An interesting article on the philosophy of Art

[reellis67]

Thanks for the link. Some of the responses have been just as thought provoking as the article...

- Randy

[Mark Sawyer]

There are still many, many examples of beauty in art, music, and photography, but they are generally in the popular and commercial genres. Much of the "modern fine arts" ugliness is to some degree a cynical view towards that, and a self-appointed intelligentsia looking down its nose as hard as it can at anyone naive enough to simply enjoy something "pretty".

Art is, ultimately, whatever one makes of it, and we simply rationalize our own value system as better/smarter/deeper than the rest. Passing off these rationalizations as "philosophies of art" has become an art in itself...

[Michael Alpert]

There are still many, many examples of beauty in art, music, and photography, but they are generally in the popular and commercial genres. Much of the "modern fine arts" ugliness is to some degree a cynical view towards that, and a self-appointed intelligentsia looking down its nose as hard as it can at anyone naive enough to simply enjoy something "pretty".

Art is, ultimately, whatever one makes of it, and we simply rationalize our own value system as better/smarter/deeper than the rest. Passing off these rationalizations as "philosophies of art" has become an art in itself...

Mark,

You attack a phantom crew of straw men who you call "self-appointed intelligentsia," and then you say that art is anything you (and, by logical inference, they) want it to be. You can try to have it both ways, but what you are saying is self-contradictory. If their are no standards other than self-appointed individual standards, your standards are no better or worse than the people that you are lumping together as "intelligentsia." How, then, can you criticize them with any authority? (You can't.) I am not comfortable around power elites, but I don't accept your solipsistic view of artistic life. As far as I am concerned, there are standards in art, and those standards are historical and societal constructs. To speak more directly to your point, I feel that to love beauty and to be intelligent are fully compatible. I find beauty in many works of art that no one defines as belonging to "popular and commercial genres."

[sanking]

Mark,

If their are no standards other than self-appointed individual standards, your standards are no better or worse than the people that you are lumping together as "intelligentsia." How, then, can you criticize them with any authority? (You can't.) I am not comfortable around power elites, but I don't accept your solipsistic view of artistic life. As far as I am concerned, there are standards in art, and those standards are historical and societal constructs. To speak more directly to your point, I feel that to love beauty and to be intelligent are fully compatible. I find beauty in many works of art that no one defines as belonging to "popular and commercial genres."

IMO you make an excellent point. Rational discussions are generally impossible unless the persons involved in the discuussion accept a priori certain standards. If one subscribes to the notion that art is anything you want it to be there is virtually no chance that we can even agree on the rules of the discussion, much less come to any reasonably consensus.

At the highest level, which is generally academia of the major universities in the world, standards are generally accepted for all disciplines, even for art, and discussions, such as they are, are carried out within certain borders delimited by past and present standards.

Sandy King

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark,

You attack a phantom crew of straw men who you call "self-appointed intelligentsia," and then you say that art is anything you (and, by logical inference, they) want it to be. You can try to have it both ways, but what you are saying is self-contradictory. If their are no standards other than self-appointed individual standards, your standards are no better or worse than the people that you are lumping together as "intelligentsia." How, then, can you criticize them with any authority? (You can't.) I am not comfortable around power elites, but I don't accept your solipsistic view of artistic life. As far as I am concerned, there are standards in art, and those standards are historical and societal constructs. To speak more directly to your point, I feel that to love beauty and to be intelligent are fully compatible. I find beauty in many works of art that no one defines as belonging to "popular and commercial genres."

I don't see the contradiction; others have their values and interests, you have yours, and I have mine. We all operate within our own value system, especially in our art. And if our systems butt heads, so be it; all's well and everything is as it should be. No harm done in arguing, and the arguements are fun and thought provoking.

But as to my point, actually, the main point in the essay at hand, there is a dominant, yes, elitist, style that is a deliberately and cynically repugnant refutation of the traditionally beautiful. If I follow or parallel the older path, I'm not sure what "authority" I need to offer my differences. (Maybe if I had an MFA, a Guggenheim, and a major retrospective at Museum of Modern Art I could more authoritatively argue against elitism in art?)

No, there's no conflict in being both beautiful and intelligent. I strive for it, as do quite a few of us. The issue is whether ugliness, in a more than surface sense, is "throwing dirt" on a deeper beauty. And whether this is a current dominant trend in the "elite" fine arts world.

[John Kasaian]

Well guys, my intention was to sit back and see where this one will lead, but I feel the need to post some observations so here it goes:

First, what I found extremely interesting in the article by Roger Scruton was that it touches on my own observation, that "art" is the signature of a culture, and if a culture assigns an importance to beauty, then beauty will be enshrined in that culture's art.
So, uhhh...like what happens when beauty is seen by a culture as a Botox-ed Barbie-esque cliche, or a cruel, obscene, nihilist satire (the "desecration to which Scruton alludes?)

I appreciate all your comments and I have to say that I think Mr. Sawyer does have a very good point, though I would express it differently. The "straw men" which Mr. Alpert denies existence are indeed phantoms, but dangerous phantoms. I also think it is unfair to place the blame entirely on the shoulders of established art institutions as Mr Sawyer alludes. If what is acceptable as "art" is truly the signature of our culture, then the problem cuts a far deeper wound than any group of curators or art professors who've perhaps inhaled too many fumes can inflict. The real (and dangerous) phantoms exist in the acceptance of a culture who embraces a nihilism.
If life has no point, niether can a culture and that culture's "signature" then becomes a tedious squiggle with no real meaning or value. I'll offer that most if not all dissatisfaction with what passes as "art" stems from this problem.

Now I cannot respond to Sun of Sand because quite frankly I don't understand in which stream his consciousness was swimming, but I can respond to the article by Maurice Merleau-Ponty which he kindly linked. It seems to support my thoughts, yet I am troubled that Merleau-Ponty dosen't provide supporting information about the specifics in regards to Zola's commentary on Cezanne (unless of course Merleau-Ponty was "there" and was writing from memory) assuming that Zola's comments can be reliably attributed to Zola then, the most obvious (to me anyway---I could well be in error, please consider that I am not an art expert by any means but rather a curious student) thing is that Zola suffered more greatly than Cezanne.
How so?
Cezanne, Zola tells us, was miserable because of his acceptance of some theories and denial of other theories about producing art. Theories which counterdicted each other, making no sense to Zola.
Is Zola denying that Cezanne was a successful artist? He seems to be in great pain that his friend Cezanne isn't toe-ing the Zola line when it comes to perceptions.
That is what it sounds like to me.
Fortunately Cezanne was Cezanne and not a Zola-oid. If Cezanne did suffer from mental illness, then I think it speaks highly of him that he perservered and was successful (even if in his own mind he felt differently.) It is his gift to the world and to
later generations. Beautiful! Cezanne added his "signature" to a rich and vibrant culture & time. That he used more colors than the dogma of the Impressionst school allowed makes no difference (it only proves that the Impressionists were no less the control freaks that the Classicists and Realists before them or the Modernists and Post-Modernists after them) Great work is always done for something greater than oneself (unless you happen to be Oprah, but let's save that for another time) If OTOH Cezanne painted for Cezanne alone (and not for putting beauty onto canvas) then Cezanne would have been painting for a dying. deranged man. Nihilistic to the max IMHO.

I know there are plenty of arguements you're chomping at the bit to wage, so please do!
At least we are discussing and as long as we are discussing, there is someone somewhere who feels the subject (the "signature" of our culture) is a worthy one.

[Doug Howk]

I’m frequently nostalgic for the 1960s for its dynamism & creative energy; but I suspect much of the current postmodernist, nihilistic zeitgeist sprang from trends of that era. It was a democratizing of creativity and intellectual thought; but, instead of rising to that challenge, we have rather taken the lazy route of glorifying the banal. Artist statements such as capturing the images between the decisive moment really means you weren’t prepared. Showing the ugliness of our culture is alot easier than finding the beauty. We denigrate craft and prefer pursuing new marketing strategies, which is where much of our creative energy has been expended. The new huckster explains why we should appreciate mediocrity, the failed concepts, the briefly shocking. Artists extol their failures as explorations of the new, while those of us who prize craftsmanship as a necessary adjunct to creativity are looked on with bemusement. Just some curmudgeonly thoughts.

[mandoman7]

I don't think the artists that have produced significant work were particularly concerned with trends. Movements will have their influence, and we can unknowingly be a part of a body of thought. But delving into the creative process usually means disassociating yourself from the endless yammering of your peers. You don't come up with new and bold ideas from spending a lot of time hanging with your crew, in spite of what young people think today.

[Michael Alpert]

Rational discussions are generally impossible unless the persons involved in the discuussion accept a priori certain standards. If one subscribes to the notion that art is anything you want it to be there is virtually no chance that we can even agree on the rules of the discussion, much less come to any reasonably consensus.

At the highest level, which is generally academia of the major universities in the world, standards are generally accepted for all disciplines, even for art, and discussions, such as they are, are carried out within certain borders delimited by past and present standards.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Thank you. For the reasons that you articulated, I don't think this thread is a discussion. It's more a situation of strangers (with wildly varying backgrounds) taking turns as they (we) present monologues. Sun of sand's pronouncements seem to come from a genuine need, and I respect them. John Kasaian apparently has never heard of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and doesn't understand his essay. I don't share the anxiety-filled right-wing viewpoint of Roger Scruton's City Journal article, and perhaps I will never understand why it was written. Martin Heidegger said that in order to think you first must decide what is worth thinking about. In his book, What is Called Thinking, Heidegger discussed how one can set standards for thinking. I agree with his prerequisite. For me, this thread has lost its charm. I am pleased that you understood what I meant.

[goamules]

I went back and read the whole article after skimming it. I found it very interesting, especially the parts where the author speaks to the postmodern deconstruction of beauty.

I think to try to define beauty, you must first think about “art.”

What is art? I am unschooled in it; I’m just an outside observer. But isn’t that what art it about, subjective observation and personal emotions? Does a person need coaching, convincing, or commentary to gravitate to the section of a gallery they like?

Creative endeavors (and I’m not calling them all art) are a form of communication, firstly. I would suppose they have evolved from our caveman bunny-on-the wall days of predominately being communications, through periods of romanticism where conveying beauty was the primary goal. For much of human existence creative work was made to be beautiful. Yes, there was also an instructive component in a lot of the beautiful works of the past centuries.

These communications can try to make the observer feel comfortable and good, such as with a beautiful landscape. Or they can try to make the observer feel anxious or shocked, like a WWII propaganda poster. The article offers that our love of beauty is intrinsic, and less subjective. I believe that is partly true, though you can learn to find things beautiful that are not commonly thought to be. Our fears are also somewhat instinctive also. But we can be instructed to fear new things.

I think those artists who honestly want us to find beauty in things that are not always beautiful are commendable. But I think those who work to deconstruct beauty for political, social consciousness, or commercial gains are not artists. That’s my belief, and I did concede this is somewhat subjective.

It seems one can use creative endeavors to communicate:

Beauty – reinforcing intrinsic emotions or beliefs that life is good.
Deconstruction – reshaping intrinsic emotions or beliefs.

Some works that are not beautiful are labeled art, because they communicate a novel idea, the subject or viewpoint is unique, etc. But I would categorize the goals of deconstructive work to be one of the following, besides commercial intents:

Documentary – realistically revealing an instance in time, or a person, etc.
Social Consciousness – awareness of problems.

Are these goals art?

These were my thoughts as I tried to get back to the topic. Basically, for me, art is about beauty, not about social awareness, politics, etc. Just as a forum topic is about the OP, and not about meta cognition or judging.