What is the Philosophy of Art?

[Tuur]

I guess I tend to be technical. Most of my visual art has been drafting and mapping, and occasional cartooning. I need to do a book cover (for myself), and it's hard because I need to convey certain points in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Drafting and mapping is straightforward in the information that must be conveyed. Cartooning depends on the gag and how to present it. But beyond that, it becomes incredibly difficult, at least for me.

From a technical standpoint, church art has historically existed to convey the message of the gospels, and various events in the bible, but, in a cathedral, also to promote a sense of reverence (something we could stand more of in our era). For art for escapism, to convey a certain sense works, too. Most fiction is escapism, to take a reader's mind off his and her own troubles for a short time (Have heard it described as competing for Joe's beer money)

Aesthetics seems like something that intersects art, but something different. Once saw a chert hand ax that the maker had flaked off the edges but left a fossilized shell intact in the center. When I saw it, was struck by the sense of aesthetics that traveled the centuries, maybe even millennia, from the craftsman down to the present time. The person who picked up that piece of chert was likely struck by the beauty and unusual aspect of that shell and sought to preserve it while making a tool. Unfortunately, for aesthetics, I know what I like but not much more than that, which is why something like a book cover is hard for me.

Will have to check out Clive Bell's book Art. That said, I may not be able to grasp it.

 

[Michie]

I guess I tend to be technical. Most of my visual art has been drafting and mapping, and occasional cartooning. I need to do a book cover (for myself), and it's hard because I need to convey certain points in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Drafting and mapping is straightforward in the information that must be conveyed. Cartooning depends on the gag and how to present it. But beyond that, it becomes incredibly difficult, at least for me.

From a technical standpoint, church art has historically existed to convey the message of the gospels, and various events in the bible, but, in a cathedral, also to promote a sense of reverence (something we could stand more of in our era). For art for escapism, to convey a certain sense works, too. Most fiction is escapism, to take a reader's mind off his and her own troubles for a short time (Have heard it described as competing for Joe's beer money)

Aesthetics seems like something that intersects art, but something different. Once saw a chert hand ax that the maker had flaked off the edges but left a fossilized shell intact in the center. When I saw it, was struck by the sense of aesthetics that traveled the centuries, maybe even millennia, from the craftsman down to the present time. The person who picked up that piece of chert was likely struck by the beauty and unusual aspect of that shell and sought to preserve it while making a tool. Unfortunately, for aesthetics, I know what I like but not much more than that, which is why something like a book cover is hard for me.

Will have to check out Clive Bell's book Art. That said, I may not be able to grasp it.

Right. Clive Bell goes into some detail describing personal tastes, etc. it really is a good book on art. I think it may clarify some things for you. You can probably pick it up at your local library.

 

[Michie]

Clive Bell | Aesthetic Theory, Art Criticism, Bloomsbury Group | Britannica

Clive Bell was an English art critic who helped popularize the art of the Post-Impressionists in Great Britain. Bell graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1902 and spent the next several years studying art in Paris and then back in London. In 1907 he married Vanessa Stephen, the sister of

www.britannica.com

 

[Tuur]

Clive Bell | Aesthetic Theory, Art Criticism, Bloomsbury Group | Britannica

Clive Bell was an English art critic who helped popularize the art of the Post-Impressionists in Great Britain. Bell graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1902 and spent the next several years studying art in Paris and then back in London. In 1907 he married Vanessa Stephen, the sister of

www.britannica.com

Thanks. I found a free copy on Amazon (it's now on my Kindle), but since it may lack illustrations (if they are important to the text), I've found a copy on archive.org and attempting to download a PDF.

 

[Tuur]

Um...have just started Bell's Art, and suspected from the introduction that we may be at odds and had the suspicions confirmed in the first pages of the first chapter. Bell doesn't seem to have thought aesthetics could apply to a handsaw, yet this is readily apparent in that thing known as style. From what he wrote about handsaws, I wonder if he would have thought a fossilized shell left on the center of a hand ax displayed aesthetics or if he would have dismissed it out of hand. I suspect Bell wouldn't have thought much of my opinion, just as I suspect he didn't have much experience using handsaws.

Ironically, in Bell's time there was a period of ornate design in the most basic things, from tools to pully wheels. In some cases the ornamentation got in the way of the function. This gets into ergonomics, but be that as it may, it was something that existed during his lifetime.

I'll continue to read the book. It won't be the first time I've read a book I disagreed with, and I'm well aware that Bell was an authority in the field, but his view seems unduly restrictive. And this is from a fellow who knows his artwork is mostly "mechanical," because that's part and parcel of drafting and mapping, and it carried over into a couple of book covers I did. I don't argue in favor of it outside of drafting and mapping; I just know that's a failing of my artwork.

 

[Michie]

Um...have just started Bell's Art, and suspected from the introduction that we may be at odds and had the suspicions confirmed in the first pages of the first chapter. Bell doesn't seem to have thought aesthetics could apply to a handsaw, yet this is readily apparent in that thing known as style. From what he wrote about handsaws, I wonder if he would have thought a fossilized shell left on the center of a hand ax displayed aesthetics or if he would have dismissed it out of hand. I suspect Bell wouldn't have thought much of my opinion, just as I suspect he didn't have much experience using handsaws.

Ironically, in Bell's time there was a period of ornate design in the most basic things, from tools to pully wheels. In some cases the ornamentation got in the way of the function. This gets into ergonomics, but be that as it may, it was something that existed during his lifetime.

I'll continue to read the book. It won't be the first time I've read a book I disagreed with, and I'm well aware that Bell was an authority in the field, but his view seems unduly restrictive. And this is from a fellow who knows his artwork is mostly "mechanical," because that's part and parcel of drafting and mapping, and it carried over into a couple of book covers I did. I don't argue in favor of it outside of drafting and mapping; I just know that's a failing of my artwork.

You have to remember he was a man of the early 20th century and Bell evolved over time. He was a critic but there are a lot of valuable nuggets in that book. As with art, you don’t have to agree with it but there is a lot to be appreciated in it that can set you on your path to finding yourself in the art world. Just give it a chance. This is part of the problem in the art world… we look for answers, definites. That does not happen and if it did, it would not be art. In the art world, disagreements are a given. It’s pretty much its lifeblood. That is why artists that make it big and get such a large following is such a big deal. There are all types and tastes.

 

[Tuur]

The next paragraphs soured me more, but if a few years ago I could read a certain popular book that was a essentially a Norman Vincent Peal retread, I can read this.

When it comes to art, I don't pretend to be even at the neophyte level, much less any sort of expert. I only know what I like, and am open to others liking different art. Sort of like in music in a different scale, but if I dismiss the pentatonic scale, I'll never enjoy Amazing Grace. I guess I have a broad view of art encompassing different things, from architecture to music. If all we did was strictly utilitarian, I'm not sure art would exist, but since humanity choses not to be strictly utilitarian, then even utilitarianism can be a form of art. I don't care for brutalist architecture, but realize that yes, it's a form of architecture, and yes, it appeals to some.

I don't know if there can be a general theory of what makes good art, be it literature or painting or whatever. Note: I'm not 100% sure at this point that this is what Bell is arguing. I do think there can be specialized theories of what makes good art in specific genres, knowing that what applies in one doesn't necessarily apply in the the other. even within the same general type of art.

The only common thread I can make of all this is that art is a form of communication between the artist and the viewer or listener or reader, and maybe even someone appreciating an aroma, or the taste of a meal.

 

[Chesterton]

Art

 

[Chesterton]

is anything

 

[Chesterton]

you can get

 

[Chesterton]

away with.

(Just remembered that quote from Marshall McLuhan. )

 

[Tuur]

Will hold off of further comments here until I finish the book, with the following exception: Being that art is communication, then all forms of art have their own language and grammar. That didn't hit me until yesterday evening, and felt so stupid because it's so obvious. It's what you deal with in designing book covers: there's a definite visual language going on, and is easy to see if you browse book covers by type. That language is in the image, the style of the image, the type of font, and the placement of images and text.

What this also means is there are likely cultures in art just as in any human society, and the art will build upon and refer to that culture. There will be different "languages" in art. This has me thinking that just as there are Romance languages descended from Latin, there are likely languages in art descended from older languages.

Right or wrong, this makes Bell's Art more palatable in that what Bell is likely describing are the aspects of a particular language.

And, in the words of Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." At least for now.

 

[Michie]

When you see or experience an artistic work, what is it that occurs within you that draws your attention? is it visual complexity, or perhaps a hidden meaning or thought, that seems new?

This is a philosophical question, for people who aspire to, or appreciate further learning. Within the Catholic faith, which is what I'm personally familiar with, we tend to accept all facets of life as being within Gods creation, and thus, within Gods 'plan' for humanity. With that in mind, we tend to pursue greater understanding in various, and oftentimes, non-biblical areas.

The Persistence Of Memory by Salvador Dalí 1931
View attachment 345689

120 years ago today, Salvador Dali was born. Known for his striking and bizarre images, he is one of, if not the most famous surrealist painter in history. Inspired by the Renaissance masters, Dali nevertheless gravitated to the surrealist movements in the early 20th century. He would live in France for the duration of the Spanish Civil War, before moving to America and achieving commercial success. SEE a Couple of His Most Famous Works… (1904)

Salvador Dali, in a famous 1941 styled photograph “A Dali Atomicus”

After returning to Spain in 1941, Dali described his style as “nuclear mysticism” containing elements of major scientific discovery, mysticism, and the classics. His most famous work came before this, The Persistence of Memory which depicts soft, melting wristwatches on a seashore, and is generally considered an ode to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

The Persistence of Memory, oil on canvas, and sometimes called “The Watches”.

The Burning Giraffe is another perfect example of Dali’s nuclear mysticism. A tall woman, supported by crutches (a mainstay in Dali’s works,) is covered in drawers, an inspiration from Sigmund Freud’s pioneering theory of psychoanalysis. Dali said that “the only difference between immortal Greece and our era is Sigmund Freud who discovered that the human body, which in Greek times was merely neoplatonical, is now filled with secret drawers only to be opened through psychoanalysis.” Meanwhile the burning giraffe in the background is a “masculine apocalypse monster” and is a recurring motif in his paintings.

Dali’s The Burning Giraffe, oil on panel.
There are two museums devoted solely to Dali, one of which is in St. Petersburg, and the other in the town of his birth of Figueres, Spain.

Good News on This Day in History - May 11

A daily column that features all the good news, anniversaries and notable birthdays from this day in history—May 11.

www.goodnewsnetwork.org

 

[Michie]

Has anyone seen King Charles’ new coronation portrait? Not usually my style but it’s quite stunning. I like the symbolism of the butterfly.

 

[Tuur]

Um...not a philosophy of art question, so I'll answer (haven't finished the book; lots of things happening right now). It took a search to find it. In the age of photography, a portrait doesn't have to be a lifelike painting; I get that. That said, my impression is that the color scheme is...unfortunate. It carries connotations that's unflattering to Charles III. But if he likes the painting, so be it.

 

[Michie]

Um...not a philosophy of art question, so I'll answer (haven't finished the book; lots of things happening right now). It took a search to find it. In the age of photography, a portrait doesn't have to be a lifelike painting; I get that. That said, my impression is that the color scheme is...unfortunate. It carries connotations that's unflattering to Charles III. But if he likes the painting, so be it.

I love it. I think it turned out great.

 

[Tuur]

Well, Charles III seems to like it, too. The moment I saw it, a famous UK invective that's not considered a swear word in the US but is there (and maybe in Australia, too), came to mind. It had me wonder why the artist is saying that. What did Charles III possibly do? The death of Princess Diana was the fault of the driver and paparazzi, not him. Simply a negative commentary on Charles III and the British Royal Family? Taking it another way, the sunset of the British Monarchy? Really wonder if the artist is making a veiled unflattering commentary here.

 

[Michie]

Agsin

Well, Charles III seems to like it, too. The moment I saw it, a famous UK invective that's not considered a swear word in the US but is there (and maybe in Australia, too), came to mind. It had me wonder why the artist is saying that. What did Charles III possibly do? The death of Princess Diana was the fault of the driver and paparazzi, not him. Simply a negative commentary on Charles III and the British Royal Family? Taking it another way, the sunset of the British Monarchy? Really wonder if the artist is making a veiled unflattering commentary here.

Again, this is another case of art telling you more about where you are at right now. I liked it. It’s very dramatic and the butterfly representing Charles metamorphosis from Prince to King was a nice touch. The artist, Jonathan Yeo, has done other portraits of those within the family. There was nothing negative about it. It’s a matter of taste.

The artist could have used a royal blue but it would not of had the same impact. Anyway, I just wondered if anyone saw it. It’s quite eye catching and different than the usual staid portraits usually presented.

 

[Michie]

Jonathan Yeo — Page_HM_King_Charles_III

www.jonathanyeo.com

Jonathan Yeo — Home Page

www.jonathanyeo.com

 

[Chesterton]

Agsin


Again, this is another case of art telling you more about where you are at right now. I liked it. It’s very dramatic and the butterfly representing Charles metamorphosis from Prince to King was a nice touch. The artist, Jonathan Yeo, has done other portraits of those within the family. There was nothing negative about it. It’s a matter of taste.

The artist could have used a royal blue but it would not of had the same impact. Anyway, I just wondered if anyone saw it. It’s quite eye catching and different than the usual staid portraits usually presented.

Oh Michie. How can you possibly like this? A painter who made a portrait of a monarch like this a few hundred years ago would have had his lopped off.

It's obviously a condemnation of Western civilization. He's holding a sword. The man is awash in blood, and is himself made of the same blood. This is exactly what certain types claim - that Western civilization is made of the blood of others. And I haven't seen a photo of Charles recently, but his face and hands make him look dead. I've attended open casket funerals where the corpse looked better than Charles does here.

The butterfly approaching him obviously represents the change which is coming.