art Therapy... which even were I to grant it any worth, has absolutely nothing to do with art made by professional artists.

But there are number of brilliant scholars who realized the importance of his work, calling it a most intelligent work of political manipulation. Do you really think that they would teach us at school how we have been manipulated and controlled? It would be too dangerous to keep in line people who think for themselves.

Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power. Appreciation of the traditional... the "fine arts" (?)... have long been relegated to a limited "elite" audience. In the past, this was a social and economic elite: the church, high-ranking clergy, the aristocracy, and the very wealthy. Today this is an "elite" I might term as being of an elective affinity: a group who make the conscious choice that the fine arts are something that interests and concerns them... something they are passionate enough about to invest the time and effort... and in some circumstances... the money to appreciate. There were surely examples of "public art" employed as a means of reinforcing the hold of the church and the aristocracy. The medieval cathedrals might be seen as the greatest... surely the most successful examples of such... but when art shifted from being produced primarily on demand for wealthy patrons to being produced as a product sold on the open market (and this occurred in the 1600s with the Dutch) art lost much of its impact or ability to be employed for political aims.

The shift from public art to art as luxury object created a great and increasing divide between the larger public and the artists. It is for this reason that the Romantics developed their notions of the artists (themselves) as visionaries and prophets... removed from the base concerns of the middle-class. Regardless of any explicit socio-political aims of individual artists, this gap between the larger audience and the artists has remained... and only increased. With the late 19th/early 20th century we had the stereotype of the Bohemian artists and the Bourgeois. The Bourgeois couldn't fathom the experiments of the Bohemian artists... and thus painting and sculpture became increasingly irrelevant within the larger culture. At the same time, the artists realized that the Bourgeois audience was largely irrelevant to their career... and so they continued in increasingly esoteric experiments... thumbing their noses at the larger audience and playing to the wealthy collectors... and the small "elite" audience of art lovers who are willing to put forth the effort demanded to understand new visual languages.

Film, television, the internet, the radio, arguably recorded music... and possibly still books have a relevance within the larger culture today and a socio-political impact... but to suggest that a painting does is wishful thinking. Most artists since at least the 1960s... if not earlier... have lived with this realization. There are certainly artists who continue to make socio-political statements... but they are largely preaching to the choir. Without a sizable presence of public art, traditional painting/sculpture/etc... is largely impotent to effect any of the socio-political manipulations you obsess over. The last real period in which such might have been possible was under the WPA when artists were paid by the government to create great murals in post-offices, banks, town-halls, libraries, etc... across the nation. Many of these paintings had an explicit socio-political content... glorifying the efforts of the common man in the creation of the nation. If such art had any real impact, it most certainly was that of the great muralists of Mexico: Diego Rivera, David Siqueiros, José Clemente Orozco, etc... whose efforts to establish an equivalent of the great murals of Italy coincided with Mexico's efforts to estblish itself as a nation in the shadow of the US.

It has relevance to art. Art is a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control.

To be a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control, the art must reach a mass audience and have a relevance to that audience. This is not at all the reality of painting or sculpture or most of your traditional visual arts.

Hmm….. do you call being obsessed my curiosity to find out how images affect our mental and emotional states?

The problem is that there is no universal response to a work of art. What one person finds profoundly moving, another may find utterly boring. The emotional content or "meaning" of a work of art is something the individual brings to the work.

I don’t look at art just for pleasure. Actually, masons and occultists helped me tremendously……by deleting my posts or closing threads. I must say thank you to those who couldn’t control anxiety as they gave me many clues......perhaps unintentionally.

What is with LitNet and its ability to attract those obsessed with Masons and Occultists... and let's not forget the Rosicrucians, Templars, Pagans and Neo-Pagans, adherents of the Kabballah and Gnosticism, and surely the Jesuits? Does anyone remember member Musicology?

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called “authority” says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but ‘authority” put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

You have yet to give us the name of these many painters and makers of ugly art now placed on a pedestal who were occultists and Masons. Nor have you defined "ugly art"... beyond that which you don't like.

[Cioran]

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called “authority” says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but ‘authority” put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

Are you talking about abstract, non-representational art?

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild
Well... you quite know my thoughts on Art Therapy... which even were I to grant it any worth, has absolutely nothing to do with art made by professional artists.

Well, art therapy is therapy. Don’t confuse art making process for healing with making art by professional artists. I can’t look at art without being aware of the impact of art upon our mental and emotional states. There are so many painters whose paintings raise a question of their state of mind.
Very disturb indeed. Even tough I don’t give a damn about C. Jung, godfather of art therapy, I appreciate the knowledge I got as well as the fact that it led me to deeper research. Everything is so bloody crystal clear when we dig deep enough.

Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power.

How many times I should list scholars who studied Bruno’s work so that you see that it is not my theory. Anybody who reads Bruno’s work can see clearly that it is a masterpiece of mass manipulation. It is not only used in art but in images that are used in advertisement or subliminals in movies or video clips.

It is very interesting how much energy you invest to deny it…….I have bad news for you……people are waking up. Perhaps it happens because people are mind controlled as they have never been before and human mind can only hold illusions and lies only for a certain period of time.

You have yet to give us the name of these many painters and makers of ugly art now placed on a pedestal who were occultists and Masons. Nor have you defined "ugly art"... beyond that which you don't like.

Have you forgotten the painters I discussed on you Art thread? I was very clear about that and it was very interesting to see how they were connected with each other.