Advertisement
Hi everyone! This is the topic of our monthly gathering this Sunday in Santa Monica (2-15-09; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after Sunday's meeting.
Here's the full wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email voting this week:
WHAT IS ART? How do we know it when we see it? How can we define it? Can it be defined? Is it worth defining?
See you Sunday!
Brian
Here's the full wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email voting this week:
WHAT IS ART? How do we know it when we see it? How can we define it? Can it be defined? Is it worth defining?
See you Sunday!
Brian
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: WHAT IS ART & how do we know it when we see it?
Sat, February 14, 2009 - 6:48 PMOPTIONAL READINGS ON THE TOPIC OF "WHAT IS ART": I have three optional readings/ audio files for you this month. I highly encourage you to inspire and clarify your thinking on the ideas and debates by reading, skimming or listening to any or all of them. The second "reading" is actually an audio program.
1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/...finition/
If you want to read what famous philosophers have said about Art, check out this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, "The Definition of Art" (by Professor Thomas Adajian).
2. www.philosophytalk.org/pastSh...rt.html
This is the "What is Art" episode of the Philosophy Talk radio show, hosted by two Stanford philosophy professors. You can listen online or download it to your mp3 player. Apart from the 50-minute radio show, they have one page of notes on the show.
3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
For a more cursory look at the issue, see the Wikipedia entry on Art. Scroll through it to the relevant sections, e.g., Definition of the term, Art theories, Purpose of Art, Value judgment.
----------------
FYI, here are the full vote-by-email results for the month:
1) What Is Art? How Do We Know It When We See It…? (25.0 Votes)
2) A Foolish Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds… (10.75 Votes)
3) What Moral Obligations Do We Have To Obey The Laws…? (17.75 Votes)
4) The Boundaries Between Things: What Is A "Boundary"…? (19.5 Votes)
5) Torture and Interrogation: How Do You Define Torture…? (20.5 Votes)
Each topic stays on the list until it wins or consistently receives a paltry number of votes. You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on. Regular participants at our gatherings have their vote doubled.
-
Re: WHAT IS ART & how do we know it when we see it?
Sun, February 15, 2009 - 4:38 AMI would define art as follows:
1) It is a communication involving a person or group with a vision, and an audience that is exposed to that vision through the communication. The vision has the potential to affect the perception and practice of those who
experience it.
2) It is created through the investment of social surplus
3) It provides no direct material benefit to a society
Some art supports the sustainable evolution of society and some does not.
Note that the presence of a high level of abstraction in an artifact does not disqualify it as offering a vision per item 1, above. To the contrary, some degree of abstraction is required if a vision is to affect the perception and practice of its audience, since literal phenomena are already present in the environment.
As stated in my definition, art is created through the investment of social surplus. Social surplus is wealth produced by the economy that is not employed to keep existing economic processes alive (e.g., through investment in the repair and replacement of plant, equipment and infrastructure, and in replacing aging workers with young ones through a process of nurturance). Art is not aimed at making a direct contribution to the economy, either through supporting the means of production, or through providing direct sustenance to labor. People may buy and sell art, but ultimately art does not contribute to the material means of existence. Its function is "meta" to the economic processes that directly support life. So-called functional art may combine functional and artistic elements in a single artifact, but the artistic aspect (according to my definition) is the non-functional part. However, the *perception* of the functional aspect of the artifact may be part of the non-functional communication implemented by the artifact.
Because of its dependence on social surplus, art tends to reflect the priorities of those who control that social surplus. The social surplus allocated to art is either willingly set aside for that purpose, or is alienated (e.g., through coercion) from those who have produced it. In a more democratic society, some of this social surplus is controlled by individuals as leisure time (during which art may be made), and the surplus that is controlled collectively is allocated in ways that reflect the broader interests of society. In a less democratic society, the literal or functional enslavement of the majority leaves individuals with very little leisure time with which to create art, and the collective surplus is commanded by a small elite, which invests in art that supports its own prerogatives, including the illusion that they themselves are the creators of the wealth that they have alienated from the broader society. In this situation, art tends to yield hagiographic portraits of elites.
There is also a kind of artistic monetarism, in which artifacts are seen as valuable based upon the wealthy people who own the works of a particular "artist," mention of the "artist" in elite publications, display of the "artist's" work in museums controlled by wealthy contributors, and so on. This leads to bizarre behaviors such as the counterfeiting of "art" to make it appear to be the work of a particular so-called artist. Artifacts created simply to satisfy the need for identifiable uniqueness so that their value can be assigned and manipulated in this manner do not satisfy my definition of art to the extent that this is their primary function. This process has more in common with the printing of money than with the sharing of a vision that could affect a community.
When social surplus is not consumed by a parasitic elite in ways that are intended to perpetuate that elite group's control over others, it can be used to propose qualitative alterations in the functioning of society. That is, rather than being plowed back just to keep things going at the same level, it opens up possibilities for doing things in a way that is different and, it is hoped, better somehow. When it serves such a purpose, art can be seen as playing a brainstorming, or envisioning, aspect of this process of qualitative change. The artist is a citizen who is sharing a vision of society that may influence other citizens in their forging of a new collective vision of themselves as a community.
I believe that it is in part a fear that elites have of the alterative effects of this kind of artistic social critique that has spawned the institutional art world, the ingrown convolutions of which entrap artists, interrupting the dialogue between the artist and the broader community.
One dysfunctional type of art is propaganda, which encourages alienated states of mind that make a population easier for an elite group to control. Artists like Leni Riefenstahl, for example, who directed the Nazi film "Triumph of the Will," might provide obvious examples of such propaganda-oriented art, but there are more subtle and common examples, as well, such as the extreme focus of so-called popular music and film on the one-on-one romantic relationship, to the near-exclusion of broader forms of collectivity (e.g., unionism, citizen participation in government, and so on). This narrow focus promotes alienation and inhibits collective action that might threaten elite groups.
What makes a given artwork propaganda is the presence of a manipulative element. While art can envision a new way of being for a community, and can invite other members of the community to adopt that vision based on the desirable possibilities that it exposes, propaganda attempts to narrow the sense of identity so that it can be manipulated by threats and rewards. While some art emphasizes collectivity, propaganda emphasizes division, fear of the other, unity imposed from above, and the desire to be included in a favored group that is not the subject of the propagandist's attacks.
While the above causes me to view propaganda pejoratively, propaganda nonetheless meets my definition of art. While art has a moral aspect, its positive or negative moral impact is not what defines it as art. Conversely, art is not immune to judgment on moral grounds by virtue of it being art.
-
Re: WHAT IS ART & how do we know it when we see it?
Mon, February 16, 2009 - 10:02 AMThe artifact of the artistic process is not the art but by exhibiting it the beholder has a chance, all though faint, of appreciating the artistic process. My resent work is trying to highlight this distinction between the process and the artifact.
www.youtube.com/watch -
-
Re: WHAT IS ART & how do we know it when we see it?
Thu, February 26, 2009 - 2:45 PMToday, someone sent me this interesting piece on the function and effect of Art and Music:
Welcome Address given to the entering freshmen at the Boston Conservatory, given by Karl Paulnack, pianist and director of the music division
“One of my parents’ deepest fears, I suspect, is that society would not properly value me as a musician, that I wouldn’t be appreciated. I had very good grades in high school, I was good in science and math, and they imagined that as a doctor or a research chemist or an engineer, I might be more appreciated than I would be as a musician. I still remember my mother’s remark when I announced my decision to apply to music school—she said, “you’re WASTING your SAT scores.” On some level, I think, my parents were not sure themselves what the value of music was, what its purpose was. And they LOVED music, they listened to classical music all the time. They just weren’t really clear about its function. So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the “arts and entertainment” section of the newspaper, and serious music, the kind your kids are about to engage in, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment, in fact it’s the opposite of entertainment. Let me talk a little bit about music, and how it works.
The first people to understand how music really works were the ancient Greeks. And this is going to fascinate you; the Greeks said that music and astronomy were two sides of the same coin. Astronomy was seen as the study of relationships between observable, permanent, external objects, and music was seen as the study of relationships between invisible, internal, hidden objects. Music has a way of finding the big, invisible moving pieces inside our hearts and souls and helping us figure out the position of things inside us. Let me give you some examples of how this works.
One of the most profound musical compositions of all time is the Quartet for the End of Time written by French composer Olivier Messiaen in 1940. Messiaen was 31 years old when France entered the war against Nazi Germany. He was captured by the Germans in June of 1940, sent across Germany in a cattle car and imprisoned in a concentration camp.
He was fortunate to find a sympathetic prison guard who gave him paper and a place to compose. There were three other musicians in the camp, a cellist, a violinist, and a clarinetist, and Messiaen wrote his quartet with these specific players in mind. It was performed in January 1941 for four thousand prisoners and guards in the prison camp. Today it is one of the most famous masterworks in the repertoire.
Given what we have since learned about life in the concentration camps, why would anyone in his right mind waste time and energy writing or playing music? There was barely enough energy on a good day to find food and water, to avoid a beating, to stay warm, to escape torture—why would anyone bother with music? And yet—from the camps, we have poetry, we have music, we have visual art; it wasn’t just this one fanatic Messiaen; many, many people created art. Why? Well, in a place where people are only focused on survival, on the bare necessities, the obvious conclusion is that art must be, somehow, essential for life. The camps were without money, without hope, without commerce, without recreation, without basic respect, but they were not without art. Art is part of survival; art is part of the human spirit, an unquenchable expression of who we are. Art is one of the ways in which we say, “I am alive, and my life has meaning.”
On September 12, 2001 I was a resident of Manhattan. That morning I reached a new understanding of my art and its relationship to the world. I sat down at the piano that morning at 10 AM to practice as was my daily routine; I did it by force of habit, without thinking about it. I lifted the cover on the keyboard, and opened my music, and put my hands on the keys and took my hands off the keys. And I sat there and thought, does this even matter? Isn’t this completely irrelevant? Playing the piano right now, given what happened in this city yesterday, seems silly, absurd, irreverent, pointless. Why am I here? What place has a musician in this moment in time? Who needs a piano player right now? I was completely lost.
And then I, along with the rest of New York, went through the journey of getting through that week. I did not play the piano that day, and in fact I contemplated briefly whether I would ever want to play the piano again. And then I observed how we got through the day.
At least in my neighborhood, we didn’t shoot hoops or play Scrabble. We didn’t play cards to pass the time, we didn’t watch TV, we didn’t shop, we most certainly did not go to the mall. The first organized activity that I saw in New York, that same day, was singing. People sang. People sang around fire houses, people sang “We Shall Overcome”. Lots of people sang America the Beautiful. The first organized public event that I remember was the Brahms Requiem, later that week, at Lincoln Center, with the New York Philharmonic. The first organized public expression of grief, our first communal response to that historic event, was a concert. That was the beginning of a sense that life might go on. The US Military secured the airspace, but recovery was led by the arts, and by music in particular, that very night.
From these two experiences, I have come to understand that music is not part of “arts and entertainment” as the newspaper section would have us believe. It’s not a luxury, a lavish thing that we fund from leftovers of our budgets, not a plaything or an amusement or a pastime. Music is a basic need of human survival. Music is one of the ways we make sense of our lives, one of the ways in which we express feelings when we have no words, a way for us to understand things with our hearts when we cannot with our minds.
Some of you may know Samuel Barber’s heart-wrenchingly beautiful piece Adagio for Strings. If you don’t know it by that name, then some of you may know it as the background music which accompanied the Oliver Stone movie Platoon, a film about the Vietnam War. If you know that piece of music either way, you know it has the ability to crack your heart open like a walnut; it can make you cry over sadness you didn’t know you had. Music can slip beneath our conscious reality to get at what’s really going on inside us the way a good therapist does.
I bet that you have never been to a wedding where there was absolutely no music. There might have been only a little music, there might have been some really bad music, but I bet you there was some music. And something very predictable happens at weddings—people get all pent up with all kinds of emotions, and then there’s some musical moment where the action of the wedding stops and someone sings or plays the flute or something. And even if the music is lame, even if the quality isn’t good, predictably 30 or 40 percent of the people who are going to cry at a wedding cry a couple of moments after the music starts. Why? The Greeks. Music allows us to move around those big invisible pieces of ourselves and rearrange our insides so that we can express what we feel even when we can’t talk about it. Can you imagine watching Indiana Jones or Superman or Star Wars with the dialogue but no music? What is it about the music swelling up at just the right moment in ET so that all the softies in the audience start crying at exactly the same moment? I guarantee you if you showed the movie with the music stripped out, it wouldn’t happen that way. The Greeks: Music is the understanding of the relationship between invisible internal objects.
I’ll give you one more example, the story of the most important concert of my life. I must tell you I have played a little less than a thousand concerts in my life so far. I have played in places that I thought were important. I like playing in Carnegie Hall; I enjoyed playing in Paris; it made me very happy to please the critics in St. Petersburg. I have played for people I thought were important; music critics of major newspapers, foreign heads of state. The most important concert of my entire life took place in a nursing home in Fargo, ND, about 4 years ago.
I was playing with a very dear friend of mine who is a violinist. We began, as we often do, with Aaron Copland’s Sonata, which was written during World War II and dedicated to a young friend of Copland’s, a young pilot who was shot down during the war. Now we often talk to our audiences about the pieces we are going to play rather than providing them with written program notes. But in this case, because we began the concert with this piece, we decided to talk about the piece later in the program and to just come out and play the music without explanation.
Midway through the piece, an elderly man seated in a wheelchair near the front of the concert hall began to weep. This man, whom I later met, was clearly a soldier—even in his 70’s, it was clear from his buzz-cut hair, square jaw and general demeanor that he had spent a good deal of his life in the military. I thought it a little bit odd that someone would be moved to tears by that particular movement of that particular piece, but it wasn’t the first time I’ve heard crying in a concert and we went on with the concert and finished the piece.
When we came out to play the next piece on the program, we decided to talk about both the first and second pieces, and we described the circumstances in which the Copland was written and mentioned its dedication to a downed pilot. The man in the front of the audience became so disturbed that he had to leave the auditorium. I honestly figured that we would not see him again, but he did come backstage afterwards, tears and all, to explain himself.
What he told us was this: “During World War II, I was a pilot, and I was in an aerial combat situation where one of my team’s planes was hit. I watched my friend bail out, and watched his parachute open, but the Japanese planes which had engaged us returned and machine gunned across the parachute chords so as to separate the parachute from the pilot, and I watched my friend drop away into the ocean, realizing that he was lost. I have not thought about this for many years, but during that first piece of music you played, this memory returned to me so vividly that it was as though I was reliving it. I didn’t understand why this was happening, why now, but then when you came out to explain that this piece of music was written to commemorate a lost pilot, it was a little more than I could handle. How does the music do that? How did it find those feelings and those memories in me?”
Remember the Greeks: music is the study of invisible relationships between internal objects. This concert in Fargo was the most important work I have ever done. For me to play for this old soldier and help him connect, somehow, with Aaron Copland, and to connect their memories of their lost friends, to help him remember and mourn his friend, this is my work. This is why music matters.
What follows is part of the talk I will give to this year’s freshman class when I welcome them a few days from now. The responsibility I will charge your sons and daughters with is this:
“If we were a medical school, and you were here as a med student practicing appendectomies, you’d take your work very seriously because you would imagine that some night at two AM someone is going to waltz into your emergency room and you’re going to have to save their life. Well, my friends, someday at 8 PM someone is going to walk into your concert hall and bring you a mind that is confused, a heart that is overwhelmed, a soul that is weary. Whether they go out whole again will depend partly on how well you do your craft.
You’re not here to become an entertainer, and you don’t have to sell yourself. The truth is you don’t have anything to sell; being a musician isn’t about dispensing a product, like selling used Chevies. I’m not an entertainer; I’m a lot closer to a paramedic, a firefighter, a rescue worker. You’re here to become a sort of therapist for the human soul, a spiritual version of a chiropractor, physical therapist, someone who works with our insides to see if they get things to line up, to see if we can come into harmony with ourselves and be healthy and happy and well.
Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I expect you not only to master music; I expect you to save the planet. If there is a future wave of wellness on this planet, of harmony, of peace, of an end to war, of mutual understanding, of equality, of fairness, I don’t expect it will come from a government, a military force or a corporation. I no longer even expect it to come from the religions of the world, which together seem to have brought us as much war as they have peace. If there is a future of peace for humankind, if there is to be an understanding of how these invisible, internal things should fit together, I expect it will come from the artists, because that’s what we do. As in the concentration camp and the evening of 9/11, the artists are the ones who might be able to help us with our internal, invisible lives.”
-