The Nature of Art
From time to time, I've wondered what art is, what an artist is, what the Philosophy of Art or Aesthetics is, for that matter. I'm a novice when it comes to these questions, but I very nearly derailed a thread by bringing this subject up, tangentially at best, and was duly challenged by others I hope will participate in this one.
Someone claimed philosophy is art. Being a mischievous sort, I suggested this did a disservice to art. Philosophers aren't artists, and when they try to be, they fail, miserably I think.
Believe it or not, I've complained in the past regarding the Philosophy of Law. I've wondered what it is, and what business it is of philosophers to attempt to explain the nature and purpose of the vast ocean of laws and the associated rituals employed in their application; an ocean in which I've sailed for too many years. I don't know the answers to those questions, but I've thought that the practice of law is something that should figure in their consideration.
Maybe that's as good a place as any at which to begin. Should what artists do in creating a work of art figure in what considering what art is, or what a work of art is, or what an artist is?
Law and art are different things, though. Lawyers qua lawyers don't create the law, though they may assist in the creation of laws. They're instruments or functionaries of the law; they're part of the system that is the law, they figure in its application and operation. Artist create works of art. We don't speak of art as a system. Artists don't "apply" art. They make it.
One would think that artists, who make art, should know at least how to make it. Is that what Philosophy of Art is about, though? Does it address how to make it? I'm not sure, but don't think so. Does it critique art? Is it intended to explore the relationship between art and those who experience it?
"Art" seems a very vague concept; is it in the eye of the beholder, like beauty is said to be? We could define "fine art" with some accuracy, I think, but that would seem to easy a task for an entire branch of philosophy to be devoted to it.
Let's try applying the pragmatic maxim. A short version of it suggests we consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings we conceive art in this case to have. Our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of "art."
The "practical effects" art has must be its effects on us, or what takes place when we interact with a work of art--the result of what we see, hear, read etc. when experiencing it. So, art evokes feelings; it doesn't explain or analyze existence, or reality, or knowledge, or indeed anything and isn't intended to do so. As part of its evocation, it may lead to insights about ourselves or the rest of the world, but that isn't its purpose. It's not philosophy, in other words.
If that's the case, though, what is the Philosophy of Art?
Someone claimed philosophy is art. Being a mischievous sort, I suggested this did a disservice to art. Philosophers aren't artists, and when they try to be, they fail, miserably I think.
Believe it or not, I've complained in the past regarding the Philosophy of Law. I've wondered what it is, and what business it is of philosophers to attempt to explain the nature and purpose of the vast ocean of laws and the associated rituals employed in their application; an ocean in which I've sailed for too many years. I don't know the answers to those questions, but I've thought that the practice of law is something that should figure in their consideration.
Maybe that's as good a place as any at which to begin. Should what artists do in creating a work of art figure in what considering what art is, or what a work of art is, or what an artist is?
Law and art are different things, though. Lawyers qua lawyers don't create the law, though they may assist in the creation of laws. They're instruments or functionaries of the law; they're part of the system that is the law, they figure in its application and operation. Artist create works of art. We don't speak of art as a system. Artists don't "apply" art. They make it.
One would think that artists, who make art, should know at least how to make it. Is that what Philosophy of Art is about, though? Does it address how to make it? I'm not sure, but don't think so. Does it critique art? Is it intended to explore the relationship between art and those who experience it?
"Art" seems a very vague concept; is it in the eye of the beholder, like beauty is said to be? We could define "fine art" with some accuracy, I think, but that would seem to easy a task for an entire branch of philosophy to be devoted to it.
Let's try applying the pragmatic maxim. A short version of it suggests we consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings we conceive art in this case to have. Our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of "art."
The "practical effects" art has must be its effects on us, or what takes place when we interact with a work of art--the result of what we see, hear, read etc. when experiencing it. So, art evokes feelings; it doesn't explain or analyze existence, or reality, or knowledge, or indeed anything and isn't intended to do so. As part of its evocation, it may lead to insights about ourselves or the rest of the world, but that isn't its purpose. It's not philosophy, in other words.
If that's the case, though, what is the Philosophy of Art?
Comments (89)
Philosophy might be "an art" insofar as it creates (i.e. imagines), as Janus says, "novels ways of" clarifying, interpreting, reformulating, evaluating and problematizing givens (which are either conceptual, perceptual or practical); if so, then the Philosophy of Art in "novel ways" ... problematizes as givens: artworks, making art, evaluating art and aesthetic responses to both artifacts & nature. For me, their respective aims differ, however: most distinctively, Philosophy attempts to clarify life's limits via 'thought-experiments' (aporia) of distinctions, connections, hierarchies ... whereas Art attempts to [i]mystify intensify 'feeling alive' via 'representative examples' (idealizations) of craft, performance or participation.
Really e.g. ... Plato?
Lucretius?
Montaigne?
F. Schiller?
RW Emerson?
F. Nietzsche?
G. Marcel?
JP Sartre?
S. DeBeauvoir?
A. Camus?
I. Murdoch?
A. Danto?
... all failed artists? :sweat:
Quoting Janus
:up: :up:
:up: I think we agree that philosophy can be thought as an art, but that it has its own unique concerns, its content being generally more intellective than affective, while its form may be aesthetically pleasing or not.
Well, we know what Plato thought of artists, and poets in particular. I think he does more to demonstrate the distinction between art and philosophy than I ever could, banishing artiists from his grim Republic. Lucretius was a poet who expressed philosophical thoughts of Epicurus in his poetry. I think it's far easier for an artist to do that than it is for a philosopher to create a work of art.
A philosopher may write a novel, or a poem, or paint a picture or compose music, but I suspect that philosopher would distinguish between them and works devoted to philosophy.
As you say, there's a difference between art and philosophy. Art need not address philosophical subjects, and if it does it's not expository; it doesn't explain. It evokes in a way that isn't prosaic, through music, sculpture, painting, and language which inspires and elicits feelings and emotions.
I think Plato counts as art, though, given its dialogic form. That's exactly what makes it timeless -- it can be seen from many angles.
Art is not definable, because it's creative
Even so -- there is at least a possibility, to my mind, that philosophy can be art, and vice-versa.
Camus and Sartre seem like good examples here.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/344963
Also a post from a 2023 thread Was Socrates a martyr? concerning how literary texts differ from philosophical texts ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772708 (includes a link to a video interview of philosopher & novelist Iris Murdoch)
I don't think this is a mischievous view, more of a conventional one. I suspect most people would be in agreement with you that philosophers are not artists.
And I would agree that it's not useful to reclassify philosophers as artists. What I was saying was that there is an artistic sensibility, an artistic creative power behind some philosophical visions/works. And that (perhaps) the act of philosophy can also be considered an artistic one, as per Janus below -
Quoting Janus
I think this largely captures it. I think many professions have their artists and visionaries - exponents with prodigious levels of skill, innovation, creativity. You don't have to be an artist to have an artistic imagination or produce works of great literary and artistic significance. As per our earlier discussion about President Grant's memoirs.
I think there are some philosophers who are also superb prose stylists and writers of significant literary merit. Since literature is an art form, I have no hesitation is describing Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, as great literary artists, as well as prominent exponents of philosophy. Whether one agrees with them, or appreciates their works is irrelevant to this matter.
Some works of art inspire or provoke discussion on what is art. Since the early 1900s, artists have been exhibiting ready-made, or abstract, or ugly, or revolting objects in fine art galleries.
Being exposed to such works can evoke experiences that vacillate between the ugly and the beautiful or sublime. They can also show differences between the value of an object that you appreciate for its own sake and its significance in a social context, e.g. its market price.
For example, in 2008 a bottle of urine with a crucifix was sold for 277.000 USD. Who appreciates it for its own sake?
Other works of art are less preoccupied with the question of what is art or social construction. Instead the works show signs of skill, craftsmanship, intelligence, beauty, or unusual properties that catch our interest. A more traditional notion of art, I suppose.
Difficult questions, I admit. And very annoying, the more I think of them. Are they the kind of questions Wittgenstein spoke of, regarding which we must, or should, be silent?
Maybe art is something which must be shown, or more broadly experienced, or felt.
Thanks. Must read.
I hate being conventional. But I see what you mean.
Say art is an act, for the sake of argument. Something done remarkably well. Great athletes do things most cannot do. It's not something that can be explained except in a trivial sense; but they posses an ability or talent at which we marvel.
Is there such a thing as the Philosophy of Sport? Should there be?
A more traditional view, perhaps, but suggestive. Maybe Philosophy of Art is an inquiry into why and how what is shown or is done by artists effects us as it does.
"More affective than effective." Well put.
Philosophy of art studies the nature of art and how individual art pieces are evaluated and experienced.
Aesthetics is the study of beauty and taste, though ill-defined.
So, at a superficial level, aesthetics and phil of art overlap when phil of art is investigating artificial objects that are beautiful (though not necessarily express feelings) in what makes it art and how it is evaluated, and aesthetics will investigate what makes it beautiful. But being that the definition of art here is an artificial object that is beautiful, what makes it beautiful is what makes it art, so phil of art and aesthetics would be, in this scenario, doing the same thing.
Similarly, many scientists and supporters of science take a dim view of the philosophy of science.
Many religious people take a dim view of the philosophy of religion.
Etc.
A "philosophy _of_" something is a meta-analysis thereof. Obviously, there can be many meta-analyses of something, as there are many perspectives from which to look at something.
On the contrary, it often does precisely that, and in a manner so concise that philosophy can't.
Historically there's been a lot of speculation on the psychology of the aesthetic experience. For example the art historian Heinrich Wölfflin used ideas about empathy as a theoretical ground for describing aesthetic experiences. One of those ideas was the philosopher Theodor Lipps' theory of empathy, Einfuhlung.
Empathy is the ability to use knowledge of one's own experiences in order to understand the experiences of others, and Lipps' theory was that you project your own experiences onto any object of perception, including shapes and colours. Hence a bulging shape is heavy in some sense, a concave shape slender, a yellow colour inviting, a red colour intense and so on. Wölfflin describes Venus in Botticelli's famous painting as if rays of energy literally flow through her fingers.
From his evocative descriptions and psychological speculations followed an aesthetic individualism. There were also counter-movements that emphasized universality, such as De Stijl in art, and the international style in architecture. But the psychological speculations about the meanings of shapes and colours are still used in contemporary art, design, and architecture.
Quoting Janus
At this point, for me the most sublime experiences Ive had of art feel like fleeting glimpses into the nature of reality that a lifetime of philosophical study might never achieve (but maybe it can for some). Of course, philosophy is generally seeking more like the whole picture, rather than a glimpse.
Of course, a lot if not most art doesnt provide a window for this glimpse, or doesnt attempt to. I would provisionally delineate art into exoteric (non-glimpse-into etc) and esoteric (glimpse). Of course the word esoteric has a lot of baggage, but I think its an appropriate differentiation to make here.
So as to the nature of art, its root, its esoteric experiential purpose if you will (experiential because mankind has been making art for as long as we know, and the process of making it, interpreting it, and philosophizing about it is a historically experiential process) is to reach out and try to grasp the nature of reality. Exoteric permutations are not concerned with their root or its purpose, which, by the way, is fine with me.
This is just my current thought process du jour on the nature of art.
Addendum: to expand on the experiential aspect of art I mentioned, Im really just referring to what I think is the experiential nature of all human experience (ha). By default I was going to say arts esoteric purpose, but that sounds as if I think I have special knowledge into an esoteric topic, which is not my point. To me all philosophy is experiential; humans questioning and seeking throughout history. The exoteric/esoteric distintion makes sense to me in this context because esoteric here doesnt mean something mystical or secret. Inevitably in the experiential search for the nature of reality, the distinction between what is found in every day experience, whether that be through logical deduction, science, or social constructs, etc, is distinct from that something that is found (glimpsed) behind the everyday. Anyway, I think great art is one way we experience this.
Maybe you're asking the wrong guy. I don't watch or participate in any form of sport. And I'm not sure about the merit of philosophy more generally.
But more broadly, I'm fairly sure you can have a philosophy of anything. Does sport seek to convey ideas the way art does? Is technique and skill at games the same as technique and skill in literature, poetry, painting?
No doubt one can build a philosophy around what sport represents, the hierarchies and conservatism intrinsic to participation, rules and codification, etc.
I don't think silence is needed, I just think it's a hard question to answer. I've read a little bit of aesthetics before, but didn't decide much. I'm pretty sure art cannot be defined, but I still think there's room for a philosophy of art.
Another way to think about what art is is its place within an institution. Objects become art through the artworld participating and dubbing them so. Then philosophy of art would be that branch dealing with how we conceptualize art and classify it, but only after art has been dubbed by the artworld for consideration (while recognizing that one of the roles within the artworld, that of artist, is to bring in new works of art)
Now I'm inclined to think of this institutional theory of art as in opposition to theories of art which rely upon defining art by our feelings, at least, but I can't say I'm certain you do -- you're attempting to apply the pragmatic principle in defining art, and then offering "feelings" as a possible effect, but would still include institutional acts and effects?
Damnation. Sorry. Well, this way I can claim it as my own.
It would seem to be an effect, in that it would be a reaction to art, or the result of our reaction to it.
I think what you describe is what I'd assert is the difference between art and philosophy. Art, or at least great art, evokes, sometimes only in a fleeting way; it doesn't explain. Our reaction to it isn't thoughtful, or careful.
So neither is the study of how art is made, or what prompts some of us to make it?
Cool, then I don't have a ready-made response in that case. :D Your first attempt looks plastic enough that I could make it work somehow.
It's tough to get a grapple on the differences between art and philosophy because both are so large that a comparison/contrast is difficult, and there are some crossovers we can point to, but I think I'm still inclined to say there's a difference.
It depends on what is meant by "how is made". If by that, the techniques used are meant, what studies that is exactly the practice of the respective art, plastic art, scenic art, visual art, architecture, etc. If how human action produces something artistic is meant, I see little difference between that question and what makes something art conjoined with the matter of techniques expounded on above, therefore leaving it to philosophy of art.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Psychology of art?
Quoting Ciceronianus
Found and browsed How to Make Our Ideas Clear -- there's a lot there so I've only skimmed at this point.
We agree that art and philosophy are not the same.
I think I'd push against the notion that art shows and philosophy says, though -- I think both the artist and the philosopher show themselves in their activity, whatever that happens to be.
(EDIT: To be clear -- the say/show distinction was the first distinction I thought of as a possible difference and then decided against it for various examples I thought of)
It serms to turn art into PR (networking, making headlines, influencing people) and the art becomes whatever serves those interests.
I prefer Nelson Goodman's suggestion that instead of defining what is art we look at when something is art.
For instance, I'd say that a person sharing a personal poem at a local poetry reading that won't go anywhere is art.
So that's why I disagree it's an HR theory -- depends on what we mean by "institution" I think, though I'll give preference to institutions for paradigmatic examples, which are also important -- just not categorical.
Re-reading this, I'm not so sure we're off there -- the debate gets shifted to "which institutions?", in a way, although I'm clear at this point, I think, that I'm open to many institutions (some of which I'd classify as "paradigmatic")
I like your description of many momentary art worlds, but even with many momentary, small, local, private worlds an institutional definition of art is not concerned with art per se but its context, what surrounds it, who's who and so on That's why I think the definition turns art into PR.
I don't think it's Public Relations, though, because it's more like Peer Review -- at least as I imagine it, though of course you can't be held to the standards of my unexpressed imagination. While I know there are counter-examples to this categorical definition of art, I think the notion that there is a creator-audience manages to capture a lot of the examples we'd consider up front.
I think the "institutional" theory serves more as a demarcation of examples than a description -- but I'm trying to extend it from the usual notion of "institutions" to something a bit more anarchic, but still reasonable. (at least I hope)
I know mathematicians who react the way I do to Allegri's choral pieces when they see/understand a 'beautiful' proof. I've known architects who see, literally, a specific angle and jizz themselves. I've seen astronomers see a new piece of equipment and be beside themselves. They all seem to be reacting to the 'closing in on perfect' - these are unique examples in disparate fields, but its only meant to support my opener.
Attainment of some 'perfection' seems to be the aim of art, even if it's out of reach, or isn't explicit. The perfect expression of something(being entirely subjective, it's hard to know exactly how to frame this - but it seems clearly the intention from all cases I've ever surveyed).
Other domains don't seem to include this particular aim. 'perfection' in other areas seems to relegate emotion to irrelevancy. Art seems to hold fast to emotional responses as if they are paramount to the success of the work/piece.
And just for the record, if you take an institutional theory of Art seriously, I have to seriously question your framing of almost every item you interact with.
Right, art doesnt want to explain anything. What Im suggesting is it can sometimes be like an immediate immanent experience of the reality that philosophy seeks. Similar to someone having a spiritual breakthrough via a psychedelic experience that a meditation practitioner may spend their entire lives practicing to achieve.
Seems reasonable. What is also a bit anarchic and extends beyond institutions is Goodman's suggestion that art and science and philosophy are similar inquiries.
Well, he's stumped me now and then. But while I've always thought him to be a outstanding art (and cultural) critic, I haven't considered him an artist. Even his Zarathustra seems to me more like one of the Old Testament books named after prophets, which I don't associate with art. But I'm obviously struggling with the definition of art.
But philosophers do, or do nothing at all, I think. My feeling is that when someone tries to explain an experience of the kind you describe, they necessarily fail. A work of art, though, may impart it but not in a rational way.
I agree. The only differentiation Im making is that I think the experience Im describing in art is primary in the sense that its foundational metaphysically. So rather than inferior to or equal to the logical thought which philosophy uses to try to grasp it, it rather precedes it.
It is a good one and it is yours by default.
This often happens. But equally, in the style of Radiohead, intense scrutiny and slow, slogging technical adjustment results in similar feelings of achievement toward the end product.
Unsure what the implication for you might be, but I'm just saying that the method you outline seems to be one of, at least two, and possibly many.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, both are valid approaches and I think most artists probably engage in both to varying percentages. It's seems like a trite quote, but I've always loved this which is attributed to Picasso: "Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working." So, those flow states don't require discipline, and you can certainly find yourself in one and make something. But if you are disciplined in showing up to the drawing board, the flow states will come more often and you'll be more productive. Says the artist who hasn't shown up daily to do the work in years.
I also think as I get older, I'm developing more respect for the slow methodical artists. I was never one myself, and the flow state, dramatic artists who have that flair are always more visible and attractive. I like the Debussy/Ravel dichotomy. Both pretty equally respected now, although I think Debussy is more well known, and he was the flashy flow state guy. He's easy to fall in love with right off the bat, but Ravel takes time to appreciate, and Ravel was the method man. As I get older I've shifted from preferring Debussy to now preferring Ravel. I liken it to a hot and heavy summer fling versus realizing twenty years later that you love your best friend from growing up and then get married to them.
I found Ravel a lot more interesting when I was a kid. Debussy struck me as bland and equivocal. My favoured music as a kid - say 20 years old - were Wagner, Mahler, Shostakovich, R Strauss and Ravel. I disliked Chopin, Bach, Debussy, Mozart. Of course, now I often prefer this latter music and I think there is something about ageing which sets aside the 'heavy metal' classics in favour of more nuanced and sometimes mathematical composers. But everyone's different. I never listened to pop or rock - i found them impossible to relate to.
@Noble Dust
Also super interesting you dont relate to rock. Bob Dylan going electric feels the same as Beethovens choral or Paganini breaking strings. Absolutely singular and awe inspiring.
After the age of 40 I started to enjoy small amounts of the Rolling Stones (earlier stuff) still dislike the Beatles. Enjoy later Leonard Cohen and some Bob Dylan. Tom Waits I have time for too. I also have had a soft spot for proper blues - John Lee Hooker, Little Walter, Muddy Waters. But I listen to very little music these days.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
With classical in general I'm more focused on solo piano music, which a sizable portion of Ravel's small ouvre is made up of, so I'll recommend a few. @Tom Storm did you ever get into Ravel's solo piano stuff? It's his best work to me, although he was also known as a master orchestrator. His piano music sounds effortlessly pianistic, but is impossible and awkward to play. A sign that he's the master.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIBOwg8NGmA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnTmtjO6IKI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvVSEoyoj9Q
Well I have, but as a lawyer. There have been cases where this has generated legal briefs and arguments which I think would quality as legal works of art, if my natural modesty didn't prevent me from saying so. That may be the method of an artist, but I would say it doesn't result in art, because the law isn't art and can never be art. In that the law's like philosophy.
I don't think I understand what you mean by "foundational metaphysically." Do you mean that it involves the subject matter of metaphysics?
Funny how you are attacking me instead of the argument. That itself is a fallacy . You could refer I M Copi and Cohens introduction to logic for more details.
Nietzsche was interested in the interplay between two creative forces that he believed guided artists. Art inspired by Apollo, the god of truth and prophecy, is rational, constructive, and idealistic, while art inspired by Dionysus, the god of wine and revelry, is emotional, instinctive, and spiritual.
Well, that explains you.
I strongly recommend Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and Heidegger's Origin of the Work of Art..
I agree. Not all with an "artistic sensibility" are artists. And Nietzsche goes so far as to suggest that the primary formative forces that frame the "reality of art" for the person of artistic sensibility frame the "reality of existence" for the person of philosophic sensibility. And he makes a damn good argument.
Your OP is entitled the "Nature of Art." It would be a mistake to presume only artists have meaningful things to say about the "Nature of Art."
Some, such as Nietzsche, argue that the formative forces of art and the formative forces of philosophy are the same.
Woah - Has Vaskane deleted his account and become Arne?
Ah piss.
Quoting Tom Storm
He comes across, to me, like an Emo lyricist of the 19th Century. It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. Not much philosophy in it. I can't get through more than a handful of pages without laughing out loud at how he is considered:
1. A philosopher;
2. Important; and
3. Interesting.
Though, I freely admit some of my bias against him is watching a number of my peers (in our late teens) get into to Nietzsche, become and remain insufferably narcissistic wankers who can't have a conversation without saying something extremely obtuse and pretending you're too dumb to get it. Which is what Nietzsche did, mostly. It got worse when they went to Uni and all the stupid uni kids were doing the exact same thing because they didn't realise the world existed outside of their parents ideas until then.
My account of this is that they are just not thinking properly. They seem to get to tier 2 of 10 and go "yep, I like those words, and it supports my broody, self-obsessed personality so, nice".
Immediately reminded me of Guenon, whose "Crisis of the modern world" I tried to read recently. I gave up a few pages in.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well, that is the overwhelming demographic of "Nietzscheans", unfortunately, people who have no clue what he is talking about because their reading comprehension has not matured past middle school.
Quoting Tom Storm
Youll notice Amadeus was speaking not just of his followers, but of Nietzsche himself. Perhaps one can say of many of Nietzsches followers as well as of his more shrill detractors that they are gauche and insufferable in their inability to read him well.
Could well be. It's unknown to me since I have no reading of Nietzsche. :wink: I suspect he's probably very interesting if you can get through him, which I can't.
There is much truth to that. He definitely had issues and they came through in his philosophy. And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away.
That's an interesting comment. Can you say some more?
I do not know what a Nietzsche follower is. But you either read him well or you don't. Though I am confident that I know far more about Nietzsche than the average person (not including this forum), I would claim that I am not a Nietzschean but I do not know what that means.
I recently read the Birth of Tragedy for the first time and immediately read it two more times. And it was definitely worth the time.
I don't like liars.
Experience tells me that ignoring my intuition is bad. As a result, when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away. It is my intuition rather than a "claim" that is "intrinsic" to the situation. Though some could be mistaken, my intuition does not rest on the distinction and my experience tells me otherwise.
And of course I am talking about claiming to understand "Nietzsche" rather than claiming to understand what Nietzsche says regarding any particular issue.
There is a significant difference between saying my understanding of Nietzsche is X and saying I understand Nietzsche.
For me, claiming to understand Nietzsche is sufficient evidence that you do not understand Nietzsche.
A reading of him. Yep, ok.
And by contemporary standards, he was a prolific writer and not a particularly systematic writer.
I recently began re-reading Kauffman's book and thought I might as well read Nietzsche's publications in the order in which Kauffman discusses them. So I read for the first time The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and immediately re-read it two more times. It is fascinating and unequivocal. At first you think he is talking about art but then he says to the effect:
"The person of artistic sensibility stands in relation to these formative forces and the reality of art
as does the person of philosophic sensibility to these formative forces and the [i]reality of
existence[/i]."
Where does this 28 year old professor of philology get off telling the rest of the world about the reality of art AND the reality of existence? And in such an unequivocal way?
But I could see in the book the kernels of his ideas regarding both the will to power and the eternal recurrence of the same.
Who knows? What does the quote mean? I have no poetic imagination , so prose like this is just grey sludge to me.
My interpretation is that he is saying that the formative forces of art (which he distinguishes as Apollonian and Dionysian) are the same forces that form the reality of the existence in which each and every one of us lives each and every waking (and dreaming) minute of our lives.
And that is bold and that is unequivocal.
It is my dinner time.
I wouldn't disagree. I think everything humans do probably comes from the same source and impulses.
:lol: Very real
Not the same, but not separable. either, for thought is inherently aesthetic. What we call aesthetic is what is abstracted from the original experience. Art and philosophy are categorically distinct, obviously, but when one does philosophy, as when one does/thinks about anything, one is engaged in ways that deal with something other than arguments and their justifications. One is interested, intrigued, transfixed, curious, etc. in the affirming, denying, questioning, resolving, contradicting, etc. Note how all of this is qualitatively part and parcel of the art world.
Let's say you are viewing Van Gogh's Boots, and your thoughts turn to the plight of the poor. Is this sympathy part of the "art" of the piece? Or is it rather a thesis embedded in the art that says poverty is an awful thing? And so, what IS the nature of the ethical issues that center on poverty? Is this not a philosophical question? Or take a thesis that declares the bombing of Guernica immoral--can this be removed from the artwork by Picasso without removing part of what makes it art?
The trouble with defining art is that art is an open concept that continues to redefine itself. All concepts are like this, are they not? What is a bank teller? Surely the answer to this question will not be the same a hundred years from now? Or five hundred? Will there even BE money at all?