What is the Philosophy of Art?

[AlexB23]

It's not enough to call something demonic. We have to be able to pinpoint what makes it so. That's how you give them something to go on beyond opinions. You have to decode it and line it up with scripture. God has raised up men and women and given them the ability to do that and enlighten us. I learn a lot from them.

~bella

Yeah, I installed a free and private artificial intelligence (Mistral Instruct 7B) on my laptop, and it is great at analyzing scripture, though it makes my laptop run hot. It quoted verses that explained why tarot is demonic. It reference Deuteronomy 18:9-12, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 and Colossians 3:5. By the way, the AI is made by a French company*.

*The Frenchies make the best stuff: Pastries, baguettes, Airbus aircraft, Mistral 7B AI, the Notre Dame cathedral, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, I installed a free and private artificial intelligence (Mistral Instruct 7B) on my laptop, and it is great at analyzing scripture, though it makes my laptop run hot. It quoted verses that explained why tarot is demonic. It reference Deuteronomy 18:9-12, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 and Colossians 3:5. By the way, the AI is made by a French company*.

*The Frenchies make the best stuff: Pastries, baguettes, Airbus aircraft, Mistral 7B AI, the Notre Dame cathedral, etc.

Notre Dame is not the best cathedral. That would be Chartres.

 

[bèlla]

Yeah, I installed a free and private artificial intelligence (Mistral Instruct 7B) on my laptop, and it is great at analyzing scripture, though it makes my laptop run hot. It quoted verses that explained why tarot is demonic. It reference Deuteronomy 18:9-12, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 and Colossians 3:5. By the way, the AI is made by a French company*.

*The Frenchies make the best stuff: Pastries, baguettes, Airbus aircraft, Mistral 7B AI, the Notre Dame cathedral, etc.

I don't use A.I. I have my reasons.

I concur on the French and include food, fashion and chateaus to the list and a handful of artists.

~bella

 

[Michie]

The documentary by and about the street artist Banksy is a decent exploration of the difference between schlock art and expressive art.

Exit Through the Gift Shop

I thought it would win Best Documentary but it didn’t. I really enjoyed it.

 

[Michie]

Notre Dame is not the best cathedral. That would be Chartres.

It’s all subjective.

 

[AlexB23]

Notre Dame is not the best cathedral. That would be Chartres.

Well hey, both are French.

 

[Ophiolite]

here's a lot of occult symbolism in Dali's work and he's the mastermind behind the infamous Rothschild ball everyone's heard of.

Not everyone.

Art is a beautiful medium for expression but it's important to understand what we're looking at.

I am not convinced that is true. I am reminded of a passage I read somewhere (if only I wrote these things down at the time!) In it a book reviewer was responding to comments an author had made about the reviewers own review of the authors book. (There must have been a less clumsy way of phrasing that.) In essence the reviewer said "What makes you think you understand this work? You are only the author."
That resonates with me, suggesting that what we take out of a work of art can be independent of the authors intentions, that we may be able to see within the work nuances and novel optics that were either unintended, or unknown to the consciousness of its creator.
I am not asserting that we should not invest effort "to understand what we are looking at", I am simply suggesting that it may not always be necessary, or even desirable.
And that thought might bring us full circle back to the implicit question in the OP, what is art for?

It’s all subjective.

And, Michie may have nailed it with the above observation.
Incidentally, Michie I asked ChatGpt which was considered to be the greater cathedral between Notre Dame and Chartres, and it did a stunningly good job of praising both, then agreeing with you.

 

[Michie]

Not everyone.

I am not convinced that is true. I am reminded of a passage I read somewhere (if only I wrote these things down at the time!) In it a book reviewer was responding to comments an author had made about the reviewers own review of the authors book. (There must have been a less clumsy way of phrasing that.) In essence the reviewer said "What makes you think you understand this work? You are only the author."
That resonates with me, suggesting that what we take out of a work of art can be independent of the authors intentions, that we may be able to see within the work nuances and novel optics that were either unintended, or unknown to the consciousness of its creator.
I am not asserting that we should not invest effort "to understand what we are looking at", I am simply suggesting that it may not always be necessary, or even desirable.
And that thought might bring us full circle back to the implicit question in the OP, what is art for?

And, Michie may have nailed it with the above observation.
Incidentally, Michie I asked ChatGpt which was considered to be the greater cathedral between Notre Dame and Chartres, and it did a stunningly good job of praising both, then agreeing with you.

Wow! Must be a blue moon.

Seriously though, when I was dealing in and studying art, that is one of the very first things you learn. Even the interpretations of art piece can change depending on who is viewing it. That is the nature of art.

 

[bèlla]

Not everyone.

I am not convinced that is true. That resonates with me,

That's why He's God and I'm not. I have no qualms of extending judgment where He wouldn't. He's profoundly more loving than I am. Luckily for you I'm on the right side.

You aren't prepared to suffer for your beliefs. You like typing them...

~bella

 

[Chesterton]

"What makes you think you understand this work? You are only the author."

I'll tell you something weird. I watched a DVD of The Godfather with director's commentary. The film came to a certain short scene near the end which I always thought was brilliant. It encapsulates, summarizes and explains what the whole story is about. It's when I realized how deeply profound the film is. And you know what the director Coppola said when it got to that scene? He said it was worthless and meaningless. He said he was going to cut it out of the film but an assistant talked him into leaving it in. My jaw dropped! I can't imagine how he doesn't see what I see in it.

I am not asserting that we should not invest effort "to understand what we are looking at", I am simply suggesting that it may not always be necessary, or even desirable.

I agree. I always liked the painting Christina's World, but didn't know what it was about. Then one day I looked it up and found out. I wished I hadn't. I still like it, but I enjoyed the painting more when it was kind of mysterious.

 

[Michie]

I'll tell you something weird. I watched a DVD of The Godfather with director's commentary. The film came to a certain short scene near the end which I always thought was brilliant. It encapsulates, summarizes and explains what the whole story is about. It's when I realized how deeply profound the film is. And you know what the director Coppola said when it got to that scene? He said it was worthless and meaningless. He said he was going to cut it out of the film but an assistant talked him into leaving it in. My jaw dropped! I can't imagine how he doesn't see what I see in it.

I agree. I always liked the painting Christina's World, but didn't know what it was about. Then one day I looked it up and found out. I wished I hadn't. I still like it, but I enjoyed the painting more when it was kind of mysterious.

View attachment 345870

That’s what is so fascinating about art. The author’s inspiration can be interpreted differently by the viewer every time someone gazes upon it. It takes people to different places.

 

[Ophiolite]

Seriously though, when I was dealing in and studying art, that is one of the very first things you learn. Even the interpretations of art piece can change depending on who is viewing it. That is the nature of art.

Yes, we see things through the eyes of our time and our environment. One of the attractions of science for me is that it objective and permits absolute, within limits, measurements and determinations. One of the attractions of art, on the other hand, is that it doesn't. I suspect that art and religion fire the same neurons in our brains. But we should remember that to create great art requires both a form of spiritual inspiration as well as a mastery of technique and materials. Michaelangelo is said to have stared long and hard at the marble from which he would fashion his David. He knew that piece of marble before he laid any chisel to it.

If this isn't too personal, did you find that the commercial aspects of dealing in art, assigning monetary value, impacted in anyway on your appreciation of the piece, for good or bad?

 

[Michie]

Yes, we see things through the eyes of our time and our environment. One of the attractions of science for me is that it objective and permits absolute, within limits, measurements and determinations. One of the attractions of art, on the other hand, is that it doesn't. I suspect that art and religion fire the same neurons in our brains. But we should remember that to create great art requires both a form of spiritual inspiration as well as a mastery of technique and materials. Michaelangelo is said to have stared long and hard at the marble from which he would fashion his David. He knew that piece of marble before he laid any chisel to it.

If this isn't too personal, did you find that the commercial aspects of dealing in art, assigning monetary value, impacted in anyway on your appreciation of the piece, for good or bad?

Well I dealt with it through a local gallery and the secondhand market, estates and such. It takes a lot of research and finding the right market. It’s not something I want to deal with again as far as handling the pieces. It can make one quite jaded. It can be a highly pretentious business in both the artists, or owners end as well as those in the market for art. Let’s just say it’s a quick study in human behavior. I could love a piece and then have to deal with the process of moving it and would not care if I ever saw the piece again. So yes, dealing with not only the commercial aspect of it can be tiresome but the way some behave in the market can make it the worst thing to deal with. I do art myself on occasion but really try to stay out of the usual trappings of human behavior that go along with the art world.

 

[Ophiolite]

I always liked the painting Christina's World, but didn't know what it was about. Then one day I looked it up and found out. I wished I hadn't. I still like it, but I enjoyed the painting more when it was kind of mysterious.

I understand. It's an interesting painting. It asks questions. Who is the young woman? What is she doing there? What is her connection with the house? Is the house a farmhouse, a country retreat? You regretted learning the back story. I'll make a point of not seeking to find any answers, others than those produced by my subconscious, and . . . Who was the painter? I'm guessing American, 1920s, or thereabouts.

That's why He's God and I'm not. I have no qualms of extending judgment where He wouldn't. He's profoundly more loving than I am. Luckily for you I'm on the right side.

You aren't prepared to suffer for your beliefs. You like typing them...

~bella

I am puzzled by your response, which does not seem to relate to what I posted.

Certainly you have no way of knowing whether I have, or have not, or to what extent, "suffered for my beliefs". So your statement is presumptuous and seems condemnatory; perhaps I have misunderstood, in which case I would welcome clarification.

As to liking to type my beliefs, I think the function of a Discussion and Debate forum is exactly that - to share ones thoughts and speculations, ideas and experiences, so I don't undersand why you are implicitly criticising me for doing so. If I have said something that offends I'd like to know what that is so that, if appropriate, I may apologise.

 

[bèlla]

As to liking to type my beliefs, I think the function of a Discussion and Debate forum is exactly that - to share ones thoughts and speculations, ideas and experiences, so I don't undersand why you are implicitly criticising me for doing so. If I have said something that offends I'd like to know what that is so that, if appropriate, I may apologise.

I'm not criticizing you. I'm reminding you where you are. This isn't Facebook. It's a discussion and debate thread on a Christian site. I'm not debating the validity of discovering occult symbolism with someone who doesn't believe in God. It's ridiculous. The comment is apropos for an art discussion in a Christian setting.

You feel otherwise. That's fine. But this isn't an art forum. It's a Christian one. God's inclusion requires no explanation or defense. It goes with the territory.

~bella

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not criticizing you. I'm reminding you where you are. This isn't Facebook. It's a discussion and debate thread on a Christian site. I'm not debating the validity of discovering occult symbolism with someone who doesn't believe in God. It's ridiculous. The comment is apropos for an art discussion in a Christian setting.

You feel otherwise. That's fine. But this isn't an art forum. It's a Christian one. God's inclusion requires no explanation or defense. It goes with the territory.

~bella

Yes, this is a Christian forum, one that the administrators have opened portions of to non-believers. I am sure they were fully aware when they did so that this would involve the introduction of secular ideas to the discussions. These could be avoided by avoiding such sections of the forum.

I have no interest in occult symbolism. I was not discussing it. I was offering a counterpoint to your view that art could only be understood by understanding the intent of the artists. I was not asserting that was the case, rather that it was an alternative viewpoint, aomething that seemed to strike a chord with other members. I have not questioned your inclusion of God in the discussion, so you are right - that inclusion needs no defense, since I have not attacked it.

I regret that my engagement in the thread has offended you. I'll seek not to inflict myself or my ungodly views on you in future.

 

[Michie]

Yes, this is a Christian forum, one that the administrators have opened portions of to non-believers. I am sure they were fully aware when they did so that this would involve the introduction of secular ideas to the discussions. These could be avoided by avoiding such sections of the forum.

I have no interest in occult symbolism. I was not discussing it. I was offering a counterpoint to your view that art could only be understood by understanding the intent of the artists. I was not asserting that was the case, rather that it was an alternative viewpoint, aomething that seemed to strike a chord with other members. I have not questioned your inclusion of God in the discussion, so you are right - that inclusion needs no defense, since I have not attacked it.

I regret that my engagement in the thread has offended you. I'll seek not to inflict myself or my ungodly views on you in future.

Read up on Salvatore Dalí. The man was eccentric to say the least but he was a surrealist who played up his persona. He was more Freudian than anything in his depictions and designs. You can decide for yourself. Hint: no.

 

[Michie]

About 17 minutes.

 

[durangodawood]

......
Incidentally, Michie I asked ChatGpt which was considered to be the greater cathedral between Notre Dame and Chartres, and it did a stunningly good job of praising both, then agreeing with you.

Id rather hear which cathedral it prefers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree. I always liked the painting Christina's World, but didn't know what it was about. Then one day I looked it up and found out. I wished I hadn't. I still like it, but I enjoyed the painting more when it was kind of mysterious.

I found the story behind the painting touching and poignant. When you said you wish you hadn't known, I thought it was another artist obsessed with a 14-year-old girl. (It was not.)