Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
What is the Philosophy of Art?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ophiolite" data-source="post: 77638977" data-attributes="member: 234799"><p>Not everyone. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>And that thought might bring us full circle back to the implicit question in the OP, what is art for?</p><p></p><p>And, Michie may have nailed it with the above observation. </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ophiolite, post: 77638977, member: 234799"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
What is the Philosophy of Art?
Top
Bottom