Posted: Apr 06, 2014 8:23 pm
Regina wrote:CharlieM wrote:Regina wrote:I'm only interested in your definition of art.CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.
Scores of who you apparently consider artists were nothing of the kind (following your definition) as they did not express their individuality (whatever that is).
I'd like to try to clarify the points I have been trying to make.
Science is a subject that we deals with through thinking. We think about a triangle. The definition of a tringle doesn't change depending on who is doing the thinking, it is universal.
Religion, our philosophy of life, morality, involves our acts of will. We can say that we believe in the equality of the individual, but it is meaningless unless we understand what we mean by "equality". Obviously not everyone is equal physically or mentally. So by equality, we may mean that everyone should be treated equally no matter what their physical attributes, race, sex and so on. Now a person may decide that for them this is an ideal. In order to live by this ideal they will have to examine their own personal thoughts and actions, understand where they are falling short of this ideal and by an act of will change their ways. Each person is individually responsible for following their own ideals.
In the past there was no such thing as science, art and religion as separate pusuits. The leaders and the rule-makers told everyone else what to think, what to believe and how they were to act.
Today science should not depend on authority, or personal belief, but on objective facts. One's philosophy of life should not depend on authority, it should depend on the freedom of each individual to pursue his or her personal beliefs. Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they should believe.
Art is the process where individuals express their feelings through the medium of their choice. If a variety of artists were each commisioned to produce a piece of work on the same subject then every piece would be different, possibly wildly different. Each piece would be out in the world as an objective entity, but each would bear the stamp of the individual who produced it.
To summarize:
science, thinking, the objective world;
religion, the will, our inner life;
art, feeling, expressing the inner in outward form.
I got that the first time round. To repeat: scores of artist did not express "the inner" in their oeuvre, so they were not artists according to your definition.
I have never defined "art" or "artist". I have said what I think art is, but it is not meant to be an exhaustive description. Art is a means by which artists express their inner feelings.
Everyone desires to express their inner feelings when they try to produce a work of art. It might not work very well due to various obstacles such as the technical ability of the artist, or their lack of enthusiasm for the subject (in which case they are not so much creating a work of art as carrying out a given chore). Why do you think van Gogh destroyed so much of his own work? Because he felt that his creation did not express what he was trying to convey. The outer reality of this finished work did not match up to the inner feelings that he was trying to portray.
Regina wrote:Individual differences in the execution of the same subject don't necessarily have anything to do with "the inner".
You say, "don't necessarily", which would imply that some differences do come from within. Going back to my example of various artists producing a piece on the same subject. Some might paint in oils or watercolour, some might sculpt, some write a poem or compose a piece of music. This would all depend on where the individual artists passion lay. And regarding the painters, one might feel that colours were the most important element, another line and shapes. One might try to make the image match the subject as closely as possible another give an impressionistic image. Their inner feelings will have a great deal to do with the finished product.
Regina wrote:What do you think would happen if we both wrote the same text?
What would happen if we both cooked the same meal?
Knitted the same scarf? Etc, etc. Would you put the inevitable differences down to expressing "the inner"? What is that anyway?
If we both wrote the same text, if we were only concerned with the content, that would be copying and not art. But if the handwriting was studied regarless of the actual content then that would be a different story. There is much that can be gleaned from a person about his or her handwriting. Following a recipe or a knitting pattern is as much art as is painting by numbers.
To give you an idea of what I mean by expressing inner feelings, look at nature. Pull the leaf of a plant or the leg of a spider and you won't get any indication of their inner feelings. Do the same thing with a bird and it will certainly make its inner feelings known in the form of sound. No other being can feel the bird's pain, but, from its calls, other beings can certainly understand that it is in pain.
Art is similar only the artist is making a conscious decision to create an external object which accords with what she/he feels. And by object I mean sculpture, poem, piece of music or whatever the artist produces. Unlike the activities of scientists who try to eliminate as far as possible emotions and human point of view, artists want the opposite, they do wish to convey emotion. We can tell the way Roger Waters feels about war and autocratic authority by the lyrics he writes. Waters' work is extremely personal and it is obvious that he has been affected deeply by past events in his life.
Some of his words:
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.
And if that isn't personal enough:
And no-one survived from the Royal Fusiliers, Company "C"
They were all left behind, most of them dead - the rest of them dying
And that's how the High Command took my Daddy from me
He is expressing his inner feelings in words and music.
Regina wrote:It's hard to understand for modern people that there were times when "the inner" and the "individual" were completely irrelevant in art.
And I have never disagreed with that.